Feds dispute Bulger claim immunity grant includes homicides
BOSTON — A federal prosecutor told a judge on Wednesday that any immunity agreement reputed gangster James “Whitey” Bulger claims he had with the government would be “void as a matter of law” if it included murder.
Bulger's lawyer argued that only a jury, not a judge, should be allowed to decide if Bulger's immunity claim is valid.
Both sides presented arguments to U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, who is scheduled to preside at Bulger's trial in June. The former leader of the Winter Hill Gang is accused of participating in 19 murders during the 1970s and '80s.
Bulger, 83, fled Boston in 1994 and was one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives until his capture in Santa Monica, Calif., in 2011.
Bulger claims federal prosecutor Jeremiah O'Sullivan gave him immunity for crimes while Bulger was providing the FBI information on local leaders of his gang's main rivals, the Mafia. O'Sullivan, who died in 2009, denied making an immunity deal with Bulger when he testified before Congress in 2002.
Federal prosecutors asked Stearns to decide the issue before trial. They have previously called Bulger's claim “absurd.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Zachary Hafer told the judge that even if Bulger is to be believed, as a matter of law, an assistant U.S. attorney doesn't have the authority to grant anyone immunity to kill Americans.
“Any contract between Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Bulger — to the extent it contemplated murder — would be void as a matter of law against public policy,” Hafer said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.