McGovern: Judge's ruling that drug den no `endangerment' to children confounds
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Bob McGovern
Here’s a mind-blower from the halls of justice.
Johanny Hernandez kept her two young children in a Mattapan apartment allegedly filled with heroin and cocaine, and equipped with a surveillance system to guard the operation. Yet a Superior Court judge has ruled that Hernandez did not recklessly endanger her kids — despite a flood of evidence showing a well-orchestrated drug operation in the apartment.
“The reckless engagement statute … does not criminalize foolish, reckless, or negligent parenting,” wrote Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp. “It does not criminalize neglect of a child or extraordinarily poor role modeling. It does not even criminalize the use of a child to aid in the distribution of drugs. … (I)t is hardly self-evident that a person who sells drugs out of her house is likely to be robbed, and, if robbed, that her children will be physically or sexually harmed during the robbery.”
The problem with the case, according to Krupp — a seasoned litigator who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2012 — was he didn’t think the grand jury that indicted Hernandez had heard enough evidence to prove she was putting her children in any danger.
Krupp wanted prosecutors to show that Hernandez’s kids — who cops say are between 7 and 10 years old — faced a “substantial” risk of sustaining a “serious bodily injury” in the alleged drug den.
Yet court documents indicate that one of Hernandez’s children once opened the door for an undercover agent and led him upstairs to meet Alex Santana — the alleged leader of the “drug organization.”
Needless to say, Suffolk prosecutors think Krupp got it all wrong.
continued http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ing_that_drug_den_no_endangerment_to_children
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Bob McGovern
Here’s a mind-blower from the halls of justice.
Johanny Hernandez kept her two young children in a Mattapan apartment allegedly filled with heroin and cocaine, and equipped with a surveillance system to guard the operation. Yet a Superior Court judge has ruled that Hernandez did not recklessly endanger her kids — despite a flood of evidence showing a well-orchestrated drug operation in the apartment.
“The reckless engagement statute … does not criminalize foolish, reckless, or negligent parenting,” wrote Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp. “It does not criminalize neglect of a child or extraordinarily poor role modeling. It does not even criminalize the use of a child to aid in the distribution of drugs. … (I)t is hardly self-evident that a person who sells drugs out of her house is likely to be robbed, and, if robbed, that her children will be physically or sexually harmed during the robbery.”
The problem with the case, according to Krupp — a seasoned litigator who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2012 — was he didn’t think the grand jury that indicted Hernandez had heard enough evidence to prove she was putting her children in any danger.
Krupp wanted prosecutors to show that Hernandez’s kids — who cops say are between 7 and 10 years old — faced a “substantial” risk of sustaining a “serious bodily injury” in the alleged drug den.
Yet court documents indicate that one of Hernandez’s children once opened the door for an undercover agent and led him upstairs to meet Alex Santana — the alleged leader of the “drug organization.”
Needless to say, Suffolk prosecutors think Krupp got it all wrong.
continued http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ing_that_drug_den_no_endangerment_to_children
