Defense lawyers fight anticrime bill

Police and prosecutors have been lobbying on Beacon Hill for a sweeping new measure to protect witnesses from intimidation, which they call a top priority as they struggle to persuade residents in high-crime areas to testify against those accused of a crime.

But with the House set to take up the measure next week, defense lawyers are mounting an aggressive effort to make significant changes in the bill, , saying the zeal to crack down on violent crime threatens the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.

The defense attorneys have been lobbying lawmakers to amend or eliminate a number of provisions in the bill, some of which, they say, are overly favorable to prosecutors who are dealing with criminal cases.

The legislation would, for example, allow judges to prevent defense lawyers from giving copies of witnesses' grand jury testimony to a defendant accused of a violent crime if there is ''a reason to believe" he or she poses a threat to a witness or victim.

Defense lawyers say defendants must have access to such testimony to mount an effective defense.

Another provision opposed by defense lawyers would make it easier to bring perjury charges.

Prosecutors say witnesses are sometimes pressured to change stories after giving a truthful account to the grand jury, which meets behind closed doors, and the perjury law needs to be toughened to discourage them from doing so.

''The recent violence in the city of Boston is of major concern, but we have tough laws on the books already," said Anne Goldbach, president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

''We shouldn't go about solving the current problem by stripping a defendant of his or her constitutional rights," Goldbach said.

The debate has arisen as Boston struggles with its highest homicide toll in a decade. And as police are not making arrests in two-thirds of the homicide cases, residents in some neighborhoods say they worry that if they cooperate with police after a crime occurs, they might be killed. Some say they have received threatening telephone calls or other menacing messages from those engaged in violence, promising harm to them or their families if they testify in court.

Lawmakers, police, district attorneys, and community leaders are under immense pressure to respond. The bill unanimously passed the Senate last fall.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has promised that the House will debate the bill next week. But it is unclear what form it will take when it reaches the floor for a vote or what its chances are.

DiMasi has stopped short of publicly endorsing the version passed by the Senate, and some lawmakers say privately that they expect the language will differ significantly from what the Senate passed.

DiMasi was not available for comment yesterday, said spokeswoman, Kimberly Haberlin. While defendants' rights have to be part of the discussion, Haberlin said, ''at the end of the day to increase public safety is the speaker's priority."

The bill would also establish a state witness-protection program, create incentives for youths not to join gangs, and toughen penalties for gun crimes. A separate provision, which provides $11 million in gang-prevention funding, has already been signed into law.

While supporters say the bill is an essential tool for law enforcement, defense attorneys have made their misgivings known in e-mails and personal meetings with House leaders. The state's public defender agency, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, has also sent a letter to DiMasi outlining their concerns.

Anthony Benedetti, general counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, expressed concern about the provision that restricts access to grand jury testimony. Proponents of the bill say the testimony has been used to threaten witnesses; in one case a witness to a gang shooting found his testimony taped to all the doors of the Franklin Hill housing project where he lived.

But Benedetti and other defense lawyers say that making it harder for defendants to review testimony against them denies them their right to a fair trial.

''You can't defend a case without going over grand jury testimony with a defendant," said Charles W. Rankin, a Boston defense lawyer. .

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has also expressed opposition to some aspects of the bill, including the proposed change to the perjury standard. This would require prosecutors simply to show inconsistencies in a witness's accounts, rather than an intent to deceive.

Ann Lambert, a lawyer with the ACLU, said that the proposed standard is too low and that she fears it ''provides the Commonwealth with what could be tools that could be really misused."

Proponents of the legislation are stepping up their own lobbying. This week, representatives from community groups and the state's district attorneys are meeting with DiMasi at the State House to urge its passage. Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston has also spoken with the speaker and urged action on the bill.

Stephen R. Canessa, a freshman Democrat from New Bedford who sponsored the legislation with Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat, said he was optimistic.

''The sense that I'm getting is that it's one of those bills that is going to be tough to vote against," Canessa said. ''How can you say you don't want to have an impact on gang violence?"

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.