Federal prosecutors who allege that Suffolk Sheriff Steven Tompkins extorted a Boston hashish firm are requesting the court docket to contemplate whether or not the protection counsel’s illustration poses a battle of curiosity within the case.
In a request for a listening to, prosecutors define how Tompkins’ protection counsel, Martin Weinberg, “previously represented” the legal professional for the hashish firm they argue was extorted and the way the 2 share a “close professional working relationship.”
Prosecutors establish the hashish firm’s legal professional as “Attorney A” in court docket paperwork.
“The trust, camaraderie, and respect that grew from that relationship cannot be underestimated,” Assistant U.S. Legal professional John Mulcahy wrote within the request filed on Tuesday. “In fact, following that case, Defense Counsel took on Attorney A, not as a client, but as a partner, in handling serious criminal matters in federal criminal court.”
Prosecutors are additionally pointing to how Tompkins’ protection counsel “selected, presumably prepared, and called” the hashish firm’s legal professional at a sentencing listening to in one other case in November 2023.
Tompkins, 67, is accused of utilizing his official place to bully executives at a Boston hashish firm concerning his pre-initial public providing funding of $50,000. Following the IPO, his indictment states, his funding worth ballooned to $140,000, however then fell under his preliminary funding worth.
Prosecutors argue the sheriff, who has been on medical go away following his indictment in August, used his place to demand his full preliminary funding again to “help pay for campaign and personal expenses.”
Tompkins has pleaded not responsible.
In response to the prosecution’s request for a listening to, protection legal professional Weinberg wrote that he has “never represented Individual A and owes no ethical obligations to him.” He argued that the federal government cited “no precedent for its suggestion that a professional relationship between two attorneys who are not members of the same law firm can give rise to a conflict.”
Weinberg additionally known as it “utterly unremarkable” that he and “Attorney A” have had “two cases in common over the course of the ensuing years.”
“The undersigned counsel owes no duty of loyalty to clients of the attorney for ‘Individual A,’” Weinberg wrote, “and speculation that he would ‘pull [his] punches’ and betray his responsibilities to the defendant because he has a professional relationship with a witness’s attorney is illusory and illogical.”
Tompkins’ legal professionals are asking for the sheriff’s extortion expenses to be dismissed, denying any wrongdoing and arguing that even when the allegations have been true, they’re inadequate to help the fees.
