Mass. SJC allows journalist access to Harmony Montgomery audio records
A New England journalist working on a documentary that addresses how Harmony Montgomery's father was granted custody of his daughter before he killed her in 2019 has been allowed access to audio recordings of the custody hearing.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted journalist Bill Lichtenstein, of LC Media, access to the audio of these hearings from February 2019, according to court records.
Lichtenstein requested those recordings for use in a documentary about the child welfare and foster care systems, according to a statement from Lichtenstein and his attorney obtained by MassLive.
Set to release later this year, the film, 'Broken,' follows a two-year investigative journey led by journalist Brooke Lewitas, who began the investigation while a graduate student at Boston University.
'Releasing these recordings to the journalist for purposes of the documentary he proposes may help to better inform the public both about what happened to this child specifically and whether there are steps the child welfare system generally can take to minimize the possibility of repeating this tragedy,' court documents read.
The audio recording of the hearing was held in Essex Juvenile Court, where proceedings are shielded from the public. Lichtenstein sought access to a recording of the hearing because the public interest in the case was so great that it superseded the privacy protections in place in the court.
But a lower court judge denied his motion, prompting an appeal from Lichtenstein. The Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, took up Lichtenstein's appeal sua sponte, or of its own accord.
Typically, the case would have been first heard by the state's Appeals Court.
Lichtenstein previously attempted to get access to four other protection proceedings between 2014 and 2019 before he narrowed his request to when Adam Montgomery was awarded custody of his then 4-year-old daughter.
'The February 2019 hearings focused on the father's fitness as a parent,' according to the court's order. 'The father has asserted no privacy interest in the February 2019 hearings. The child's counsel took no position on the release; instead, the child's counsel has emphasized that the child's dignity and privacy deserve continued respect.'
Under the Supreme Judicial Court's decision, the names of Adam Montgomery's other young children, who have been publicly named elsewhere, are to be redacted.
The conditions under which Lichtenstein will be allowed access to the audio include only being allowed to use the recordings for his documentary.
'Second, even after the release of the documentary, the journalist may not release any portion of the redacted recordings other than those portions actually published in the documentary,' the decision reads.
Lichtenstein's lawyer, Jennifer Lamanna, applauded the court's 'courageous recognition of the fact that, now, more than ever, the public's right to know must take precedence over the government's desire to operate in secrecy, especially when the safety of our most vulnerable citizens is at stake,' Lichtenstein's statement reads.
The Department of Children and Families took custody of Harmony Montgomery in August 2014, a few months after she was born, due to her mother's substance abuse issues, MassLive previously reported.
At the time of her birth, Adam Montgomery was incarcerated.
A judge placed Harmony Montgomery in the custody of her father in February 2019 after years of supervised visits, but over the objections of an attorney representing the Department of Children and Families. The 5-year-old died 10 months later.
Adam Montgomery was convicted last year of killing his daughter. He was sentenced to 45 years to life for her murder last year.
Search for Harmony Montgomery presses on a year after father's conviction
Mass. SJC hears arguments on release of Harmony Montgomery records
Harmony Montgomery's mother leads search for daughter's body, reports say
Harmony Montgomery's mother files wrongful death lawsuit against N.H.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Newton judge contests her role after man evaded ICE capture at court
A district court judge from Massachusetts appeared in a disciplinary hearing on Monday after a Dominican man eluded Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in her courthouse in 2018. Judge Shelley Joseph appeared for her hearing at 10 a.m. on Monday in the Suffolk County Courthouse, before the Commission for Judicial Conduct and a hearing officer appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court, attorney Denis McInerney. The hearing will determine whether she can remain a judge. She has been accused of helping Jose Medina-Perez, a man subject to an immigration detainer, avoid capture in April 2018 by allowing him to slip through the back door of the Newton District Courthouse where he was on trial. Medina-Perez had been charged with being a fugitive from justice based on a warrant issued in a case in Pennsylvania, and two misdemeanor counts of controlled substance violations. Joseph was indicted in 2019 on charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of a federal proceeding and perjury. A major flashpoint of the case against Joseph is what was said in a 52-second, off-the-record conversation in the courtroom that April day between her and Medina-Perez's attorney, David Jellenik. Joseph has maintained her innocence and alleged that Jellinek falsely implicated her to obtain immunity for himself, which he was officially granted in 2019 after speaking with federal authorities about the 52-second sidebar chat. The indictment against Joseph was filed while Andrew Lelling, a Trump appointee, served as U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts. However, the charges were dismissed in 2022 under Rachael Rollins, a Biden appointee, after Joseph attested to a statement of relevant facts and agreed to refer herself to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Since then, the commission filed its charges against Joseph to kick off a process that began with Monday's hearing. The appointed hearing officer, McInerney, will issue a report with proposed findings and recommendations within 30 days of the hearing. In the Boston courtroom on Monday, Joseph's attorney, Elizabeth Mulvey, emphasized misconceptions around her client's role in Medina-Perez leaving the courthouse. 'If you were to walk down the street and take a survey of the people you meet, 100% of them would tell you Judge Joseph let an illegal immigrant out the back door of the district court,' Mulvey said. '50% of them would tell you that she's a criminal, and she should go to jail. 50% would tell you she's a folk hero for what she gave. But 100% would tell you she did it,' Mulvey said. The case has become such a part of 'local lore' in Boston that media outlets have 'dropped the niceties of alleged or charged,' she said. 'They report and make references to this incident as if a dozen people had seen Judge Joseph get off the bench, escorted the defendant to the door, gave him a hug and wished him Godspeed,' she said. In reality, it was Jellenik who was the 'mastermind' and came to Joseph with the plan to take his client out a back door, she said. Conversely, Judith Fabricant, a retired judge, presented a methodical opening statement and said the case is 'about the integrity, impartiality and independence of American justice.' Fabricant argued on behalf of the commission. Her argument on Joseph's judicial misconduct was based on that 52-second period of off-record conversation between Joseph and Jellenik in the Newton courtroom on April 2, 2018. Fabricant said the two discussed the presence of ICE in the courthouse that day and how Medina-Perez could exit the building without coming into contact with the agents. 'Judge Joseph conducted an unrecorded discussion with counsel in violation of district court ... so far, these facts are undisputed,' Fabricant said. 'What happened in those 52 seconds when they weren't recording?' she asked before relaying a timeline of Medina-Perez's escape. Joseph was the only judge sitting in Newton District Court on that day in April — the first time in her relatively short tenure as the only judge in a courthouse, according to the commission. That day, Joseph oversaw Medina-Perez's arraignment. When the case was first called, Joseph appointed a public defender for the case. The prosecutor told Joseph she was asking for Medina-Perez to be held without bail on a charge, and the case was recessed. After the first call — but before the case was called for the final time that day — Joseph learned there were ICE agents at the courthouse with a civil detainer, giving them permission to detain Medina-Perez if he were to be released from custody in Massachusetts. While the case was recessed, Joseph told the session clerk to tell the ICE agent to wait outside the courthouse or on the first floor of the building, consistent with the court's policy. During the recess, Medina-Perez retained a private lawyer. By the time the final hearing began, the commission writes, the lawyer had formulated a plan with the court officer to permit Medina-Perez to avoid ICE. The Commission for Judicial Conduct formally accused Joseph of 'willful judicial misconduct' and conduct 'prejudicial to the administration of justice.' Although it remains unclear as of Monday afternoon when the disciplinary proceedings will conclude, McInerney will issue a report within 30 days of it ending. Mass. weather: Central Mass. could see over 1 inch of rain on Tuesday Some Nantucket short-term rentals in jeopardy after land court decision Criminal defendants are being held without lawyers in Mass. as bar advocates refuse new cases Big Y plans changes to its Tower Square store Mass. labor groups rally against ICE arrest of California union leader Read the original article on MassLive.
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. lets criminals go, ICE arrests innocent people. They both need to change.
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Cases like Lopez's show that sometimes, federal authorities have a legitimate gripe with the state's progressive policies. Because of a 2017 Supreme Judicial Court decision, there are instances when the state releases dangerous criminals instead of handing them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Advertisement But the Trump administration is also overstating how much Massachusetts' policies, as bad as they can be, are to blame for its mounting arrests of noncriminals. Both sides need to give a little bit: Massachusetts should be willing to help in cases where ICE wants to arrest a convicted criminal like Lopez. The federal government has the right to deport people who are in this country illegally, and the state should help when it comes to violent criminals. Advertisement What the federal government doesn't have the right to do is compel local law enforcement to go after law-abiding, peaceable immigrants — whether they're here illegally or not. And it shouldn't be targeting noncriminals, either — or using local sanctuary policies as a pretext for the recent arrests of people with no criminal records. Over the past month, ICE has arrested 'If sanctuary cities would change their policies and turn these violent criminal aliens over to us into our custody instead of releasing them into the public, we would not have to go out to the communities and do this,' Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said during an ICE The state's policies date to 2017, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Lunn v. Commonwealth that the Legislature would have to specifically authorize court officers to honor requests from immigration authorities to hold deportable immigrants. So far, the Democratic-led Legislature has not done so, and it passed up different bills that would allow law enforcement to cooperate on detainers for immigrants who are here illegally and have committed heinous crimes. Inaction on Lunn has drawn scrutiny from conservatives and even a member of Healey's Cabinet. For Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, for example, law enforcement's inability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities means that some criminal migrants can be released back into the community. 'Right now, there's no ability to notify ICE and hold that person for [ICE] to make a determination whether they wish to take them into custody and then provide them the due process that they get in the federal system,' he told me. Advertisement Meanwhile, Healey's secretary of Public Safety and Security, Terrence Reidy, has In a statement, Healey's office said it does cooperate with ICE to some extent, such as by notifying ICE when a criminal in state custody is scheduled to be released. But that leaves loopholes for cases like Lopez's, which result in ICE having to rearrest a criminal. There were no collateral arrests when ICE tracked down Lopez because they were banned under the Biden administration — but there could be if a similar arrest were made now. Still, the Trump administration is exaggerating the connection between sanctuary policies and collateral arrests. Cases where criminals like Lopez were released in spite of detainers may have fueled some collateral arrests in the past month. But the Department of Homeland Security has failed to give a detailed breakdown so it's hard to know just how many. In a Advertisement Meanwhile, some of ICE's higher profile examples of collateral arrest seem to have nothing to do with Lunn. Like the case of the 18-year-old Milford student, Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was arrested on his way to volleyball practice in an operation meant for his father. He was But so far there It isn't crazy for the Trump administration to criticize Massachusetts policies that can and have allowed convicted criminal migrants to be released into the community. In fact, most Americans would agree — a recent University of Massachusetts Amherst But that poll also found that most people Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
Wall Street Journal
31-05-2025
- Wall Street Journal
All $2.7 Million Worth of Luxury Goods Jon Hamm Steals on ‘Your Friends & Neighbors'
In 'Your Friends & Neighbors,' Jon Hamm plays a rich guy who remedies a bruising fall in status by robbing the other rich people in his neighborhood. His haul includes cash, a Birkin bag, a Roy Lichtenstein painting and watches that cost as much as luxury cars. As a showcase for specific trappings of wealth, the show gets to have it both ways: It satirizes the quest for evermore, ever-nicer stuff in the privileged class. It also gives viewers some extremely fancy goods to ogle and even covet for themselves.
