Greater Boston; Preemie Baby, Middlesex Da Race

would be a lot better life. You Good evening. We've got the

story of a medical miracle tonight. A baby girl at born at just 25 weeks weighing just 14 ounces. Nine months later, she's here, along with her mother and doctor tonight. But first, middle sex district attorney Tom Riley is running for attorney general, which means that coveted DA position is open, and the three Democratic contenders are here with us tonight. Martha Cochley, who was an assistant middle sex county DA and chief of the Child Abuse Protection program, Tim Flarity, a former Norfolk County assistant DA and member of the Norfolk homicide response team, and Michael Sullivan, a Cambridge City counselor and former middle sex county assistant DA. Welcome to all of you. Thank you. I got to thinking about this this afternoon. Should DA be an elected office? Well, I think the politics of being a district attorney are difficult because the primary responsibility is the professional prosecution and whenever politics become involved in a prosecutorial discretion, prosecutorial decision, that's

wrong. I think many people believe that the district attorney is in a point of position and not certain that we're running for office. And there is some merit to that to that stance, but it's a system that we have and we're all standing ready to campaign for this elective. Martha, what if you're a great prosecutor and allows you politician? You have to be both. It's better to know. I know in some states we're sort of between judges and politicians. Some states elect their judges, which I think is a bad idea. And of course, we agree that our legislators should be elected. And ultimately, I think the DA is responsible to people who vote. And so it is the tough part. You need the experience. You need to develop, you know, you can't trust be a politician to do this. You need the experience as the district attorney, assistant district attorney, I think. How do you distinguish yourself, Michael? I mean, it's not a campaign where you raise a lot of money. It's very narrow. There's a whole bunch of DAs. How do you distinguish yourself? I think that, in terms of my two colleagues to my left, all three of us had the opportunity to serve as assistant DAs, or in my case, assistant DA and assistant attorney general.

But I've had the opportunity in the last four and a half years also to be out in the community. And as to an elected official, knowing that it's important to bridge those gaps between our institutions and the community, so I don't think it's so bad that the office is elected. I think the difficulty becomes it's when those that make it political and the office should not be political. We think of DA, we most closely associate it with high -profile crime, but that's not necessarily the case. What are some of the other things that would be important to you as DA? If you're not involved in a high -profile crime at the time. Well, I think it's important for any person when they decide who they're going to elect as a next district attorney. They have to look with the person in terms of what the professional experience has been as a prosecutor. From myself personally, I've tried an excess of a hundred cases to a jury verdict. I've been to crime scenes and literally stepped over bodies of crime victims. Being careful not to damage any of the forensic evidence or step in the blood splatterings. I've met with victims of crimes at detective bureaus late at night. But because I'm saying, you know, the

high -profile crimes are too and far between luckily now. What else is it that I think DA really has their hand on? The vote is judge the performance of district attorney's offices on the high -profile cases. For whatever the value of that is, that's the way vote is judge the performance of district attorney's offices. The meat of the office is conducted in district courts. There are several thousand cases which come into the pipe line and the criminal justice system throughout Massachusetts in Middlesex County and all the counties. So what I think a district attorney as a chief law enforcement officer must do is protect the people of Middlesex County and ensure the professional prosecution involve these cases. A district attorney has to lead and guide the staff to prepare and present winning cases. Because that's what's about. It's about winning cases. There's another part of all this and this office has been very fortunate in terms of hiring the best possible people. And it's been that way through three administrations. I don't see it changing under the any of the three of us. But there's another

part which is being proactive from Scott Hoshbar to took this office to new levels. And Ted spent four and a half years working for him there in three years at the attorney general's office. And knowing that there's things you can do with the office. If you sit back and just say it's about professional prosecution, fine, that's one function. Don't get me wrong. That's a function of the office. But if you're really going to have an effect on something, it means doing new programs. It means under Tom Riley Hoshbar. Gilling what? I guess that's what I'm getting at. Riley and Hoshbar go both into the school systems for the first time in being proactive. And we know in recent time that in this past generation, new violence is doubled. We know again that if we don't do something by the year 2010, we'll double again. And that's a terrible legacy to leave to the next generation. But that's the kind of stuff that we've been doing in middle sex where we have programs like Project Alliance with the schools to teach them about mandated reporting. So teachers know when kids show symptoms of child abuse. When there are students in the classroom whose behavior indicates they may be a risk to them, sons or others, let's get the police and everybody into intervene before it's too late. That's the day in and day out stuff that is in glamorous that doesn't get people's attention. But that in prevention and domestic violence and other things are really what the DA's office is about. But

how much of the DA's? And I know you have to be careful about what you're saying. The position really is political. High profile cases like Woodward or Eddie O 'Brien. Eddie O 'Brien gets charged as a juvenile. I mean, as an adult and he's only 16 years old. Louise Woodward gets charged with first degree murder. Was there politics in your opinion on that, Tim? Well, I don't know. I wasn't in the office. And I think everybody has a difference in opinions about the O 'Brien case. Would you have done anything differently in your case? Yeah, I think there were things that I would do differently. Mike, what? Well, the first thing I do is I lead the argument for removing cameras from the courtroom. I think it's a principle, well known principle of sociology. When a thing is observed, it acts differently. And I think that was born out in both cases and the O 'Brien case and the Woodward case. You feel that way about all cameras? Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely. I don't think cameras have any place in the courtroom. That's dramatic. And as a district attorney in Middlesex County, I would lead the charge to remove cameras from the courtroom. What about the argument that the public has a right to what needs to do? They can have no print media present that don't get the field of process. Oh, you're going to let the newsprint go in, but not the can.

Absolutely. I think that's a proper medium. Wait a minute. And people don't get the information out. I disagree. In terms of I don't necessarily think it's the cameras in the courtroom that play out in terms of sensationalization. It is the sort of afterthought of commentators in terms of whether it be some of our former colleagues that were appearing on nightly news as they were all hired to do so. But after the fact. But after the fact. I mean, I think that, you know, one thing about the Woodward case, which was in England, there's no glimpse of the inside of how justice works. In this country, it's a very open process. The courtroom doors are open and there's nothing to hide. And I think that's something to be very proud of in our system. And I wouldn't be taking out cameras. Maybe it's just some leave, some governance in terms of how we react beyond that. And maybe some controls that we can do. But it doesn't make a good point. And let me just ask Martha. But do you think that cameras in the courtroom have a place and be have any effect on the outcome of a case? I think that's the judges' question in each case. Is the camera in a particular case going to infect the integrity of the decision that is

made by the jury, which is what we worry about? Is the jury's decision somehow going to be impaired? And there are cases where with the juvenile victim you may not want them. With you have a organized crime defendant and you're concerned about witnesses who may not testify because they're afraid. But I think in general, the public has a right to know what happens in our court. But what about the grandstanding of maybe the trial attorneys or some of the witnesses that are maybe even going overboard and overcharging a case or making... But hold on, because the decision on charging, whether it was O 'Brien or Woodward, is made well before there's any determination about whether a case would even be a TV case. Those are decisions and that's why your question about whether the DA's office is political. You know, for the federal government, for other kinds of Ken Stark kinds of investigations, you have politics. But we have dead babies. We have dead neighbors. We have rape victims. We respond to the facts of those cases and we present that to a jury. If it gets politicized, small p or big p down the line, that's different.

From saying the DA's actions and what he charges are political in the first instance. I think the one thing about the DA's office is that we look at the crime, not at who the defendant is. We don't target people, we target crimes. Well, I think it can't be overstated that when cameras are in the courtroom, witnesses act differently, lawyers act differently, judges act differently. To say that it doesn't affect the impartiality of the proceedings, I think, is just a thought. Are you by any chance using OJ as a measure as well? Absolutely. We look at the OJ case, we look at the Menendez case, we look at the Woodward case, we look at the results of these cases, and to say that all cameras in court were convicted. Well, of course, second time around. But it becomes a media circus. This is not an entertainment vehicle. These are real people with real tragedies and real lives. And I'm of the position from my experiences as court lawyer that this is a sanctum. This is something that is so important to our society that cameras have no place there. That the process of searching

for the truth that we go through in our system, the criminal justice, is so important and is so sacred that we can't allow anything to it. Michael, when you're in a courtroom, are you aware, I mean, it's usually a single camera, it's hidden, there's not a lot of... I'm doing my job. I'm in the courtroom and I have no concept of who's behind me, who's watching. I mean, when you're on trial, you're on overload. I mean, you really, you sleep it, you live it, and you're working. You don't notice what's going around you, and that includes the cameras. I mean, it's an intense situation to be in a courtroom during a trial and to be paying attention. You have to be alert whether you're asking the questions, whether you're listening, and you have to be alert. You don't have the time to sort of little nuances as to whether you're at a good angle for the camera. I mean, there are those people that do that. But there's a way to control all this in terms of whether it be as a profession by ourselves, whether it be from the bench, and I think there's a way to do that. Would you go so far as to petition the SJC to basically move the right? Absolutely. I wouldn't every single case. I think it interferes with the pursuit

of finding justice and searching for facts in a case. I think it interferes with witnesses' testifying. I think it interferes with the jury's observation. The jury's job is to assess a witness when they testify. Not just by what they say, but how they act when they say it. To assess their credibility by a number of factors. And it is a simple rule of sociology that a thing once observed acts differently. What about the Senate or the Congress? Well, I... There is no Congress. On the Senate, obviously. Well, it's clear that there is grandstanding whenever there are cameras present. If a person has an opportunity to grandstand before a camera, I think it happens. And to say otherwise, I think is not thoughtful and is really not being honest. But jurors don't watch this on TV. jurors are sequestered. They're told not to watch it. I believe generally they do that. And, you know, there's a documentary about a lion tamer who's asked about the people in the ring. And he says, when I'm in that ring, I don't pay attention. It's me and the lion. That's what it's like when you're in trial and you're trying... I think lawyers and judges behave better when they think people are watching them. I think they're more prepared. I think our Supreme Judicial

Court was better prepared with better questions. Because they knew that was going to be televised. I think the public has a better insight as to how these things work. Otherwise, they think that it's law and order or it's LA law. And that's not the way courtrooms work. Courts are long and boring. And, you know, Michael mentioned that sometimes you get reported in between on TV. But what's wrong with letting people see what happens in a courtroom? And the other part to us, I think, that I don't necessarily know if it's a good example to look at either the House or the Senate or the United States Congress. Because in all due difference to those callings that are elected at that level, there's a times as pandering. And I think the job... Well, it's also pandering to constituencies. Anyway, I want to move on to a couple of things. Death penalty. Where do you all stand on that, Michael? I'm opposed to it. Period. Okay, Mike. Martha? I'm opposed to it with two exceptions. When first degree murder is committed, when a law enforcement officer is in the line of duty. The second exception when someone is serving life for first degree murder and commits murder. So basically you're for it. No, you think the state should have some form of a death penalty. I think in those two instances, which are fairly few and far

between, it can act as a deterrent. Because in general, I don't think it is a deterrent. I think we spend too much time and energy and we can never apply it fairly. But when someone kills someone in a uniform, it's an obstruction of justice. And I think that in those instances, it's an additional deterrent. That's a distinguishment between Martha and I. I'm opposed to capital punishment. I don't think government should be in the business of killing people. I just think it's wrong. It's wrong in principle. It doesn't work as a deterrent. It's a human system. There are errors in our system. And I think it's just wrong to be an advocate for capital punishment under any circumstances. There is, there cannot be a select group that is subject to capital punishment. As far as I'm concerned, you're either for it or against it and I'm against it. Okay. Guns. Every time one of these horrible incidents happens with kids in schools, there's a new push to either put on safety locks or come up with new gun control laws. Should we be in the business of trying to disarm our citizens? We should be in the,

in the past seven or I think it's seven months, we've had six school yard shootings or eight months. We should be in the business of making sure that if firearms are kept there kept safely. I don't think anyone's going to argue with that in terms of one's responsibility as an owner. And that includes putting gun locks or making sure they're locked away safely. I was at a gun shop in Malibur last week as I was working Main Street. And the owner told me he doesn't allow fake guns in his house. He's never given a fake gun to his kid and saying this is not a toy and this is a real weapon. It can kill someone. But this is not something that we should just, as a society, we just let toy guns go along. But when we've had six school yard shootings across this country, people should take responsibility for the firearms they own. That not just including gun locks, but also including that they're stored safely. The people are appropriately trained in their use and take responsibility for what you own. Because I was looking at the statistics on what kills most young people today. And of course, it's car accidents followed by drownings and gun deaths was weighed down. But do you think we overreact at times, Martha? Well, whenever you have a horrible tragedy like that, you have to ask, how did this happen? How can we prevent it next time? Kids, there's no excuse for kids having guns.

The harder problem is how do you ensure that? Because we're not parents on them. The parents own them or their friends get them to them or they find them on the street. And so you have to have a comprehensive program. A, to keep guns away from kids, but also to identify and help kids out who are likely to use a gun. And that's more complicated in the second part. Guns in schools, I think, is probably the most pressing issue of our time. If it means putting metal detectors at the front of every schoolhouse in Middlesex County, I'd be in favor of that. If it means putting state police detectives at the front door of every schoolhouse in Middlesex County to ensure that students have a safe place to learn, I'd be in favor of that. I'm in favor of the assault weapons being. I'm in favor of triggerlocks. I'm in favor of making a felony if a person feels to employ whatever mechanism is required by law to make their guns safe. I think these are preventable tragedies. And we've seen it across, across our country in the last six months. And if I am elected district attorney, I would make that a paramount point of the first 60 days that I'm in office to ensure that every single school is safe. Last issue, the sexual offenders registry. Is this something we should have? And should it work that

neighbors should be notified if there were one? Martha. We should have one. I think the one that's in effect obviously had constitutional flaws. That's why it's not working very well. But we know from sex offenders that they don't get cured. And the only way we can keep people safe is if people know about them. And should your neighbors know? Well, if they do the classification appropriately, someone who's a sexual predator, I think neighbors should be aware of it. Without a doubt, we should have it. And also we should make sure that it's appropriate. And it's also funded. A particular incident happened in my own city, which was we have a summer program going in which people are going to be interacting with kids. And the response was, we're not requesting them because by the time we get the results back, the summer is over. Now, it reported in the paper the other day, which was, this still isn't in place so that when we have school bus drivers or anyone dealing with kids coming September, normal have the response back as to whether your kid can be safe with regard to a background check having been done. It's a simple thing to do. Absolutely. It has a purpose and it does have a role. It needs to be revisited because it's not working properly right now. The Commonwealth versus John Doe case. The check, the minute is too wide. I think it was a flash.

Open grows offenses. And then that, that Doe process requires the defendants are allowed to contest in court, bogged down our court time, keeps prosecutors from putting violent career criminals in prison, takes away from my time in court. So can it be streamlined better? Yes, it can be. Does it have a role in society? Absolutely. People do have a right to know. There's a balancing interest that falls in favor of victims to protect society against sex predators. And otherwise we're going to have repeat sex crimes. But why don't we do that? If we can't somehow give information out in a rapid time, it's unbelievable. And also to interact between jurisdictions. I mean one jurisdiction has no idea what the other has. And as DA I would look to build groups and a task force that would work amongst the communities and between the communities. Okay, by the way, is there a Republican running in this? Yes. I haven't heard about it, but if he is, you better watch out. You better watch out. This is a tough bunch. You're a good luck to all of you. Thank

you. Great to have you here. Good luck to all of you in September. And when we return, a medical miracle and her mother. Shaniqua Leatherwood was born last October 30th at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Her mother was told she wouldn't live. And at two months, Shaniqua stopped breathing because of her narrow breathing passages. But at Tracheostomy and other light support services have saved the baby, who now weighs over nine pounds and was released from the hospital yesterday. Shaniqua Leatherwood is here tonight, along with her mother, Gwendolyn Leatherwood, and her doctor, Tony Dodeck, director of pediatrics at the Franciscans Children's Hospital. Welcome. And I'm told not to be worried about the fact that the baby is breathing. And we can all hear the

sound. Is she basically breathing through that tooth through her throat? And how soon and how many do you think the force is going to be able to breathe on her own through her nose and mouth? We evaluated her airway a couple weeks ago in preparation of sending her home. And it was determined at that time that it's still narrow. And in another month, we'll take another look to see if it's grown enough that we might be able to take the artificial airway out. It will probably be a few months before that we're able to remove that. Gwendolyn, what has this been like to you for you? The baby was born at 14 ounces. You were told she might not make it. It's been nine months. What's it been like day in and day out, having her at the hospital? Hard. Very hard. Have you worked while she's there? Just a year or so. No, I just don't think we're here for $25. Little money change, braiding, high indexes. You gave me these things and I have to just show people. This is an outfit. As you can see, I can hold it in my hand.

And this is a coat can. This is 12 ounces. And she weighed only two ounces more than that when born. Did the doctors tell you why she was born so prematurely? No, not really. It was a kind of preclampsia when the... As a condition called preclampsia, the major component of that is high blood pressure for the mother, which decreases the blood flow to the fetus. And I think when it was being monitored very closely, because she'd had a premature child prior to Shaniqua. And at one point it was determined that Shaniqua was in some distress. So, emergently, she was delivered by Cicerian Section. Go and Lynn, I'm sure you discuss this with your doctors, but this ethical question of what to do when a baby is born so young, knowing that she could have a lot of problems when she grows up. Did the doctors ever suggest you that maybe they should let her pass through? Yes, they said that she wasn't going to make it. But when they put her on

life support, did they suggest that maybe it might be the humane thing to do to let her pass naturally? No, they just... No, they didn't. They asked me if I wanted them to stay for one after they do the C -section. And I told them yes. How do doctors make that call? This is a very difficult decision to make. And I think many physicians have their own criteria. Shaniqua was born at 25 -weeks gestation, which most babies will do fairly well now. However, she was very underweight for her gestational age. And I'm sure that weighed in the minds of the physicians who were caring for her. She's never remarkably well. And what about, again, the issue of medical costs, about saving so many premature babies? Do the doctors do what they can? Well, I don't say whatever costs. Most physicians won't do anything at

any cost. They'll do what's reasonable, regardless of the cost. And I think in Shaniqua's case, even though she was so underweight and so premature, she was doing fairly well for a while, and she got sick and stabilized again. It's a different question. I mean, it's a question that society at large probably will have to answer at some point. And some countries have started to do that. And I'm not sure in this country we've really addressed it yet. At what point will you know, and I suppose to you, what her future will hold, whether she'll be mentally, completely developed physically, eyesight, oftentimes premature babies have problems with their eyesight, intellectual, slow development. At what point do you hope to know, Tony? That's another difficult question to answer. As she gets older, it becomes easier. Right now, it's just predicting the future. There are several things working in her favor. We know that her brain structure itself is normal. She's had a skin of her brain. She hasn't had any major insults to her brain. We know she

doesn't have any seizures. The eye doctor is following her. There's a condition called retinopathy, a prematurely, that newborns developed. Shinneke was actually resolving at this point. So her eyesight may do fairly well. In terms of overall development, I'm hopeful, guarded, but hopeful. I think in four or five years, we might see her visiting her hospital, running up and down the halls. Gwenlland, you have another son. You have a son who's six, is that right? Yeah. And he was born prematurely also. And what happened with him? He had her back. What the hell is this? What did I say? What is it? Hypoxia. Yeah, and then he had a bleed in the brain. Uh -huh. But is he fine now as well? Yeah. He's been around and playing. He's doing good. When your doctor was telling me one of the benefits of this, that there is such a thing, is that the baby can't cry. So there's no noise coming in. And by the way, what is the difference between a tracheonomy and a tracheostomy? The tracheostomy is the whole itself. So it's really the same thing? Basically, yes. Uh -huh. And what

about feeding? What can she eat and how does that work? It looks through here. So it's a stomach tube. And what kinds of things are you able to give her? Medicine. Uh -uh. I feel like she was sailing water. Not after I feed her. Uh -uh. And her food. What kinds of foods? She gives a specialized infant formula, which she'll receive until she's a little bit older. And then probably another specialized formula that will be appropriate for her age. Uh -huh. And there are therapists who will be working with her, trying to teach her how to eat in the coming months. And as she develops those skills, then we'll start to feed her by mouth. But it may be a while before she's able to do that. This baby is nine pounds and nine months. A lot of babies are born really at that weight. Is there historically records to show that kids born that little eventually end up catching up? Or will she probably not? There aren't many

babies who fit in Shinikwa's category, being that small at birth. Um, many other premature children, who aren't as small as Shinikwa, do catch up. And many of them by their second birthday. But there really aren't a lot of children who are this little that I can quote you statistics on. Uh -huh. Tell me too about your, is your specialty in children that are born severely premature? I'm not a neonatologist. I'm a general pediatrician. But working at Franciscan Children's Hospital, we specialize in taking care of children just like Shinikwa. We usually receive them when they're in the sub -acute phase of their illness. So they no longer need intensive care, but they're still not ready to go to a regular hospital ward or to go home. So we're used to taking care of children who have these tracheostomies, the feeding tubes, and a variety of complex problems. Do you feel completely comfortable with her now? Does it make you nervous? You've got a nurse who sleeps with her at night, is that right? Yes. And are you nervous about taking care of her? Why not? Excited.

Excited? My baby, yeah. But the breathing and the feeding, you're comfortable with all this machinery? Yes, because I know the monitors. I know the number is when she's in stress. I know the weight she's going to look when she's in stress. So you feel comfortable that you know what you're doing? Exactly. I did, and I would not brought her home. And are you there then during the day with her? Yes, I don't go any way. That's just incredible. Gwen did a lot of hard work learning the care for Shinikwa. It took weeks, and the nurses work with her very diligently. And she picked it right up. And how often does she have to come back now to your... Well, her primary care pediatrician is one of our staff members, Dr. Stavitsky. And she'll be seeing Shinikwa again in a couple of weeks and monitoring her progress very closely with the other subspecialists. Okay, well, we'll stay up with you, too, and see how you do. And hopefully in a year or so, she'll come here and sit on the set with us and chat us up. All right? Going to Lynn, good luck to you. Dr.

Tony Dodeck, thank you for being with us. Thank you. And tomorrow night, Attorney General candidate Tom Riley joins us. And the skateboarders are here skating on library steps and coply walkways. Not to everyone's amusement, I should add. That's tomorrow at 7 on Emily Rooney. Good night. You