Manning Questions Opponent's Sincerity In Claimed Support For Three Strikes Law
Mary-Ellen Manning, the Governor’s Councillor and a candidate for State Senate, was asked by the Salem News about her stand on the three strikes law and contrasted her position with that of her opponents. In response, John Slattery resorted to name-calling when confronted with his career choice to defend serial child rapists. Attorney Slattery is not a public defender—he selects his criminal clients, no matter how despicable, and defends them in exchange for money and without grounds.
In defending this three-time child rapist, Slattery chose to make one of the lowest and most baseless appellate arguments imaginable, an argument the Court rejected: Attorney Slattery argued that his client's conviction for raping an 11-year-old Peabody girl was UNFAIR because the jury was allowed to learn, DESPITE HIS OBJECTION, about his client’s prior history of raping TWO other girls. Slattery didn't want the jury to know that his client was a three-time child rapist, and he doesn't want the voters to know the truth either.
Attorney Slattery's meritless defense of his serial child rapist client provides insight into Slattery's purported views on repeat offenders—an insight that is germane to the Melissa's Law debate. In reinventing himself to run for office, Slattery the candidate would have the voters believe that he is in favor of Melissa's Law, which increases prison time upon the third conviction for heinous offenses, such as child rape or assaulting an elderly person. Now that it has been revealed how Slattery the attorney really feels, that it is unfair to the child rapist for the jury to consider his prior conviction for child rape, Slattery the candidate is upset. The voters, most of them parents, will judge Slattery for the choices he has made and for what he has done—especially when it is contrary to his campaign rhetoric.
Mary-Ellen Manning (D-Peabody) is the elected Governor's Councillor for North Shore and a candidate for State Senate. For more information about Manning’s candidacy visit www.maryellenforsenate.com.
David E. Peterson, Esq.
2:02 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Ms. Manning's position on repeat offenders stands on its own, but linking her opponent's political stance with his representation of a criminal defendant is improper. As a criminal defense attorney, Mr. Slattery has a duty to zealously defend his client to the best of his ability. This includes challenging the propriety of the evidence presented to the jury, by contrasting it with centuries of jurisprudence. Although they often represent reprehensible people, our justice system could not function without a criminal defense bar. Mr. Slattery's criminal defense work is low-hanging fruit for political opponents, but Ms. Manning ought to be able to distinguish the professional duty and political stance of her brother-counsel.
Susan Rivera
11:28 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
As an hispanic-American female, small business owner & proud NON-LAWYER, I take great offense at the out of touch arrogance of Peterson & Flanagan. You guys live in the theoretical world of left wing academia--you are both obviously much SMARTER and BETTER than the rest of us working folks!. Mary-Ellen Manning is one of the few lawyers I have any respect for. I dont know her but it appears she is honest,down to earth, is looking our for our children,& has not for forgotten the average folks. John Slattery is a rude, arrogant ,bully according to many who have dealt with him over the years. He didnt have to take this no good thug as a client--he CHOSE to do so on appeal. Slattery would represent Osama Bid Laden if the retainer was high enough!. Sorry guys, Slatterys lack of ethics are completly in play when it comes to his desire for this senate job. No doubt he'll use this job like others before him-to increase his law practice bank account if he gets in! Plus its all over the net that he changed his vote on the death penalty years ago because the Gay PACS bought him off.! A simple online check of Manning shows she represents only estate, divorce and child custody cases-no criminals. Its a clear choice-I will be voting for Mary-Ellen Manning for senate and hope all reasonable non-lawyers will too! Slattery, Peterson and Flanagan may have more money than me-but their lack of ethics and human decency is apparant to anyone with out a law degree! .
Tom Flannagan
10:06 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Ms. Rivera does not know me and has never met me, but she has the nerve to attack my ethics and the gall to question my decency because I actually questioned the propriety of an ignorant political ad disguised as an article. She also misspelled my name, unintentionally, I'm sure.
Helen Cote
2:53 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I have no problem with Salttery's decision to accept child rapists as clients. But he will not be representing me in the legislature. There are many of us who feel that willfully and knowingly seeking the release back into the community of a three time child rapist is not a morally acceptable pursuit for a state senator. There are other reasons to vote against slattery. But this is a deal killer for this grandmother. It may be how the system works, but I think he's a creep.
Kori Hansen
3:07 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
"It is better to let a hundred guilty child rapists go free than to convict an innocent man". Someone has to represent them. I'm still voting for Lovely however.
Sean Ward
3:33 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Wow Kori,
Tell that to the 100 raped children. It's better to convict one innocent man than to let a hundred more children get raped. That being said though, everyone deserves a defense no matter what they are accused of.
Tom Flannagan
8:35 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Is this post considered by Patch to be an article, or is this an opinion piece? Either way, it needs to be made clear. If it is an article, it could not be more irresponsible journalism. If it is an opinion, then the writer needs to have a better understanding of constitutional law.
Molly Buccini
8:39 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Hi Tom--I'd be glad to clarify.
This is an announcement (press release) that was posted by Kimberly Gale. Everyone has the opportunity to post their thoughts/opinions through our announcements and Local Voices blogging sections.
This announcement was written by the Manning campaign and was not written by anyone at Patch.
Let me know if you have any other questions about it.
Tom Flannagan
10:07 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Who is Kimberly Gale?
Tom Flannagan
8:57 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
If this is an announcement by the Manning campaign, then the candidate needs to revisit her legal education. And an unbelievable misunderstanding of the criminal justice system.
Kimberley Gale
10:53 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Tom. You misspelled my name. Just saying. I am sure it is unintentional. If you would like to know who I am, please feel free to e-mail me at kimberley.gale@gmail.com and I will provide you with my contact information. Please be sure to spell my name correctly, otherwise I will not get the e-mail. I will also be more than happy to explain to you the Patch posting options since you appear to be confused.
Tom Flannagan
11:18 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The misspelling was unintentional. Sorry about that. There is no confusion. I just want to make sure people understand the source of political rants...
Kimberley Gale
11:42 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Tom. I have not yet received an e-mail from you, despite my invitation, so I am assuming you are just looking for a public forum to make a public statement...or a rant. In that regard, perhaps it is you that has a misunderstanding of the criminal justice system. For example, I would like to refer you to the federal rule of evidence, 404(b) regarding prior bad acts, which allows introduction of this evidence to show motive, intent, absence of mistake, etc. Again, I have provided you with my contact information. Perhaps we can be bigger people and discuss this in a rational private forum rather than subjecting Patch readers to this discourse. As you can see, I have made no comments until you mentioned me by name, with misspellings, on this post.
Mike Goodwin
8:06 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
It is a perfect understanding of the court of public opinion. No one is saying that Slattery doesn't have a right to do what he does, or that he may even serve the constitutional rights of child rapists by doing so. People are currently questioning Romney's record at Bain. That is an essential part of our economic system and perfectly legal. Yet people feel they have a right to judge a man's character by the choices he makes. Defense attorneys are not insulated from these considerations, any more than other candidates.
Tom Flannagan
10:39 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Please.
Tom Flannagan
10:41 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
She ought to know better, especially considering her position on the GC.
Pat Green
11:32 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Tom, this is not a misunderstanding of the justice system. Certain prior acts are admissible in certain cases. But, let's be clear. John represented this guy ON APPEAL...after he had been convicted a third time. Did he tell his repeat offender client that he would legislate for a 3 strikes your out law while he was arguing that his client didn't know the 11 year old girl was not an adult? This IS fair game. Sincerity IS questionable when a person's stated position depends on how it is most profitable at the time.
Diane Bonagura
11:32 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Mr. Flannagan can lionize people who defend child rapists as heroes. To me they are scum. You could never pay me enough to secure he release of a three time child rapist back into the community. I would rather starve.
Tom Flannagan
11:11 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
I have lionized no one, and I certainly have not proclaimed anyone a hero. It is truly amazing how the right cannot respond to different opinions without distortion and personal attacks. I really hope that Ms. Manning's views are a bit more reserved.
Tom Flannagan
11:12 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Bye-bye.
Pat Green
10:17 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Thank you.