Indictment of Finneran is expected

Federal prosecutors are preparing to indict former House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran for perjury, in allegedly lying when he testified in a federal trial that he was unaware of the contents of a House redistricting plan, according to two sources familiar with the progress of the investigation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Finneran's lawyers have launched a last-ditch effort to lobby US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan against bringing such a charge, arguing that the evidence gathered against Finneran in a year-long probe doesn't warrant federal prosecution, and that such a move would be viewed as excessive, said the sources, who asked not to be identified.

The case has centered on testimony Finneran gave during the 2003 civil trial, when he was still speaker and said under oath that he had no knowledge of the controversial redrawing of House districts. Federal judges, in an unusual move, later publicly questioned the truthfulness of his testimony.

According to one of the sources, federal prosecutors have made clear to Finneran's lawyers that they intend to bring a perjury charge against the former speaker, a felony that could carry jail time and would strip him of his license to practice law, if he is convicted. The source said the prosecutors rejected a suggestion by Richard Egbert, one of Finneran's lawyers, that the former speaker plead guilty to a misdemeanor, agree not to practice law for a period of time, and serve no jail time.

When that suggestion failed, Egbert turned to prominent Boston lawyer Leonard Lewin, who has strong ties to the Republican establishment, that same source said. About a month and a half ago, Lewin accompanied Egbert to a meeting with Sullivan, during which Finneran's lawyer made his pitch directly to Sullivan, according to the source.

Lewin, who served as legal counsel to GOP governors Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift, built a relationship with Sullivan when Sullivan served as a Republican state representative and district attorney. He accompanied Egbert to the meeting with Sullivan to try to defuse tensions that had developed between Egbert and the prosecution team.

Despite an exhaustive probe that scrutinized the powerful Boston politician, the case has come down to the question of his truthfulness during testimony in the civil case, according to the two sources. Samantha Martin, a spokeswoman for Sullivan, said that the US attorney would not comment on the case. Finneran could not be reached.

Finneran, who served as speaker for eight years, resigned last fall to become president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. The Mattapan Democrat has said his departure was not related to the federal probe.

The investigation has shaken Beacon Hill, as a number of lawmakers, members of Finneran's senior staff, and other House employees have been called before the grand jury. Some received visits from FBI agents at home.

The probe was launched early last year, shortly after a three-judge panel threw out the redistricting map. Civil rights groups had filed suit alleging that the plan protected white incumbents and diluted the clout of minority voters, and the judges agreed. In a highly unusual footnote, the judges expressed skepticism about Finneran's testimony in which he stated he was not involved in the redistricting process.

At the trial, Finneran testified that he had no knowledge of the redrawn district lines until Oct. 18, 2001, when they were made public by one of his top lieutenants, the House chairman of the Joint Committee on Redistricting, Representative Thomas M. Petrolati.

At one point in the trial, Finneran was asked if he knew what was going to be in the redistricting plan before it was publicly distributed. ''No, I did not," he told the court.

In their footnote, the judges said: ''Although Speaker Finneran denied any involvement in the redistricting process, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the opposite conclusion." They pointed out that the speaker had handpicked the committee and chairman; that he ensured that the panel hired Lawrence DiCara, a friend since boyhood, as its counsel; and that Finneran's counsel at the time, John Stefanini, had the software used to redraw the map installed on his office computer. The plan would have reshaped Finneran's Mattapan-based district to shed minority neighborhoods and add white areas in Milton.

Egbert, in his most extensive rebuttal of the charges, held a press conference a year ago to challenge the judges' statements, saying they were ''simply wrong." He cited several statements Finneran made at the trial in which he testified that he had talked about the redistricting plan with Petrolati ''from time to time" and to DiCara, the former Boston city councilor and close Finneran ally.

The Globe has documented a number of meetings or discussions that Finneran held with legislators whose districts were significantly changed by the redrawn district map. Carol Cleven, a Chelmsford Republican whose House seat was wiped out in the plan, said she learned of the decision in a conversation with Finneran the day before the map was made public. Three Lowell lawmakers -- Democratic Representatives Thomas A. Golden Jr., David M. Nangle, and Kevin J. Murphy -- met with Finneran several days earlier when he outlined how their districts would absorb areas of Cleven's district, according to a lawmaker who was there.

The case is a high-stakes one for Sullivan, a Republican politician who once served alongside Finneran in the Legislature. The state Republican leadership is eager for Sullivan to run for statewide office.

It would be perilous for Sullivan, having launched the probe, to end it without indictment, and risk being viewed as soft on the once politically powerful former speaker. However, bringing indictment will provoke anger in the political arena, and possible retaliation from other politicians. Still, indicting Finneran, and failing to get a conviction, could create a perception that Sullivan overreached, and taint his reputation.

While it's not uncommon for federal prosecutors to prosecute people on perjury charges, generally the cases involve those who have lied during criminal investigations. A perjury conviction carries a top penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.