# 'Troopergate' case Ethics hearing



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

Trooper who arrested woman in 'Troopergate' case testifies at Ethics hearing (yahoo.com)
*Trooper who arrested woman in 'Troopergate' case testifies at Ethics hearing*
rad Petrishen
April 15, 2022·8 min read

BOSTON - The state trooper whose 2017 arrest report of a judge’s daughter preceded the "Troopergate" scandal took the stand Friday at the State Ethics Commission hearing into the matter.








Trooper Ryan Sceviour, center, testifies at the ongoing state Ethics Commission hearing in Boston Friday.

Trooper Ryan Sceviour testified for about three hours about the decisions he made when he arrested the woman for impaired driving following an Oct. 16, 2017, highway crash.
The trooper said he had become concerned before writing his report about special treatment he perceived the woman as receiving when she was bailed. He denied accusations from lawyers defending the public officials facing ethics charges that his concern drove him to gratuitously include explicit statements the woman allegedly made in the report.

“Absolutely not,” he replied when a lawyer for Maj. Susan Anderson, one of his former bosses, accused him of improperly including remarks out of anger.
Anderson, former State Police Col. Richard D. McKeon Jr., Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr and Senior First Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Travers are being accused by Ethics Commission lawyers of trying to improperly remove statements Sceviour wrote in his report from public record.
Commission lawyers allege the officials attempted to swap the original report Sceviour filed in court with a revised report McKeon and Anderson ordered Sceviour to create.
The alleged attempt failed when a court clerk refused to allow it, the commission alleges, and instead the report was redacted in the courtroom.
Commission lawyers allege officials’ attempts to remove sexually explicit statements Sceviour attributed to the daughter broke civil ethics laws, arguing they would not have done the same for others.

Defense lawyers for the officials have argued they did nothing improper. They have not conceded a plot to swap the documents, and have said they acted in accordance with ethical and legal responsibilities to protect the fair trial rights of an arrested person.


----------



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

MassLive.com
*‘You don’t make people needlessly suffer’; Worcester DA Joe Early defends handling of arrest report of judge’s daughter as State Ethics Commission hearings come to a close*
Tom Matthews, masslive.com - Yesterday 12:26 PM

“Absolutely not,” Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early, jr. responded to a lawyer Thursday in Boston when asked if he violated a conflict of interest law when handling the arrest report of a judge’s daughter who was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Testimony in the State Ethics Commission hearing regarding an allegation that Early, along with three other public officials, violated a conflict of interest law when handling the arrest report involving a judge’s daughter came to a close Friday. 

Lawyers gave their final arguments Friday on the ninth day of hearings, which toiled over the accusations that Early, along with former State Police Col. Richard McKeon, Senior First Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Travers and former State Police Maj. Susan Anderson, violated conflict of interest law when handling an arrest report of a judge’s daughter who was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. A trooper’s report of the arrest included sexually explicit statements allegedly made by the woman as well as a statement that her father is a judge. The statements were later redacted from the report.

In June of 2020, the State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division issued orders to show cause that Early, McKeon, Travers and Anderson violated conflict of interest law, claiming that the effort to replace the original arrest report with a revised report omitting the woman’s explicit statements was in violation of the conflict of interest law. Early provided testimony Thursday in Boston during the eighth day of the hearings. When asked by a lawyer if he thought he committed an ethics violation, Early responded, “Absolutely not.” The DA said that his “head exploded” when he first read the arrest report and that he had never seen language in an arrest report that specific.
“You don’t make people needlessly suffer,” he said. Since the woman’s arrest, and the ensuing publicizing of the arrest report and investigations into the alleged mishandling of it, Early and McKeon have been adamant their actions were the appropriate thing to do and were done in an effort to prevent the stigmatization of a woman struggling with drug addiction. Both the arresting trooper who objected to revising the report, as well as the supervisor who signed off on the original report, were issued negative observation reports by their superiors for including “inappropriate, negative and derogatory statements” in the original report.

The Massachusetts State Police and Early settled a lawsuit filed by Trooper Ryan Sceviour, who claimed that Early directed a conspiracy that sought to “unlawfully tamper with Court documents, to violate Trooper Ryan Sceviour’s rights, and to defame him.” The settlement cleared Sceviour of any wrongdoing and ordered state police to pay Sceviour $35,000 and Early to pay $5,000. In response to an investigation by Attorney General Maura Healey’s office that suggested pressure to redact the report came from Early’s office, the DA responded that he was concerned that the woman’s statements about sex acts needlessly stigmatized a person struggling with addiction and were likely to generate prejudicial pretrial publicity, and did not contribute to establishing probable cause for the charges. Healey’s office found that the arrest report redactions were not made with criminal intent to prejudice the woman’s prosecution, but said the revisions raised eyebrows under state ethics laws and referred the matter to the State Ethics Commission. Pursuant to the commission’s enforcement procedures, the enforcement division files an order to show cause after the commission has found reasonable cause to believe the subject of the order has violated the conflict of interest law. Before filing the order to show cause, the enforcement division gives the subject an opportunity to resolve the matter through a disposition agreement.
In its orders to show cause, the commission alleges that Early, Travers, McKeon, and Anderson violated conflict of interest law and used their official positions to obtain an unwarranted privilege. “Early, Travers, McKeon, and Anderson allegedly violated this section of the law by using their positions [to] cause the arrest report to be revised or replaced, as the removal of the sexually explicit statements and other embarrassing statements would be an unwarranted privilege for the judge and his daughter. This privilege would not be properly available to other people in similar situations,” the commission previously said in a news release. When asked by a lawyer Thursday if he would have done the same for a “blue-collar worker,” Early responded that if it was his brought to his attention, he would. “As the Commission’s press release accurately reflects, they previously voted reasonable cause and invited me to settle by way of a disposition agreement. That invitation came just before Christmas and I declined it because my actions fit squarely within the rules of professional conduct that bind us as prosecutors,” Early said in a statement in June 2020.

“As DA, I am supposed to take steps to prevent the law enforcement officers with whom we work from making statements that will be publicly disseminated in the media that hold defendants up to ridicule and affect their right to a fair trial,” Early continued. “I adhered to those ethical rules in this situation and will continue to do so, just as I have throughout my tenure. I look forward to a public hearing.” Roy A. Bourgeois, a lawyer representing Travers, noted in his final argument Friday that there was no evidence the woman arrested, or her father, ever requested special treatment, the Telegram & Gazette reported. Thomas R. Kiley, a lawyer representing Early, said what his client and others did deserve a “medal,” not condemnation, as they attempted to protect the constitutional fair-trial rights of a woman suffering a terrible disease, the paper reported. Lawyers representing the Ethics Commission shunned the idea that Early and others acted in compassion to protect a woman struggling with addiction. “This is not a case about the opioid crisis or about command issues at state police, pre-trial publicity or rules of professional conduct, said attorney John C. McDonald, the Telegram reported. “This is a case about the arrest of a judge’s daughter, and the subsequent acts the respondents took in relation to the arrest report — actions that violated the conflict of interest law.”

The commission will begin deliberations after post-hearing briefs, which are due June 10, are filed, the Telegram reported.


----------



## Sooty (Nov 1, 2018)

So glaringly blatant.


----------



## CCCSD (Jul 30, 2017)

Wow. Such corruption in the DAs Office, Court, and MSP. Unbelievable that they would be allowed to replace a report in court. Sounds like Federal Oversight is needed of the MSP AND Courts,


----------



## Truck (Apr 3, 2006)

I'll take DA Early over most others DA in this State.


----------



## EUPD377 (Jan 30, 2020)

If someone throws the “dad’s a judge” card and offers me sexual favors during a DWI arrest, you can be damn sure some quotes and a detailed description of the interaction are going in the report. That’s not derogatory, that’s important information for the court to know, and important for me to cover my ass.


----------



## CCCSD (Jul 30, 2017)

EUPD377 said:


> If someone throws the “dad’s a judge” card and offers me sexual favors during a DWI arrest, you can be damn sure some quotes and a detailed description of the interaction are going in the report. That’s not derogatory, that’s important information for the court to know, and important for me to cover my ass.


Exactly. No one is EVER going to tell me to leave anything out of MY reports.


----------



## USM C-2 (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, I've got some sympathy for the "we don't make people needlessly suffer" line. 

True story, bro...

In the wee hours of one morning, many many years... well, several decades... ago, I came across a car stopped in the travel lane on a major road. Female operator passed out behind the wheel. Car in Drive, foot on brake pedal, head on steering wheel. 

I woke her up, got her out, found she was drunk out of her skull. Pissed her pants drunk, in fact. Brought her in and at booking she managed to stammer out that she was known to an area trial attorney. A real aggressive type, who always went after the officer's credibility on the stand. The type of attorney cops hated, but would tell family members in legal trouble to call. She calls him at home and I'm still writing my report when he comes to bail her out. 

He pulls me aside and asks me "just how bad was she?" to which I replied with the whole story, including the "pissed her pants" bit. He replied "if you leave that part out, I'll have her in front of a judge in the morning and she'll plead guilty." 

My report had plenty of facts, she had been a nice enough person, and her involuntary actions were in no way an attempt to influence my actions. Putting them in would have embarrassed her more, particularly if the prosecutor had read it out as part of the Commonwealth's statement of facts before her plea was accepted. 

I left it out of my report, knowing full well I might have been getting screwed over, but he kept his word. It's not the same thing, but I have no regrets at not making her suffer even more.


----------



## CCCSD (Jul 30, 2017)

But showing just how intoxicated she was…


----------



## DPH1992 (Mar 29, 2019)

I can’t believe this is still ongoing after so many years. This seems like a lifetime ago.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Rotten to the core, the whole lot of them. From an organization that fired AND humiliated members for declining to take an experimental injection. And what was exposed during this one incident is likely just scratching the surface. As for "colorful reports", how could you not include a gem like this to paint the picture of a methheads recent behavior:
"During this time she continued to yell and cause a disturbance, awaking neighbors who came out to see what was going on. One neighbor approached us to relate that this subject had entered his house without permission and announced that "she had something stuck in her pussy" at which point she pulled down her pants, squatted, and in his words "took a shit on my living room floor".



Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Hush said:


> Rotten to the core, the whole lot of them. From an organization that fired AND humiliated members for declining to take an experimental injection. And what was exposed during this one incident is likely just scratching the surface. As for "colorful reports", how could you not include a gem like this to paint the picture of a methheads recent behavior:
> "During this time she continued to yell and cause a disturbance, awaking neighbors who came out to see what was going on. One neighbor approached us to relate that this subject had entered his house without permission and announced that "she had something stuck in her pussy" at which point she pulled down her pants, squatted, and in his words "took a shit on my living room floor".
> 
> 
> ...


Well, THAT was an excrement incident.

I MEAN, EXTREME. Oy.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

A skilled Attorney like Lelling (not road rage rollins) could easily argue that these shitbags "threatened" everyone in their path "under the color of official right." RICO

Notice that Healey won't touch them. Can't imagine why...

The "circle of gold" AKA SYSTEMIC ROT that cultivated the corrupt environment that destroyed MSP and targeted HARD CHARGERS should be in prison, NOT collecting pensions and operating as union thugs or maintaining relatively open social media pages as though they retired honorably. 

This lawyered up ROT destroyed the reputation of MSP and targeted MANY R9 Hard Chargers in their path who refused to be useful idiots in their sick games. 

I looked in their eyes at subsequent family days and funerals. Deep down they all know they're trash. They disgraced the entire job and it will have a lasting effect. 
Frankly, I'm surprised the fatasses survived wuflu thus far. Maybe not the next round.

In a just society, this hard charger would not have to sweep up their bullshit on his own time in this corrupt shithole.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

CCCSD said:


> Wow. Such corrupotion in the DAs Office, Court, and MSP. Unbelievable that they would be allowed to replace a report in court. Sounds like Federal Oversight is needed of the MSP AND Courts,


Do you think Brandon's ministry of truth will reign in our rotted justice dept.?  
We need to purge the entire system at this point.


----------



## Sooty (Nov 1, 2018)

LGriffin said:


> The "circle of gold" AKA SYSTEMIC ROT that cultivated the corrupt environment that destroyed MSP and targeted HARD CHARGERS should be in prison, NOT collecting pensions and operating as union thugs or maintaining relatively open social media pages as though they retired honorably.
> 
> This lawyered up ROT destroyed the reputation of MSP and targeted MANY R9 Hard Chargers in their path who refused to be useful idiots in their sick games.


They can't even read ID numbers on a report!

Or, they're that good a lying and feigning ignorance. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## NEPS (Aug 29, 2006)

DA Early said he would have made the same effort for any person, if the report had been brought to his attention. The fact that THIS OUI report out of thousands was brought to his attention forms part of the problem.

DA Early said that the defendant's statements were not necessary for probable cause. Likely true, but the defendant's statements about providing sex in exchange for money or offering sex to escape an arrest certainly would be useful in demonstrating behavior consistent with the intoxication that is an element of the offense and proving intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

Testifying to the defendant's statement without it being recorded in a police report would have subjected the trooper to withering cross examination. Also, a defendant's statements are part of the prosecution's burden of mandatory discovery. They must be provided to the defendant prior to trial, as is typically done by reducing them to writing in the police report that then is provided to the defendant.

The district attorney seemed quite concerned about his burden under the rules for attorneys acting in the role of prosecutor to be humane to a defendant, but seemed to have less concern about a defendant's constitution rights as framed in Criminal Procedure Rule 14 and have no understanding of what it takes for the Commonwealth to prove an OUI at a jury trial.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

I'm glad you're on OUR side.


----------



## Roy Fehler (Jun 15, 2010)

NEPS said:


> DA Early said he would have made the same effort for any person, if the report had been brought to his attention. The fact that THIS OUI report out of thousands was brought to his attention forms part of the problem.
> 
> DA Early said that the defendant's statements were not necessary for probable cause. Likely true, but the defendant's statements about providing sex in exchange for money or offering sex to escape an arrest certainly would be useful in demonstrating behavior consistent with the intoxication that is an element of the offense and proving intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


Joe Early Jr. is more full of shit than Joe Early Sr. was, and that’s quite an accomplishment.


----------



## NEPS (Aug 29, 2006)

The short version of my long version.


----------



## CCCSD (Jul 30, 2017)

NEPS said:


> The short version of my long version.


Thats what she said.


----------

