A jury trial (or trial by jury) is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all decisions.

Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in all Anglo-American (aka "common law") legal systems, and juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States and Canada make routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other Anglo-American legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a very select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket, while true civil jury trials are almost entirely absent elsewhere in the world. Some civil law jurisdictions do, however, have arbitration panels with non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise.

Availability of a trial by jury in American jurisdiction usually depends on the availability of a jury trial in a particular type of case under the common law of England at the time of the American Revolutionary War (which allowed jury trials in its "courts of law" but not in its "courts of equity"), despite the fact that jury trials are no longer available in the vast majority of such cases under modern English law. In practice, this means that jury trials are available in American civil cases in most cases seeking money damages on a tort law or contract law theory, but are rarely available when non-monetary damages, such as an injunction or declaratory relief are sought.

The use of jury trials evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, and have a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules even in cases where a bench trial is actually contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to a system where fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, and where appellate review of trial court decisions is greatly limited. Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system.

History[link]

Greece[link]

There existed in Ancient Athens a mechanism through which it was assured that no one could select jurors, called dikastaí, for their own trial. For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of 501 citizens.^[1] For capital cases, those which involved death, the loss of liberty, exile, the loss of civil rights, or the seizure of property, the trial was before a jury of 1,001 to 1,501 dikastai. In such large juries the unanimity rule would be unrealistic and verdicts were reached by majority. Juries were appointed by lot. Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle: the axle was either hollow or solid. Thus the way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid. Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, with the amount of one day's wages.

The institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in the Eumenides, the third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy. In this play the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athena, who summons twelve citizens to sit as jury. The god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes, and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytaemnestra. In the event the jury is split six to six, and Athena dicates that in such a case the verdict should henceforth be for acquittal.

Rome[link]

From the beginning of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian, lay and not professional. Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials. Roman law provided for the yearly selection of judices, who would be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as jurors, with a praetor performing many of the duties of a judge. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices, due to conflicts of interest. Those previously found guilty of serious crimes (felonies) were also barred as were gladiator for hire, who likely were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat.

The Selection of the 450 Men for This Year. The peregrine praetor (literally - the traveling judge) within the next ten days after this law is passed by the people or plebs shall provide for the selection of 450 persons in this State who have or have had a knight's census ... provided that he does not select a person who is or has been plebeian tribune, quaestor, triumvir capitalis, military tribune in any of the first four legions, or triumvir for granting and assigning lands, or who is or has been in the Senate, or who has fought or shall fight as a gladiator for hire ... or who has been condemned by the judicial process and a public trial whereby he cannot be enrolled in the Senate, or who is less than thirty or more than sixty years of age, or who does not have his residence in the city of Rome or within one mile of it, or who is the father, brother, or son of any above-described magistrate, or who is the father, brother, or son of a person who is or has been a member of the Senate, or who is overseas.^[2]

England and Wales[link]

According to George Macaulay Trevelyan in A Shortened History of England, during the Viking occupation: “The Scandinavians, when not on the Viking warpath, were a litigious people and loved to get together in the ‘thing’ to hear legal argument. They had no professional lawyers, but many of their farmer-warriors, like Njal, the truth-teller, were learned in folk custom and in its intricate judicial procedure. A Danish town in England often had, as it principal officers, twelve hereditary ‘law men.’ The Danes introduced the habit of making committees among the free men in court, which perhaps made England favorable ground for the future growth of the jury system out of a Frankish custom later introduced by the Normans.” The English king Æthelred the Unready set up an early legal system through the Wantage Code of Ethelred, one provision of which stated that the twelve leading thegns (minor nobles) of each wapentake (a small district) were required to swear that they would investigate crimes without a bias. These juries differed from the modern sort by being self-informing; instead of getting information through a trial, the jurors were required to investigate the case themselves.^[3]

In the 12th century, Henry II took a major step in developing the jury system. Henry II set up a system to resolve land disputes using juries. A jury of twelve free men were assigned to arbitrate in these disputes. As with the Saxon system, these men were charged with uncovering the facts of the case on their own rather than listening to arguments in court. Henry II also introduced what is now known as the "grand jury" through his Assize of Clarendon. Under the assize, a jury of free men was charged with reporting any crimes that they knew of in their hundred to a "justice in eyre," a judge who moved between hundreds on a circuit. A criminal accused by this jury was given a trial by ordeal.

The Church banned participation of clergy in trial by ordeal in 1215. Without the legitimacy of religion, trial by ordeal collapsed. The juries under the assizes began deciding guilt as well as providing accusations. The same year, trial by jury became a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:

Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land." Although it says and or by the law of the land, this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. The law of the land was the consuetudinary law, based on the customs and consent of John’s subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without the consent of the people. According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been substituted by due process of law, which in those times was a trial by twelve peers.

The Magna Carta of 1215^[4] further secured trial by jury by stating that

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these.

If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

During the mid-14th Century, it was forbidden that persons who had sat on the Presenting Jury (i.e., in modern parlance, the Grand Jury) to sit on the trial jury for that crime. 25 Edward III stat 5., c3 (1353). Medieval juries were self-informing, in that individuals were chosen as jurors because they either knew the parties and the facts, or they had the duty to discover them. This spared the government the cost of fact-finding.^[5] Over time, English juries became less self-informing and relied more on the trial itself for information on the case. Jurors remained free to investigate cases on their own until the 17th century. The Magna Carta being forgotten after a succession of benevolent reigns (or, more probably, reigns limited by the jury and the barons, and only under the rule of laws that the juries and barons found acceptable), the kings, through the royal judges, began to extend their control over the jury and the kingdom. In David Hume's History of England, he tells something of the powers that the kings had accumulated in the times after the Magna Carta, the prerogatives of the crown and the sources of great power with which these monarchs counted:

One of the most ancient and most established instruments of power was the court of Star Chamber, which possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offenses, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law. The members of this court consisted of the privy council and the judges; men who all of them enjoyed their offices during pleasure: And when the prince himself was present, he was the sole judge, and all the others could only interpose with their advice. There needed but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and exact plans of liberty. For who durst set himself in opposition to the crown and ministry, or aspire to the character of being a patron of freedom, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I much question, whether any of the absolute monarchies in Europe contain, at present, so illegal and despotic a tribunal. While so many terrors hung over the people, no jury durst have acquitted a man, when the court was resolved to have him condemned. The practice also, of not confronting witnesses to the prisoner, gave the crown lawyers all imaginable advantage against him. And, indeed, there scarcely occurs an instance, during all these reigns, that the sovereign, or the ministers, were ever disappointed in the issue of a prosecution. Timid juries, and judges who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And as the practice was anciently common of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges; it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject.

The first paragraph of the Act that abolished the Star Chamber repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers:

Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641
An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.

WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land…

Many British colonies, including the United States, adopted the English common law system in which trial by jury is an important part. Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original United States Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the US Constitution extend the rights to trial by jury to include the right to jury trial for both criminal and civil matters and a grand jury for serious cases.

The role of jury trials[link]

• In most common law jurisdictions, the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while the judge determines the law. These "peers of the accused" are responsible for listening to a dispute, evaluating the evidence presented, deciding on the facts, and making a decision in accordance with the rules of law and their jury instructions. Typically, the jury only judges guilt or a verdict of not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge. An interesting innovation was introduced in Russia in the judicial reform of Alexander II: unlike in modern jury trials, jurors decided not only whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, but they had the third choice: "Guilty, but not to be punished", since Alexander II believed that justice without morality is wrong.
• In France and some countries organized in the same fashion, the jury and several professional judges sit together to determine guilt first. Then, if guilt is determined, they decide the appropriate penalty.^[6]

Some jurisdictions with jury trials allow the defendant to waive their right to a jury trial, this leading to a bench trial. Jury trials tend to occur only when a crime is considered serious. In some jurisdictions, such as France and Brazil, jury trials are reserved, and compulsory, for the most severe crimes and are not available for civil cases. In Brazil, for example, trials by jury are applied in cases of voluntary crimes against life, such as First and Second-degree murders, forced abortion and instigation of suicide, even if only attempted. In others, such as the United Kingdom, jury trials are only available for criminal cases and very specific civil cases (defamation, malicious prosecution, civil fraud and false imprisonment). In the United States, jury trials are available in both civil and criminal cases. In Canada, an individual charged with an indictable offence may elect to be tried by a judge alone in a provincial court, by judge alone in a superior court, or by judge and jury in a superior court; summary offences cannot be tried by jury.

In the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials. Approximately 150,000 jury trials are conducted in state courts annually,^[7] and an additional 5,000 jury trials are conducted in federal courts. Two-thirds of jury trials are criminal trials, while one-third are civil and "other" (e.g., family, municipal ordinance, traffic). Nevertheless, the vast majority of criminal cases are in fact settled by plea bargain,^[8][9] which removes the need for a jury trial.

Some commentators contend that the guilty-plea system unfairly coerces defendants into relinquishing their right to a jury trial.^[10] Others contend that there never was a golden age of jury trials, but rather that juries in the early nineteenth century (before the rise of plea bargaining) were "unwitting and reflexive, generally wasteful of public resources and, because of the absence of trained professionals, little more than slow guilty pleas themselves," and that the guilty-plea system that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century was a superior, more cost-effective method of achieving fair outcomes.^[11]

Pros and cons[link]

In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Other common assertions about the benefits of trial by jury is that it provides a means of interjecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings and that it legitimizes the law by providing opportunities for citizens to validate criminal statutes in their application to specific trials. Alexis de Tocqueville also claimed that jury trials educate citizens about self-government. Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government – or other establishment interest – than would representatives of the state.

This last point may be disputed. For example, in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In France, former attorney, then later minister of Justice Robert Badinter, remarked about jury trials in France that they were like "riding a ship into a storm," because they are much less predictable than bench trials.

Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. An infamous case was the 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, in which white police officers were acquitted of excessive force in the violent beating of a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites without any black jurors, with a video tape showing King continuing to try to get up despite the beating. There was racist questioning about the case and riots ensued. Contrary to the legal principle of "no double jeopardy," after the officers were acquitted, the government renamed the crime and tried the officers a second time for the same event and got a conviction from a jury with black jurors.

The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the US contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen. Consider Japan, for instance, which used to have optional jury trials for capital or other serious crimes between 1928 and 1943. The defendant could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, and the decisions of the jury were non-binding. During the Tōjō-regime this was suspended, arguably stemming from the popular belief that any defendant who risks his fate on the opinions of untrained laymen is almost certainly guilty. Similarly, jury trials were abolished by the government of India in 1960 (this was followed by Pakistan soon afterwards) on the grounds they would be susceptible to media and public influence. One Pakistani Judge called a trial by jury "amateur justice". Malaysia abolished its jury system from 1 January 1995, citing inter alia the danger of jurors untrained in the legal profession delivering verdicts coloured by emotions or popular perception. One of the last trials-by-jury in Malaysia was the notorious Mona Fandey case in 1994.

Jury trials in multi-cultural countries with a history of ethnic tensions may be problematic, and lead to juries being unduly biased and partial. This is one of the reasons why both India and Pakistan abolished jury trials soon after independence. Indeed, in these countries, a jury trial is seen as a failing of some foreign legal system rather than an advantage; this is despite the fact that both nations are common law countries.

A major issue in jury trials is the secretive nature of the process. While proponents may say that secrecy allows the jury to remain impartial by protecting it from undue pressure or attention, opponents contend that this prevents there from being a transparent trial. The fact that juries do not often have to give a reason for their verdict is also criticized, since opponents argue it is unfair for a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without being told why it is being done so. In contrast where there is a decision by a judge or a bench, they are required to give often detailed reason of both fact and law as to why such a decision is given.

One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand statistical or scientific evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by television in what is known as the CSI effect. In at least one English trial the misuse or misunderstanding or mis-presentation by the Crown prosecution of statistics has led to wrongful conviction.^[12]

Australia[link]

The Australian Constitution provides that: "80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes." ^[13][14]

The first trial by jury in the colony of New South Wales was held in April 1841 in the town of Berrima.^[15]

Challenging potential jurors[link]

The voir dire system of examining the jury pool before selection is not permitted in Australia as it violates the privacy of jurors. Therefore, though it exists, the right to challenge for cause during jury selection cannot be employed much. Peremptory challenges are usually based on the hunches of the counsels and no reason is needed to use them. All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection, however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels in each state are not all the same. Until 1987 New South Wales had twenty peremptory challenges for each side where the offence was murder, and eight for all other cases. In 1987 this was lowered to three peremptory challenges per side, the same amount allowed in South Australia. Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offences in Queensland. Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow for six. Western Australia allows five peremptory challenges per side, according to section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).

Majority and unanimous verdicts in criminal trials[link]

In Australia majority verdicts are allowed in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland, while the ACT require unanimous verdicts. Since 1927 South Australia has permitted majority verdicts of 11:1, and 10:1 or 9:1 where the jury has been reduced, in criminal trials if a unanimous verdict cannot be reached in four hours. They are accepted in all cases except for "guilty" verdicts where the defendant is on trial for murder or treason. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts with the same conditions since 1994, though deliberations must go on for six hours before a majority verdict can be made. Western Australia accepted majority verdicts in 1957 for all trials except where the crime is murder or has a life sentence. A 10:2 verdict is accepted. Majority verdicts of 10:2 have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases except murder and treason if a unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943 verdicts of “not guilty” for murder and treason have also been included, but must be discussed for six hours. The Northern Territory has allowed majority verdicts of 10:2, 10:1 and 9:1 since 1963 and does not discriminate between cases whether the charge is murder or not. Deliberation must go for at least six hours before delivering a majority verdict. Majority verdicts were introduced in New South Wales in 2005 (see Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55F).

Austria[link]

Austria, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains elements of trial by jury in serious criminal cases.

Canada[link]

Under Canadian law, a person has the right to a jury trial for all crimes punishable by five years of imprisonment or more.

France[link]

In France one can only have a jury trial when prosecuted for a crime, that is an offence for which one is liable to at least 10 years imprisonment (for natural persons) or a fine of 75000 € (for legal persons).

The only court that tries by jury is the cour d'assises. 3 professional judges sits together with 9 or 12 jurors. A two third majority (8 or 10 votes) is needed for a conviction.

Germany[link]

The jury was abolished by the Emminger Reform of 4 January 1924.^[16] The jury has not been used in Germany since, except that between 1948 and 1950 (during and after the American occupation but prior to the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany) Bavaria returned to jury trial as it had existed before the Emminger Decrees.^[17][18][19]

A Swabian ordinance of 1562 called for the summons of jurymen (urtheiler), and various methods were in use in Emmendingen, Oppenau, and Oberkirch.^[20] Hauenstein's charter of 1442 secured the right to be tried in all cases by 24 fellow equals, and in Friburg the jury was composed of 30 citizens and councilors.^[21] The modern jury trial was first introduced in the Rhenish provinces in 1798, with a court consisting most commonly of 12 citizens (Bürgers).^[20]

The system in Germany whereby citizens were tried by their peers chosen from the entire community in open court was gradually superseded by an "engine of tyranny and oppression" in which the "process of investigation is secret, and life and liberty depend on the sentence of a judge or judges appointed by the state".^[22] In Constance the jury trial was suppressed by decree of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1786.^[21]

The Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG) of 27 January 1877 provided that the Schwurgericht (jury court) would consist of three judges and twelve jurymen,^[23][24][25] alongside the mixed court, with the jury court reserved for serious crimes except political crimes.^[26] The Emminger Reform by Justice Minister Erich Emminger (BVP) abolished the jury in the German Schwurgericht and replaced it with a mixed system of 3 professional judges and 6 lay judges, but kept the original name.^[16][27]

Greece[link]

The country which gave birth to the concept of the jury trial retains it in an unusual form. Serious crimes in this country are tried by a panel of three professional judges and four lay jurors who decide the facts and appropriate penalty if convicted.

Gibraltar[link]

Being a Common Law jurisdiction, Gibraltar retains jury trial in a similar manner to that found in England and Wales, the exception being that juries consist of nine lay people, rather than twelve.

India[link]

Jury trials were abolished by the government of India in 1960 on the grounds they would be susceptible to media and public influence. This decision was based on an 8:1 acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was overturned by higher courts, on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge.

Ireland[link]

In the Republic of Ireland, a common law jurisdiction, jury trials are available for criminal before the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation cases, consisting of twelve jurors.

Juries only decide questions of fact; they have no role in criminal sentencing in criminal cases or awarding damages in libel cases. It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In civil cases, a verdict may be reached by a majority of nine of the twelve members. In a criminal case, a verdict need not be unanimous where there are not fewer than eleven jurors if ten of them agree on a verdict after considering the case for a "reasonable time".

Juries are selected from a jury panel which is picked at random by the county registrar from the electoral register. The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act 1976 as amended by the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, which scrapped the upper age limit of 70. Juries are not paid, nor do they receive travel expenses. They do receive lunch for the days that they are serving; however, for jurors in employment, their employer is required to pay them as if they were present at work.

For certain terrorist and organised crime offences the Director of Public Prosecutions may issue a certificate that the accused be tried by the Special Criminal Court composed of three judges instead of a jury, one from the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court.

Italy[link]

The Corte d'Assise is composed of 2 judges and 6 laypersons chosen at random among Italian citizens 30 to 65 years old. Only serious crimes like murder can be tried by the Corte d'Assise.

Japan[link]

On May 28, 2004, the Diet of Japan enacted a law requiring selected citizens to take part in criminal court trials of certain severe crimes to make decisions together with professional judges, both on guilt and on the sentence. These citizens are called saiban-in (裁判員 "lay judge"). The saiban-in system was implemented in May 2009.

New Zealand[link]

New Zealand previously required jury verdicts to be passed unanimously, but since the passing of the Criminal Procedure Bill in 2009 the Juries Act 1981^[28] has permitted verdicts to be passed by a majority of one less than the full jury (that is an 11-1 or a 10-1 majority) under certain circumstances.

Russia[link]

Firstly, jury trials were introduced in the Russian Empire as a result of the Judicial reform of Alexander II in 1864. After the October Revolution they were abolished and introduced again in the Russian Federation for certain crimes in 1993. The Federal Constitution of that year also stipulates that, until the abolition of the death penalty, all defendants in a case that may result in a death sentence are entitled to a jury trial.^[29]

Singapore[link]

In Singapore, the jury system was abolished in 1969.^[30] Jury trials for all had been earlier abolished in 1959, except for capital offenses with death penalty. As Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew described to the BBC and in his memoirs, due to his experiences as a trial lawyer, "I had no faith in a system that allowed the supersitition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence."^[31]

South Africa[link]

The last jury trial to be heard in South Africa was in the District of Kimberley. Under the apartheid era, the Afrikaner National Party moved to weaken the judiciary in favor of Dutch-inherited civil law, a stronger legislature and juries of elected officials, all dominated by the National Party. The Abolition of Juries Act put paid to lay participation in 1969. Following the fall of apartheid, there have been moves to reintroduce the jury system.

Switzerland[link]

As of 2008, only the code of criminal procedure of the Canton of Geneva provides for genuine jury trials. Several other cantons – Vaud, Neuchâtel, Zürich and Ticino – provide for courts composed of both professional judges and laymen (Schöffengerichte / tribunaux d'échevins). Because the unified Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (set to enter into force in 2011) does not provide for jury trials or lay judges, however, they are likely to be abolished in the near future.^[32]

Absence of juries in Israel[link]

The Israeli judicial system is conspicuous in having no juries of any kind - a feature especially interesting considering that very many other features of this system are derived from the British one - i.e. many Israeli laws are derived from British ones (including, in some cases, laws already repealed in Britain itself but which were in force when Israel became independent in 1948) and the Israeli Supreme Court makes frequent reference to British precedents. However, the authorities in British Mandatory Palestine had taken the conscious decision not to introduce any jury system, officially due to the consideration that it would not work in conditions where the population was divided into mutually-hostile communities of Jews and Arabs. Court cases in Israel are rather conducted before either a single judge or three-judge panels.

United Kingdom[link]

The United Kingdom consists of three separate legal jurisdictions, but there are some features common to all of them. In particular there is seldom anything like the US voir dire system; jurors are usually just accepted without question. Controversially, in England there has been some screening in sensitive security cases, but the Scottish courts have firmly set themselves against any form of jury vetting.

England and Wales[link]

In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), minor criminal cases are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. Middle ranking ("triable either way") offences may be tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable") offences, however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. Juries sit in a few civil cases, in particular, defamation and cases involving the state. Juries also sit in coroner's courts for more contentious inquests. All juries consist of 12 people between 18–70 years of age, selected at random from the register of voters. In the past a unanimous verdict was required. This has been changed so that, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority. This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to succeed.

In 1999 the then Home Secretary Jack Straw introduced a controversial bill to limit the right to trial by jury.^[33] This became the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sought to remove the right to trial by jury for cases involving jury tampering or complex fraud. The provision for trial without jury to circumvent jury tampering succeeded and came into force in 2007, the provision for complex fraud cases was defeated. Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney General, then pressed forward^[34] with the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill in Parliament, which sought to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. The Bill was subject to sharp criticism from both sides of the House of Commons^[35] before passing its second Commons reading in November 2006,^[36] but was defeated in the Lords in March 2007.^[37]

The first serious offence to be tried without a jury for 350 years was allowed to go ahead in 2009.^[38] Three previous trials of the defendants had been halted because of jury tampering, and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, cited cost and the additional burden on the jurors as reasons to proceed without a jury. Previously in cases where jury tampering was a concern the jurors were sometimes closeted in a hotel for the duration of the trial. However, Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said:

Isabella Sankey^[38]:This is a dangerous precedent. The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system.

The trial started in 2010,^[39] with the four defendants convicted on the 31st of March 2010 by Mr Justice Treacy at the Old Bailey.^[40]

Scotland[link]

In Scots law the jury system has some similarities with England but some important differences, in particular there are juries of 15 in criminal trials, with verdicts by simple majority.

Northern Ireland[link]

In Northern Ireland, the role of the jury trial is roughly similar to England and Wales, except that jury trials have been replaced in cases of alleged terrorist offences by courts where the judge sits alone, known as "Diplock courts". Diplock courts are common in Northern Ireland for crimes connected to terrorism.^[41]

Diplock courts were created in the 1970s during The Troubles, in order to phase out Operation Demetrius internments and because of the argument that juries were intimidated, although this is disputed. The Diplock courts were put into disuse in 2007, but between 1 August 2008 and 31 July 2009, 13 non-jury trials were held, down from 29 in the previous year and 300 trials per year at their peak.^[42]

United States[link]

In the United States, every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.^[43] Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he may waive his right to have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and court must consent to the waiver. Several states require jury trials for all crimes, "petty" or not.^[44]

In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone. Depending upon the state, a jury must be unanimous for either a guilty or not guilty decision. A hung jury results in the defendants release, however charges against the defendant are not dropped and can be reinstated if the state so chooses.

Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued.

English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury.

In America, it is understood that juries usually weigh the evidence and testimony to determine questions of fact, while judges usually rule on questions of law, although the dissenting justices in the Supreme Court case Sparf et al. v. U.S. 156 U.S. 51 (1895), generally considered the pivotal case concerning the rights and powers of the jury, declared: "It is our deep and settled conviction, confirmed by a re-examination of the authorities that the jury, upon the general issue of guilty or not guilty in a criminal case, have the right, as well as the power, to decide, according to their own judgment and consciences, all questions, whether of law or of fact, involved in that issue." Jury determination of questions of law, sometimes called jury nullification, cannot be overturned by a judge if doing so would violate legal protections against double jeopardy.^[45] Although a judge can throw out a guilty verdict if it was not supported by the evidence, a jurist has no authority to override a verdict that favors a defendant.^[46]

It was established in Bushel's Case that a judge cannot order the jury to convict, no matter how strong the evidence is. In civil cases a special verdict can be given, but in criminal cases a general verdict is rendered, because requiring a special verdict could apply pressure to the jury, and because of the jury's historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case. For this reason, Justice Black and Justice Douglas indicated their disapproval of special interrogatories even in civil cases.^[47]

There has been much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system, the competence or lack thereof of jurors as fact-finders, and the uniformity or capriciousness of the justice they administer.^[48] The jury has been described as "an exciting and gallant experiment in the conduct of serious human affairs."^[49] As fact-finders, juries are expected to fulfill the role of lie detector.^[50]

However, not all cases are eligible for jury trials. In most US states, there is no right to a jury trial in family law actions not involving a termination of parental rights, such as divorce and custody modifications.^[51][52] Only eleven states allow juries in any aspect of divorce litigation (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin).^[51] Most of these limit the right to a jury to try issues regarding grounds or entitlement for divorce only. Texas provides jury trial rights most broadly, including even the right to a jury trial on questions regarding child custody.^[51][52] But those who charged with a criminal offense, breach of contract or federal offence have a Constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Civil trial procedure[link]

In the United States, a civil action is a lawsuit; civil law is the branch of common law dealing with non-criminal actions. It should not be confused with legal system of civil law.

The right to trial by jury in a civil case in federal court is addressed by the Seventh Amendment. Importantly, however, the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a right to a civil jury trial in state courts (although most state constitutions guarantee such a right). The Seventh Amendment provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."^[53] In Joseph Story's 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he wrote, "[I]t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty."

The Seventh Amendment does not guarantee or create any right to a jury trial; rather, it preserves the right to jury trial in the federal courts that existed in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity. Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action - the civil action," which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury; in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c) allows a court to use one at its discretion. To determine whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791, one must first look at the type of action and whether such an action was considered "legal" or "equitable" at that time. Next, the relief being sought must be examined. Monetary damages alone were purely a legal remedy, and thus entitled to a jury. Non-monetary remedies such as injunctions, rescission, and specific performance were all equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury. In Beacon Theaters v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), the US Supreme Court discussed the right to a jury, holding that when both equitable and legal claims are brought, the right to a jury trial still exists for the legal claim, which would be decided by a jury before the judge ruled on the equitable claim.

There is not a United States constitutional right under the Seventh Amendment to a jury trial in state courts, but in practice, almost every state except Louisiana, which has a civil law legal tradition, permits jury trials in civil cases in state courts on substantially the same basis that they are allowed under the Seventh Amendment in federal court. The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part.^[54]

The court determines the right to jury based on all claims by all parties involved. If the plaintiff brings onlyclaims which are equitable, but the defendant asserts counterclaims which are of law, then the court will grant a trial by jury. In accordance with Beacon Theaters, the jury will first determine the facts and the judge will then enter judgment on the equitable claims.^[55]

Following the English tradition, US juries have usually been composed of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict has usually been required to be unanimous. However, in many jurisdictions, the number of jurors is often reduced to a lesser number (such as five or six) by legislative enactment, or by agreement of both sides. Some jurisdictions also permit a verdict to be returned despite the dissent of one, two, or three jurors.^{[citation needed]}

Waiver of jury trial[link]

The vast majority of US criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a bench trial is held.

In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant waive a jury trial. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial.

See also[link]

• Rights of Englishmen
• Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Bench trial
• Sparf v. United States
• Summary jury trial
• History of trial by jury in England

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Brill, Steven. Trial by Jury. (New York: American Lawyer Books/TOUCHSTONE, 1989).
• Burns, Robert. The Death of the American Trial. University of Chicago Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-226-08126-7
• Lehman, Godfrey D. We the jury… (New York: Prometheus Books, 1997).
• Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 0-00-711121-5
• American Bar Association's History of the Jury
• Aristotle's Athenian Constitution

References[link]

External links[link]

• Canadian Criminal Procedure Information Pages

James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger
U.S. Marshals Service mugshot
FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
Charges	Racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations (RICO): Murder (19 counts) Conspiracy to commit murder Conspiracy to commit extortion Narcotics distribution Conspiracy to commit money laundering Extortion
Alias	Thomas F. Baxter, Tom Harris, Tom Bulger, Mark Shapeton, Thomas Marshall, Charles Gasko[1]
Description
Born	James Joseph Bulger, Jr. (1929-09-03) September 3, 1929 (age 82) Dorchester, Massachusetts, U.S.
Parents	James Joseph Bulger, Sr. and Jane Veronica (née McCarthy) Bulger
Siblings	William M. Bulger John P. Bulger 3 sisters[2]
Criminal Status
Added	August 19, 1999
Caught	June 22, 2011[3]
Number	458
Captured

James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger, Jr. (born September 3, 1929) is a former organized crime figure from Boston, Massachusetts.^[4][5] Local folklore depicted Bulger as a Robin Hood–style social bandit dedicated to protecting the neighborhood and its residents.^[5][6][7] Bulger allegedly masterminded a protection racket targeting drug kingpins and those running illegal gambling operations. Based upon the testimony of former associates, Federal prosecutors have indicted Bulger for 19 murders.

Beginning in 1975, Bulger served as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).^[8] As a result, the Bureau largely ignored his organization in exchange for information about the inner workings of the Italian American Patriarca crime family.^[9][10][11] Beginning in 1997, the New England media exposed criminal actions by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials tied to Bulger. For the FBI especially, this has caused great embarrassment.^[12][13][14] On December 23, 1994, after being tipped off by his former FBI handler about a pending indictment under the RICO Act, Bulger fled Boston and went into hiding. For sixteen years, he remained at large. For twelve of those years, Bulger was prominently listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.^[15]

On June 22, 2011, Bulger was arrested outside an apartment in Santa Monica, California. Arrested with him was his longtime girlfriend Catherine Greig. Bulger was 81 years old at the time of his arrest.^{[3][16][17][18]} Soon after, Bulger and Greig were extradited to Massachusetts and brought under heavy guard to the waterfront federal courthouse. This necessitated the closing of part of Boston Harbor. Greig was arraigned in the Federal District Court of the First Circuit in Boston on charges of harboring a fugitive and is currently seeking release on bail. Bulger has not sought bail and remains in custody at the Plymouth County House of Correction in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Early life[link]

A mug shot of Bulger taken in 1953

Bulger's father, James Joseph Bulger, was the son of parents from Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. His father married Jane Veronica McCarthy, a first generation Irish-American, after settling in the North End, Boston.^[19][20][21] Their first child, James Jr., was born in 1929.

The elder Bulger worked as a union laborer and occasional longshoreman; however, he lost his arm in an industrial accident^[22] and the family was reduced to poverty.^[23] In May 1938, the Old Harbor Village public housing project (formerly known as the Mary Ellen McCormack Housing Project) was opened in South Boston.^[24] The Bulger family moved in and the children grew up there. Young James preferred the streets, but his younger brothers (William and John) excelled at school.

Jimmy Bulger was arrested in 1943, at the age of 14 and charged with larceny.^{[citation needed]} By then, Bulger had joined a street gang known as the "Shamrocks" and would eventually be arrested for assault, battery and armed robbery. He was eventually sentenced to a juvenile reformatory. Shortly after his release in April 1948, he joined the United States Air Force.^[25] After his basic training, he was stationed first at the Smoky Hill Air Force Base in Salina, Kansas, then in Idaho. Bulger was sentenced to the stockade for several assaults. He was also arrested in 1950, for going absent without leave. Nevertheless, he received an honorable discharge in 1952, and returned to Massachusetts.^[25]

Early criminal career[link]

Prison[link]

Alcatraz mug shot of Bulger, 1959

In the 1950s, Bulger was first in federal custody at Atlanta Penitentiary (1956–1959) for armed robbery and hijacking. There, according to mobster Kevin Weeks,^[26] he was involved in the MK-ULTRA program, the goal of which was to research mind-control drugs for the Central Intelligence Agency, headed by CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb.^[27] For eighteen months, Bulger and eighteen other inmates who had volunteered to lessen their sentences were given LSD and other drugs.^[26] Bulger later complained that he and the other inmates had been "recruited by deception," and that they were told that they were helping to find "a cure for schizophrenia".^[28]

He was then transferred from Atlanta to Alcatraz Island, arriving on November 2, 1959, as prisoner #AZ1428. He became a close friend of fellow inmate Clarence Carnes, alias "The Choctaw Kid". In November 1962, he was transferred to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary (1962–1963), and in the following year to Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary (1963–1965). He was released after serving nine years in prison.

The Killeen Gang[link]

After his release, Bulger worked as a janitor and eventual construction worker before becoming an enforcer for Donald Killeen, the leader of the dominant Irish mob in South Boston. In 1971, Killeen's younger brother allegedly bit off the nose of Michael Dwyer, a member of the rival Mullen Gang. A gangland war soon resulted, leading to a string of killings throughout Boston and the surrounding suburbs. The Killeens quickly found themselves outgunned and outmaneuvered by the younger Mullens.

According to Kevin Weeks:

"One day while the gang war was still going on, Jimmy was driving down Seventh Street in South Boston when he saw Paulie [Paul McGonagle] driving toward him. Jimmy pulled up beside him, window to window, nose to nose, and called his name. As Paulie looked over, Jimmy shot him right between the eyes. Only at that moment, just as he pulled the trigger, Jimmy realized it wasn't Paulie. It was Donald, the most likable of the McGonagle brothers, the only one who wasn't involved in anything. Jimmy drove straight to his mentor Billy O'Sullivan's house on Savin Hill Avenue and told O'Sullivan, who was at the stove cooking, 'I shot the wrong one. I shot Donald.' Billy looked up from the stove and said, 'Don't worry about it. He wasn't healthy anyway. He smoked. He would have gotten lung cancer. How do you want your pork chops?'"^[29]

According to former Mullen boss Patrick Nee, Paul McGonagle was enraged by the murder of his twin brother. Certain that William O'Sullivan was responsible, McGonagle ambushed and murdered Bulger's mentor. The end of the war has usually been related as follows. Bulger, realizing that he was on the losing side, secretly approached Howie Winter, the leader of the Winter Hill Gang. He allegedly told Winter that he could end the fighting in South Boston by murdering the leaders of the Killeen gang. Shortly thereafter, Donald Killeen was gunned down outside his home in the suburb of Framingham.^[25] Former Mullen Gang boss Patrick Nee disputes this claim. According to Nee, the slaying of Donald Killeen on May 13, 1972, was carried out not by Bulger but by Mullen Gang enforcers James Mantville and Tommy King.^[30]

Also according to Nee, Bulger and the Killeens fled the city in the aftermath of their boss's murder, fearing that they would be next. Instead of murdering Bulger, however, Patrick Nee arranged for the dispute to be mediated by Howie Winter and Patriarca crime family captain Joseph Russo. After a sit-down at Chandler's restaurant in the South End, Boston, the two gangs joined forces, with Winter as overall boss.^[31]

Nee stated,

Nobody talked fault, although at first it was tense while we ran down the 'who killed who' list. Whitey was a defeated warrior looking to keep as much honor as possible. He knew the Mullens had courageous, fierce men willing to die for theirs, and he was perceptive. Deep down, Whitey knew that he couldn't take over for the Killeens without cutting the Mullens in on their bookmaking and loansharking. Tommy [King] and I felt victorious, but we didn't want to gloat. The meeting lasted for six hours. We ate good steaks, chasing them down with nothing stronger than ginger ale. It was business, and contrary to media stereotype, we weren't a bunch of lowlifes who sat around drinking beer all day and all night.^[32]

According to Nee,

The balance of the meeting was spent forming an alliance, and by far the hardest part was deciding whom to protect. After a war, each side usually gets to protect so many people from harm. Those who aren't protected are fair game for retribution and 'shake-downs.' Everything was split down the middle. All the horses, dogs, bookmaking, and loansharking were now going to be under our mutual control. This was the beginning of our relationship. Whitey and I were now officially partners and nobody at that table could ever have possibly imagined how this treacherous fuck would treat his partners.^[33]

Eventually Bulger would become the lover of Catherine Greig, the ex-wife of Robert McGonagle, the brother of twins Donald and Paul McGonagle.^[34]

The Winter Hill Gang[link]

Stephen Flemmi

After the 1972 truce, Bulger and the Mullens were in control of South Boston's criminal underworld. FBI Special Agent Condon noted in his log in September 1973, that Bulger and Nee had been heavily shaking down the neighborhood's bookmakers. During the years that followed, Bulger began to remove opposition by persuading Howie Winter to sanction the killings of those who "stepped out of line". These included Mullen Gang veterans Spike O'Toole, Paulie McGonagle and Tommy King. It is also alleged that he had direct involvement in the slayings of Eddie Connors and Buddy Leonard in November 1975.^[25] In a 2004 interview, Winter recalled that the highly intelligent Bulger, "could teach the devil tricks."^[35]

In 1979, Howie Winter was arrested, along with many members of his inner circle, on charges of fixing horse races. Bulger and his then partner Stephen Flemmi were left out of the indictments. They stepped into the vacuum and took over the leadership of the gang. They transferred its headquarters to the Lancaster Street Garage in Boston near the Boston Garden in the North End.^[25]

FBI informant[link]

In 1971, the FBI, searching for reliable information in their battle against the Patriarca crime family, approached Bulger and attempted to recruit him as an informant. FBI Special Agent Dennis Condon was assigned to make the pitch. However, Condon reported that Bulger was too concerned about his own safety to start working with the FBI.^[25]

In 1974, Bulger became partners with Stephen Flemmi, an Italian American mobster and FBI informant since 1965. Although it is a documented fact that Bulger soon followed Flemmi's example, exactly how and why continues to be debated. Special Agent John Connolly frequently boasted to his fellow agents about how he had recruited Bulger at a late night meeting at Wollaston Beach inside an FBI issue car. Connolly allegedly said that the Bureau could help in Bulger's feud with Mafia underboss Gennaro Angiulo. After listening to the pitch, Bulger is said to have responded, "Alright, if they want to play checkers, we'll play chess. Fuck 'em."^[36]

Author Howie Carr alleges that Bulger had been an off-the-books informant since the 1940s. Carr dubiously claims that a teenaged Bulger worked as a male prostitute in Boston's gay bars. Carr also claims that, Bulger was blackmailed into informing after Special Agent H. Paul Rico tailed him into a gay bar. This has never been confirmed, however.

Kevin Weeks dismisses all of these allegations. According to Weeks, the charismatic Bulger, "had more women than Hugh Hefner." As for Bulger's informant status, Weeks considers it more likely that Bulger's partner Stephen Flemmi had betrayed him to the FBI. He writes of his belief that Bulger was caught between a rock and a hard place: supply information to the FBI or return to Federal prison.^[37]

In 1997, shortly after The Boston Globe disclosed that Bulger and Flemmi had been informants, Weeks met with retired FBI Agent John Connolly, who showed him a photocopy of Bulger's FBI informant file. In order to explain Bulger and Flemmi's status as informants, Connolly said, "The Mafia was going against Jimmy and Stevie, so Jimmy and Stevie went against them."^[38]

According to Weeks,

As I read over the files at the Top of the Hub [restaurant] that night, Connolly kept telling me that 90 percent of the information in the files came from Stevie. Certainly Jimmy hadn't been around the Mafia the way Stevie had. But, Connolly told me, he had to put Jimmy's name on the files to keep his file active. As long as Jimmy was an active informant, Connolly said, he could justify meeting with Jimmy and giving him valuable information. Even after he retired, Connolly still had friends in the FBI, and he and Jimmy kept meeting to let each other know what was going on. I listened to all that, but now I understood that even though he was retired, Connolly was still getting information, as well as money, from Jimmy. As I continued to read, I could see that a lot of the reports were not just against the Italians. There were more and more names of Polish and Irish guys, of people we had done business with, of friends of mine. Whenever I came across the name of someone I knew, I would read exactly what it said about that person. I would see, over and over again, that some of these people had been arrested for crimes that were mentioned in these reports. It didn't take long for me to realize that it had been bullshit when Connolly told me that the files hadn't been disseminated, that they had been for his own personal use. He had been an employee of the FBI. He hadn't worked for himself. If there was some investigation going on and his supervisor said, 'Let me take a look at that,' what was Connolly going to do? He had to give it up. And he obviously had. I thought about what Jimmy had always said, 'You can lie to your wife and to your girlfriends, but not to your friends. Not to anyone we're in business with.' Maybe Jimmy and Stevie hadn't lied to me. But they sure hadn't been telling me everything.^[39]

A federal judge ruled on September 5, 2006, that the mishandling of Bulger and Flemmi caused the 1984 murder of informant John McIntyre. As a result, the McIntyre family was ordered to receive more than $3 million from the U.S. Federal Government. The judge stated the FBI failed to properly supervise their own agent John Connolly (convicted and jailed in 2002) and also failed to investigate numerous allegations that Bulger and Flemmi were involved in drug trafficking, murder, and other crimes over decades.^[40]

In a 2011 interview, Stephen Flemmi recalled, "Me and Whitey gave [the Feds] shit, and they gave us gold."^[28]

Crime boss[link]

Consolidating power[link]

Federal Bureau of Investigation surveillance photograph of Bulger (right) with enforcer Stephen Flemmi (left) c. 1980.

Winter and most of his organization's leadership were sentenced for fixing horse races in 1979, but the FBI persuaded federal prosecutors to drop all charges against Bulger and Flemmi. Bulger and Flemmi then took over the remnants of the Winter Hill Gang and used their status as informants to eliminate competition. The information they supplied to the FBI in subsequent years was responsible for the imprisonment of several Bulger associates whom Bulger viewed as threats; however, the main victim of their relationship with the federal government was the Italian-American Patriarca crime family, which was based in Boston's North End, and in Federal Hill, Providence. After the 1986 RICO indictment of underboss Gennaro Angiulo and his associates, the Patriarca family's Boston operations were in shambles. Bulger and Flemmi stepped into the ensuing vacuum to take control of organized crime in the Boston area.^[25]

Litif murder[link]

In 1980, Bulger was approached in South Boston's Triple O's saloon by Louis Litif, a neighborhood bookmaker. Kevin Weeks, who was then a bouncer at Triple O's, witnessed the discussion that followed. He has recalled,

"He wasn't a big guy, maybe five seven and 185 pounds. Of Arab descent, he had a mustache like Saddam Hussein. He had a wife and a couple of kids, and a three decker townhouse on East Broadway and G. I was friendly with his daughter Louanne, who was a few years younger than me. That night, as always, he was talking in his obnoxious loud voice. Even when there were 400 people in the bar, you always knew Louie was there.^[41]

According to Weeks, Litif had been stealing from his partners in the bookmaking operation and using the money to traffic cocaine. What is more, Litif had not only refused to pay a cut of his drug profits, but had also committed two murders without Bulger's permission.^[42]

As Weeks listened, Litif told an outraged Bulger that he was also going to kill his partner, "Joe the Barber," whom he accused of stealing money from the bookmaking operation. Bulger refused to sanction this, but Litif vowed to kill him anyway. Seething with anger, Bulger informed Litif that he had, "stepped over the line," and was, "no longer just a bookmaker."^[43]

At the time Kevin Weeks was about to get married to his longtime girlfriend. A short time before the wedding, Weeks informed Bulger that he was having difficulty seating Louis Litif. "Don't worry about it," Bulger responded. "He probably won't show."^[44]

According to Weeks,

"Personally, I liked Louie. Every Sunday night, he'd come down to Triple O's and we'd play cards or pinball, twenty bucks a game. He was loud but funny, and he'd always been a major moneymaker for Jimmy. He should have just stayed a bookie and not tried to jump from the minor leagues to the majors. And now he wanted to kill a friend of Jimmy. There was no way that would be allowed. Shortly after that, a week or so before my wedding, Louie was found stuffed into a garbage bag in the trunk of his car, which had been dumped in the South End. He'd been stabbed with an ice pick and shot. 'He was color coordinated,' Jimmy told me. 'He was wearing green under wear and was in a green garbage bag.' At the wedding, when I went around to greet his table, Jimmy pointed to the empty chair beside him and said, 'Say hi to Louie.' Stevie picked up a napkin and made a show of wiping his face. 'He keeps on drinking and it keeps on leaking out of him,' he said, reminding us that Louie had been shot in the head and any drink he might have put in his mouth would pour right out of his face. And they all broke out laughing."^[45]

Halloran and Donahue murders[link]

In 1982, a South Boston cocaine dealer named Edward Brian Halloran, known on the streets as "Balloonhead," approached the FBI and stated that he had witnessed Bulger and Flemmi murdering Louis Litif. Meanwhile, FBI agent John Connolly kept Bulger and Flemmi closely briefed on what Halloran was saying to the Bureau. According to Kevin Weeks, Bulger and Flemmi were most enraged that Halloran was falsely claiming involvement in their assassination of Tulsa, Oklahoma businessman Roger Wheeler. Ultimately, the FBI discovered Halloran's falsehoods and refused him and his family a place in the Witness Protection Program. Soon after, on May 11, 1982, Bulger, Flemmi and Weeks were tipped off that Halloran had returned to South Boston.

After arriving at the scene, Kevin Weeks staked out Anthony's Pier 4 Restaurant, where Halloran was dining. Michael Donahue of Dorchester, a construction worker, neighbor, and friend of Halloran, incidentally ran into him at the restaurant. In a decision that would prove costly, Donahue offered Halloran a ride home.

As Donahue and Halloran drove out of the parking lot, Weeks signaled Bulger by stating, "The balloon is in the air", over a hand held radio. Bulger drove up with a masked man armed with a silenced Mac 10; Bulger himself carried a .30 caliber carbine. Bulger, wearing a floppy hat and a long haired wig, and the other shooter opened fire and sprayed Halloran and Donahue's car with bullets. Donahue was shot in the head and killed instantly. Halloran lived long enough to identify his attacker as James Flynn, a Winter Hill associate, who was later tried and acquitted. Flynn remained the prime suspect until 1999, when Weeks agreed to cooperate with investigators and identified Bulger as one of the shooters. Stephen Flemmi has identified the second shooter as Mullen Gang leader Patrick Nee. Nee denies the allegation and no charges have yet been filed.

Michael Donahue was survived by his wife and three sons. The Donahue and Halloran families eventually filed a civil lawsuit against the United States Federal Government after learning that FBI Agent John Connolly had informed Bulger of Halloran's informant status. Both families were awarded several million dollars in damages. However, the verdict was overturned on appeal, due to the late filing of the claims.^[8][46] Thomas Donahue, who was eight years old when his father was murdered, has become a spokesman for the families of those allegedly murdered by the Winter Hill Gang.^[47]

Glory days[link]

Throughout the 1980s, Bulger, Flemmi and Weeks ran shakedowns throughout eastern Massachusetts, e.g., extortion, loansharking, bookmaking, truck hijackings and arms trafficking. State and federal agencies were repeatedly stymied in their attempts to build cases against Bulger and his inner circle. This was caused by several factors. Among them was the trio's paranoid fear of wiretaps, South Boston's code of silence, and also corruption within the Boston Police Department, the Massachusetts State Police, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although disgraced FBI agent John Connolly has long been Bulger's most infamous friend in law enforcement, Kevin Weeks has insisted that Lieutenant Richard J. Schneiderhan was valued far more highly. According to Weeks, this was because Schneiderhan was the Winter Hill Gang's only source inside the Massachusetts State Police.^[48][49]

Drug trafficking[link]

During the middle 1980s, Bulger began to summon drug dealers from in and around Boston to his headquarters. Flanked by Kevin Weeks and Stephen Flemmi, Bulger would inform each dealer that he had been offered a substantial sum to assassinate them. He would then demand a large cash payment not to do so. Eventually, however, the massive profits of drugs proved irresistible. According to Weeks,

Jimmy, Stevie and I weren't in the import business and weren't bringing in the marijuana or the cocaine. We were in the shakedown business. We didn't bring drugs in; we took money off the people who did. We never dealt with the street dealers, but rather with a dozen large-scale drug distributors all over the State who were bringing in the coke and marijuana and paying hundreds of thousands to Jimmy. The dealers on the street corner sold eight-balls, . . . grams, and half grams to customers for their personal use. They were supplied by the mid level drug dealer who was selling them multiple ounces. In other words, the big importers gave it to the major distributors, who sold it to the middlemen, who then sold it to the street dealers. In order to get to Jimmy, Stevie, and me, someone would have had to go through those four layers of insulation.^[50]

In South Boston, most of the neighborhood's cocaine and marijuana trade was managed by John Shea. According to Weeks, Bulger briefly considered murdering Shea, but eventually decided to just shake him down.

According to Weeks, Bulger enforced strict rules over the dealers who were paying him protection.

The only people we ever put out of business were heroin dealers. Jimmy didn't allow heroin in South Boston. It was a dirty drug that users stuck in their arms, making problems with needles, and later on, AIDS. While people can do cocaine socially and still function, once they do heroin, they're zombies.^[51]

Weeks also alleges that Bulger strictly forbade PCP and selling to children,^[52] and that those dealers who refused to play by his rules were violently driven out of the neighborhood. In 1990, "Red" Shea and his associates were arrested as part of a joint investigation involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Boston Police Department and the Massachusetts State Police. All refused to testify against Bulger, Flemmi, and Weeks. According to Weeks,

Of course, Jimmy lost money once the drug dealers were removed from the streets in the summer raid, but he always had other business going on. Knowing I had to build something on the side, I had concentrated on my shylocking and gambling businesses. The drug business had been good while it lasted. But our major involvement in it was over."^[53]

It would not be until the 1999 cooperation of Weeks that Bulger, by then a fugitive, was conclusively linked to the drug trade by investigators.

Won Massachusetts state lottery[link]

One week in the summer of 1991, Bulger and three friends came into possession of the winning Massachusetts Lottery ticket, which had been bought at a store he owned. The four men shared a prize of around $14 million.^[54]

Downfall[link]

Photographed in 1994

In April 1994, a joint task force of the DEA, the Massachusetts State Police, and the Boston Police Department launched a probe of Bulger's gambling operations. The FBI, by this time considered compromised, was not informed. After a number of bookmakers agreed to testify to having paid protection money to Bulger, a Federal case was built against him under the RICO Act.

According to Kevin Weeks,

In 1993, and 1994, before the pinches came down, Jimmy and Stevie were traveling on the French and Italian Riviera. The two of them traveled all over Europe, sometimes separating for a while. Sometimes they took girls, sometimes just the two of them went. They would rent cars and travel all through Europe. It was more preparation than anything, getting ready for another life. They didn't ask me to go, not that I would have wanted to. Jimmy had prepared for the run for years. He'd established a whole other person, Thomas Baxter, with a complete ID and credit cards in that name. He'd even joined associations in Baxter's name, building an entire portfolio for the guy. He'd always said you had to be ready to take off on short notice. And he was.^[55]

He had also set up safe deposit boxes, containing cash, jewelry, and passports, in locations across North America and Europe including Florida, Oklahoma, Montreal, Dublin, London, Birmingham (UK) and Venice. In December 1994, Bulger was informed by retired FBI Agent John Connolly that sealed indictments had come from the Department of Justice and that the FBI were due to make arrests during the Christmas season. In response, Bulger fled Boston on December 23, 1994, accompanied by his common law wife, Theresa Stanley.^{[citation needed]}

Fugitive[link]

After fleeing Boston, Bulger and Stanley initially spent four days over Christmas in Selden, New York, before spending New Year's Day in a hotel in New Orleans' French Quarter. On January 5, 1995, Bulger prepared to return to Boston, believing that it had been a false alarm. That night, however, Stephen Flemmi was arrested outside a Boston restaurant by the DEA. Boston police Detective Michael Flemmi, Stephen's brother, informed Weeks of the arrest. Weeks immediately passed the information on to Bulger, who altered his plans.^[25]

Bulger and Stanley then spent the next three weeks traveling between New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco before Stanley decided that she wanted to return to her children. They then traveled to Clearwater, Florida, where Bulger retrieved his "Tom Baxter" identification from a safe deposit box. Bulger then drove to Boston and dropped off Theresa Stanley in a parking lot. He then met with Weeks at Malibu Beach in Dorchester, who had brought with him Bulger's girlfriend, Catherine Greig. Bulger and Greig then went on the run together.^[25]

In his memoirs, Weeks describes a clandestine meeting with Bulger and Greig in Chicago, Illinois. Bulger reminisced fondly about his time hiding out with a family in Louisiana. He told Weeks, who had replaced him as head of the Winter Hill Gang, "If anything comes down, put it on me."^[56] As they adjourned to a nearby Japanese restaurant, Bulger finally revealed how exhausted he was with life on the run. He told Weeks, "Every day out there is another day I beat them. Every good meal is a meal they can't take away from me."^[57]

New York Public Library, 42nd Street and 5th Avenue

In mid-November 1995, Weeks and Bulger met for the last time, at the lion statues at the front of the New York Public Library, and adjourned for dinner at a nearby restaurant. According to Weeks,

At the end of our dinner, he seemed more aware of everything around him. His tone was a little more serious, and there wasn't as much joking as usual. He repeated the phrase he'd used before that a rolling stone gathers no moss, which told me that he knew he was going to be on the move again. I got the feeling that he was resigning himself to the fact that he wasn't coming back. Up until then, I always believed he thought there was a chance he'd beat the case. However, at that point, there was something different going on with him. I didn't fully understand all the aspects of his case. It would be another six months before it became clearer. Yet at that moment, in that restaurant in New York, I sensed that he had moved to a new place in his mind. It was over. He'd never return to South Boston.^[58]

On November 17, 1999, Weeks was arrested by a combined force of the DEA and the Massachusetts State Police. Although by this time he was aware of Bulger's FBI deal, Weeks was determined to remain faithful to the neighborhood code of silence. However, while awaiting trial in Rhode Island's Wyatt Federal prison, Weeks was approached by a fellow inmate, a "made man" in the Patriarca crime family. The wiseguy told him, "Kid, what are you doing? Are you going to take it up the ass for these guys? Remember, you can't rat on a rat. Those guys have been giving up everyone for thirty years."^[59]

Retouched photo done in 2004.

In the aftermath, Weeks decided to cut a deal with federal prosecutors, and revealed where almost every penny and body was buried. Writing in 2006, Weeks recalled,

I had known all along, however, that it would not be easy for anyone to capture Jimmy. If he saw them coming, he would take them with him. He wouldn't hesitate. Even before he went on the run, he'd always say, 'Let's all go to hell together.' And he meant it. I also knew that Jimmy wouldn't go to trial. He would rather plead out to a life sentence than put his family through the embarrassment of a trial. If he had a gun on him, he'd go out in a blaze of glory rather than spend the rest of his life in jail. But I don't think they'll ever catch him.^[60]

Manhunt[link]

The last confirmed sighting of Bulger before his capture was in London in 2002.^[61] However, there were unconfirmed sightings elsewhere. FBI agents were sent to Uruguay to investigate a lead. FBI agents were also sent to stake out the 60th memorial of the Battle of Normandy celebrations, as Bulger is reportedly an enthusiastic fan of military history. Later reports of a sighting in Italy in April 2007, proved false. Two persons on video footage shot in Taormina, Sicily, formerly thought to be Bulger and his lover, Catherine Greig, walking in the streets of the city center, were finally identified as a tourist couple from Germany. Evidence was provided by viewers of the German television program Aktenzeichen XY ... ungelöst, which had aired an episode containing a film about Bulger.^[62]

In 2010, the FBI turned its focus to Victoria, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island.^[63] In pursuit of Bulger, a known book lover, the FBI visited bookstores in the area, questioned employees, and distributed wanted posters.^[63][64] Following his arrest, Bulger revealed that he had in fact traveled frequently. Also following his arrest, it was clear that he had not been reclusive, witnesses coming forward to say they had seen him on the Santa Monica Pier and elsewhere in southern California.^[65] A confirmed report by an off-duty Boston police officer after a San Diego screening of The Departed also led to a search in Southern California that lasted "a few weeks".^[66]

Capture[link]

The apartment building in Santa Monica, California where Bulger lived as a fugitive for at least fifteen years.

After sixteen years at large and twelve years on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, Bulger was arrested in Santa Monica, California, on June 22, 2011.^{[67][68][69][70]}

Bulger was captured as a result of the work of the Bulger Fugitive Task Force which consisted of FBI Agents and a Deputy US Marshal. According to retired FBI agent Scott Bakken,

Here you have somebody who is far more sophisticated than some 18-year-old who killed someone in a drive-by. To be a successful fugitive you have to cut all contacts from your previous life. He had the means and kept a low profile.^[71]

A reward of US $2 million had been offered for information leading to his capture. This amount was second only to Osama Bin Laden's capture reward on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.^[72][73][74] Bulger has been featured on the television show America's Most Wanted 16 times, first in 1995, and last on October 2, 2010. According to the authorities, the arrests were a "direct result" of the media campaign launched by the FBI in 14 markets across the country where Bulger and Greig reportedly had ties. The campaign focused on Greig, describing her as an animal lover who frequently goes to beauty salons.^[75]

Some of the weapons found in Bulger's apartment

Authorities received a tip from a woman in Iceland that he was living in a Santa Monica, California, apartment near a beach.^[76][77] A day later, ". . . using a ruse, agents and other task force members lured Mr. Bulger out of his apartment", "arrested him 'without incident,' then went in the house and arrested Greig".^[75] Bulger was charged with murder, "conspiracy to commit murder, extortion, narcotics distribution and money-laundering". Agents found "more than $800,000 in cash, 30 firearms and fake IDs" at the apartment.^[75] Carmen Ortiz, U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, stated that "she believes the death penalty is not an option in the federal charges Bulger faces in her district, but that she believes he could face the death penalty for two cases outside the district."^[75] In Oklahoma, where Bulger is alleged to have ordered the killing of businessman Roger Wheeler, Sr. in 1981, Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris stated: "It is our intention to bring Bulger to justice and to be held accountable for the murder of Mr. Wheeler." In Florida, Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said: "After a 16-year delay, I will be working to ensure that a Miami jury has the opportunity to look (Bulger) in the eyes and determine his fate."^[78]

Immediately after being brought back to Boston, Bulger began talking to authorities. He informed them that during his days as a fugitive he was able to go back and forth frequently across the border to Mexico to buy medicine that he needed for his cardiac problems.^[79][80] It is anticipated by many, and feared by some, that Bulger will have a lot to say to authorities about the corruption on the local, state and federal level which enabled him to operate his criminal enterprise for so long, and that such disclosures may earn Bulger some special treatment in sentencing.^[12][13][14]

Bulger was arraigned in Federal court on July 6, 2011. He pleaded not guilty to 48 charges, including 19 counts of murder, extortion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, perjury, narcotics distribution and weapons violations.^[81]

The tipster was identified by The Boston Globe as Anna Bjornsdottir, a former model, actress and Miss Iceland 1974, who lived in Bulger's neighborhood.^[77][82]

In a 2011 interview, Kevin Weeks expressed surprise at Bulger's decision to cooperate after his arrest. He said, "I don't understand because he's not the same as I remember him. I can't believe he's so chatty right now. So I don't know what he's doing."^[83]

However, Weeks also declared that he is not afraid of Bulger and that the residents of Boston should not be either. Weeks declared, "I don't think he's Pablo Escobar where he can just walk out of his prison cell and come to South Boston or anywhere. No, no one's worried about him."^[83]

Catherine Greig[link]

Bulger's companion during his years as a fugitive was his longtime girlfriend Catherine Greig. Greig grew up in Boston, and had an identical twin sister, Margaret,^[84] and a younger brother, David. Their father was a machinist from Glasgow, Scotland and their mother was from Canada.^[84]

Greig's U.S. Marshals Service mugshot

At about age 20, Greig married Robert "Bobby" McGonagle of South Boston, a Boston firefighter.^[84] He was from a family that led the Mullen Gang, and was injured during a mob gunfight in 1969.^[85] Before his 1987 drug overdose death, Bobby McGonagle reportedly held Bulger responsible for the murders of his brothers. Twins Donald McGonagle and Paul McGonagle were killed during fighting between the Mullen and Killeen Gangs.^[34] The body of Paul McGonagle lay hidden and buried for twenty five years on Tenean Beach in Dorchester.^[86] Greig's twin sister Margaret is the widow of Paul McGonagle. She remarried and is now Margaret McCusker. McCusker is a licensed practical nurse. Greig's younger brother David Greig was a close associate of Bulger. David was found shot dead on Cape Cod, a death which was characterized as a suicide.

Greig met Bulger in her late 20s, after she divorced Bobby McGonagle. She worked as a dental hygienist.^[84] Greig has been described as intelligent, hardworking and educated, although very subservient to, and dominated by, Bulger.^[85] She and Bulger lived together for a time at her home in Squantum, a section of Quincy, Massachusetts.^[87] While on the run, Greig confided to a neighbor that she feared that Bulger was suffering from senile dementia.^[88]

Greig had been wanted by the FBI since 1999.^[89] The criminal complaint against her alleges that she harbored a fugitive, Whitey Bulger.^[90] She will be represented in the current^[when?] criminal proceedings by the prominent criminal attorney Kevin Reddington of Brockton, Massachusetts.^[91] Attorney Reddington has stated that Greig will be going to trial and will not be accepting a plea bargain, explaining: "I question that the government can prove the case." ^[92] According to Reddington, Greig's actions did not constitute "harboring" of a fugitive. Greig is currently^[when?] seeking release on bail and home confinement.^[93]

After their arrest, Kevin Weeks expressed hope that Bulger would try to do something to clear Catherine Greig. "Catherine is a nice person," he said, "a loyal person, compassionate, intelligent. I can't say enough about her. She's a good person."^[83]

Family[link]

Bulger has two younger brothers, William M. Bulger (born 1934) and John Bulger (born 1938).

Senator William "Billy" Bulger is a Korean War veteran and formerly an influential leader of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts. In a long political career, Senator Bulger rose to become President of the Massachusetts State Senate. After his retirement he was appointed President of the University of Massachusetts system.

In 2002, testimony before the United States Congress, Senator Bulger was grilled by legislators from both parties. When asked what he thought his brother did for a living, Senator Bulger responded: "I had the feeling that he was in the business of gaming and  . . . or whatever. It was vague to me, illegal but I didn't  . . . not all that violent  . . . For a long while, he had some regular jobs, but ultimately it was clear that he was not, he wasn't doing what I'd like him to do. Let's just say I was naive in retrospect." He added that he loves his brother and hoped the most brutal allegations concerning him will be proven false. In addition, he grudgingly admitted to visiting an isolated pay phone in order to speak to his older brother, who was by then a fugitive. In 2003, as a direct result of these comments, Senator Bulger was forced by then-Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney to resign from the presidency of the University of Massachusetts.^[94]

Judge John "Jackie" Bulger, a retired Massachusetts court clerk magistrate, was convicted in April 2003, of perjury to two grand juries regarding sworn statements he gave concerning contacts with his fugitive brother.^[95]

Personal life[link]

Bulger fathered one child, Douglas Glenn Cyr (born 1967), during a 12-year relationship with Lindsey Cyr.^[96] The two began dating in 1966, when Cyr was 21 and a waitress at a North Quincy cafe.^[97] According to Cyr,

"He used to say that there were four people he'd turn up on a street corner for: Douglas, me, Billy, or his mother. And we all made him vulnerable."^[98]

In 1973, at six years of age, Douglas died from Reye's syndrome after having a severe allergic reaction to aspirin.^[99]

According to Cyr,

An absolute nightmare, and it was very difficult for Jimmy because, no matter what, there was nothing that could save this. Money didn't matter, his power didn't matter . . . I remember that we were walking out of the hospital the night that he died, and he was holding my hand. And Jimmy said, 'I'm never going to hurt like this again.'"^[98]

Since Bulger's arrest, Cyr has publicly announced her support of him,^[100] stating

If he wanted to see me, I'd be happy to. If he needs help getting attorneys and what have you, I'd be happy to help him. Part of me does (still love him). I still care for him. I would always help him. I certainly always stand by him. He is the father of my child. He is 12 years of my life. I want to see him well protected . . . And I'm not particularly sympathetic to some of the people involved, some of the victims' families.^[97]

After his split from Cyr, Bulger began a relationship with Theresa Stanley, a South Boston divorcée with several children.^[101] Bulger bought her an expensive house in suburban Quincy, Massachusetts, and acted as father to her children while commuting to "work" in South Boston. However, he was repeatedly unfaithful to her with a host of other women, and was often absent while overseeing the running of his organization. In a 2004 interview, Stanley stated that she is planning to publish her memoirs.^[35]

Press relations[link]

According to Weeks,

Most of the time, The Boston Globe wasn't as inaccurate as the Herald. They just knocked the people from Southie during busing. They also liked to describe me as, 'Whitey's surrogate son', another example of the media putting labels on people they wrote about. Jimmy and I were friends, not like father and son. Even though he was the boss, he always treated me equally, like an associate, not a son. The reporter who seemed to do the most research and put real effort into getting the true story without having been there was Shelley Murphy, who had been at the Herald for ten years when she went to work for the Globe in 1993. But Jimmy and I usually ended up laughing at most of the news stories, as time and time again the media had it wrong, over and over again holding to their pledge to never let the truth get in the way of a good story.^[102]

Paul Corsetti[link]

Bulger did have a breaking point with the press. A week or so after the 1980 slaying of Louis Litif, Boston Herald reporter Paul Corsetti began researching an article about the murder and Bulger's suspected involvement in it. After several days of reporting the story, he was approached by a man who told him, "I'm Jim Bulger and if you continue to write shit about me, I'm going to blow your fucking head off."^[103] Corsetti attempted to seek out help from the Patriarca crime family, but was informed that Bulger was outside their control. According to Kevin Weeks, "The next day, Corsetti reported the meeting to the Boston police. He was issued a pistol permit within twenty-four hours. The cop who gave him the permit told him, 'I'm glad my last name is not Corsetti.' A couple days later, Jimmy told me about the scene with the cop and was glad to hear how uncomfortable he'd made Corsetti."^[103]

Howie Carr[link]

In his memoirs, Kevin Weeks relates his participation in an attempt to assassinate reporter Howie Carr at his house in suburban Acton. Weeks states that Carr was targeted because he was, "writing nasty stories about people, he was an oxygen thief who didn't deserve to breathe."

Weeks states that, although several plans were considered, all were abandoned because there was too much risk of injuring Carr's wife and children.^[104] Weeks has stated that, although he is fully aware of the public outcry that would have followed, he regrets not murdering Howie Carr. "His murder would have been an attack on the system, like attacking freedom of the press, the fabric of the American way of life, and they would have spared no expense to solve the crime. But in the long run, Jimmy and I got sidetracked and the maggot lived. Still, I wish I'd killed him. No question about it."^[105]

Alleged murder victims[link]

• Louis Litif^[106]
• Donald McGonagle^[107]
• Paul McGonagle^[108]
• Roger Wheeler^[108]
• Edward Brian Halloran^[108]
• John McIntyre^[108]
• Deborah Hussey^[108]
• Debra Davis^[108]
• John Callahan^[108]
• Arthur Barrett^[108]
• Richard Castucci^[108]
• James O'Toole^[108]
• Eddie Connors^[108]
• Buddy Leonard^[108]
• Michael Milano^[108]
• Al Plummer^[108]
• William O'Brian^[108]
• Al Notarangeli^[108]
• James Sousa^[108]
• Thomas King^[108]
• Michael Donahue^[108]

Alleged associates[link]

This biographical section of an article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (June 2011)

See also[link]

• William M. Bulger
• Irish mob
• The World's 10 Most Wanted

• Brotherhood
• The Departed

Notes[link]