Finneran actions focus of US subpoena

Federal prosecutors who have opened a criminal investigation into the House redistricting process have specifically cited Speaker Thomas M. Finneran in the subpoena they issued, asking for documents that would demonstrate his involvement in the 2001 redistricting, according to a lawyer who has reviewed the subpoena.

Finneran’s name is the only one that appears on the subpoena, the lawyer said, a strong indication that the federal investigation is focusing on the veracity of the speaker’s testimony in a recent federal trial in which he denied involvement in drawing the legislative map. In an unusual rebuke, the three-judge panel that heard the case questioned the truthfulness of Finneran’s assertions.

In addition to records kept by the House Redistricting Committee, the subpoena also seeks hard drives from computers used in redistricting, the lawyer said.

Finneran said yesterday he would not comment on the investigation. The Redistricting Committee announced it has hired a veteran Boston criminal lawyer, Thomas M. Hoopes, to handle the grand jury’s request for its records.

“I am in the process of responding to that request,” Hoopes said. “The committee will cooperate fully with the request. There will be no further comment of any kind with regard to this matter.”

News that a federal grand jury investigation has been launched into the redistricting process set off ripples yesterday through the state’s political establishment, especially among Finneran’s colleagues in the House.

Finneran’s assertion in the trial last year that he had not been involved in the redistricting process has been the subject of intense discussion among House members. During his sworn testimony, he said he did not review any of the redistricting proposals as they moved through the process. He testified that the first time he saw the House plan occurred when the Redistricting Committee ‘‘filed its plan with the House clerk, as a member who has an interest. All members do have an interest.’’

Carol C. Clevens, the former Republican state representative from Chelmsford, told the Globe yesterday that she had a conversation in 2001 with Finneran in his office about the redistricting plan on the day it was being unveiled publicly. She said he told her it would wipe out her suburban Lowell district.

Further, on the day before the plan was made public, according to a person who was present at the meeting, Finneran called to his office three Democratic lawmakers — Representatives Kay Khan and Ruth B. Balser of Newton and Peter J. Koutoujian of Watertown. He described in detail what the plan would do, including merging the districts held by Khan and Balser and reshaping Koutoujian’s district, the person said.

Asked in a State House elevator yesterday whether he could assure the public that he had been truthful in his sworn testimony, Finneran told a reporter he would not comment and referred to Hoopes’s statement.

‘‘I am just going to leave it at that, for now,’’ Finneran said.

Representative Thomas M. Petrolati, House chairman of the Redistricting Committee, who said Wednesday he had no knowledge of the investigation, also referred questions to Hoopes yesterday.

A senior legislative source who spoke to the Globe Wednesday said that the subpoena asked for documents that would contradict statements made during the federal lawsuit. The suit was brought by voting rights groups who alleged that House lawmakers had diluted minority voters’ strengths in their redistricting plan. In response to the lawsuit, on Feb. 24 a three-judge panel ordered the House to redraw its map and questioned the credibility of statements Finneran gave in depositions and testimony during the trial.

‘‘Although Speaker Finneran denied any involvement in the redistricting process, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the opposite conclusion,’’ they wrote in a footnote to their ruling.

The judges noted that Finneran had chosen the committee and its chairman and had ensured that the panel hire his boyhood friend, Boston lawyer Lawrence DiCara, a redistricting specialist, as its ‘‘principal functionary.’’ The judges also noted that Finneran’s then-counsel, John Stefanini, had the software that was used in the redistricting installed on the computer in Stefanini’s office.

The speaker, a Mattapan Democrat, is known for his topdown style, and rarely does anything happen in the House without his knowledge and consent. Drawing legislative seats is among the most important political matters that the House considers, because the reshaping can affect the careers of incumbents.

The judges’ unusual comment prompted Common Cause Massachusetts last month to ask federal prosecutors to investigate whether Finneran lied under oath during the trial. Pam Wilmot, Common Cause executive director, has volunteered to the US attorney’s office a list of lawmakers who she said could provide evidence contradicting Finneran’s sworn statements that he was not involved in the process.

The decision to hire Hoopes will add a hefty bill to the nearly $3 million it has cost taxpayers to draw and defend in court the House redistricting plan, completed in 2001. Nearly $600,000 went to DiCara’s firm, Nixon Peabody, for the work that he performed.

DiCara’s role in the federal investigation is unclear. As a lawyer, he could potentially invoke the attorney/client privilege, blocking the ability of the prosecutors to get him to testify about the details of the redistricting process, some legal analysts suggested yesterday.

DiCara, who told the Globe earlier this week that he was aware of the federal request for documents, was not available for comment yesterday.

The grand jury subpoena was sent March 10 to Petrolati’s office.

The legal dispute surrounding the redistricting plan has injected confusion into this year’s legislative elections, especially in Boston, because candidates are unsure what the district boundaries will be. Governor Mitt Romney yesterday signed a bill giving candidates until May 11, two weeks more weeks, to collect signatures to run for the House.

The judges have scheduled a hearing for today to consider six plans drawn up by the plaintiffs and House leaders.