Judge Douglas W. Stoddart
A native of Wellesley, Massachusetts, Stoddart graduated from Colgate University in 1974 and Syracuse University College of Law in 1977. From 1978 to 1986 he worked for the Monroe County, New York District Attorney's Office. In 1986, Stoddart returned to Massachusetts to work as a private practice attorney in Natick.
From 1991 to 1999, Stoddart represented the 5th Middlesex District in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. He resigned his seat after he was appointed as a judge in Middlesex District Court.
Title: Associate Justice
Office Mailing Address
Education Colgate University, B.A. 1974
Married to Nadine (Pellegrini) Stoddart
65 Delmar Avenue Framingham, MA 01701 August 8, 2013 508-561-8452 firstname.lastname@example.org Framingham District Court 600 Concord Street P.O. Box 1969 Framingham, MA 01701 Attn: Judge Douglas W. Stoddart Dear sir, I am writing to you concerning the injustice that you helped perpetrate on me by assigning my case to your cohort, David W. Cunis. My complaint is documented on the web at: http://framingham-police.org/judicial-complaint.html The buttons on top expand to other web pages. I include a printed copy of the main complaint. I ask that you take less than 30 minutes to read it and enjoy it. It contains tales of perjury, arrogance, stupidity and other human traits. If the complainant states clearly that I had allegedly damaged her car and the DA acknowledges her statement, and the judge belatedly states he had seen no damage on the car, then someone lied. In fact, all four of them lied. The judge, David W. Cunis convicted me but later recanted his visual observations, the DA, Jessica Hogan by claiming she had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I was guilty of felony vandalism, the police officer Robert F. Tibor by describing damage that was very different than the damage claimed by the complainant, even if his testimony was all hearsay from the complainant, and finally the complainant lied since it conflicts with the judge's recantations. I sincerely hope that as an associate Judge of the Framingham District Court you will closely examine my complaint and one of these days, someone might actually ask the complainant about her car door and examine it closely. By the way I have plenty of closeup pictures of her door should you wish to examine evidence. Cunis, Hogan and Tibor did not seem interested. Cunis made the extraordinary claim that dents in car doors heal themselves (11/16/2012), and I hope you can provide me with evidence of such peculiar behaviour in sheet metal. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. That would be your court, sir. There was the hilarious restitution paper (damage assessment report, as I call it) that no one asked any questions about because it might have been embarassing to do so, given the police report. The "piece de resistance" however, was judge Cunis's remarkable statement about the alleged damage after we had seen the door, and I was questioning officer Tibor. That's a keeper for all times. It's even more absurd given his recantations. The question I would most like answered is: When did Cunis realize he had not seen any damage on the door? When he examined the door (10/05/2012), or just after I got out of prison (10/30/2013)? I'm just keeping you in the loop so you don't play innocent with me in the future and claim that you have no idea who I am. Sincerely yours, Harold J. Wolfe
I was arrested for trespassing on 10/29/2014. When it went to trial on
11/18/2015, the case was 378 days old.
Police officers Michael Esposito and
Richard Pomales and the DAs (
Colleen Robinson) all exit the court
house via the judges chambers and use the good restrooms behind judges chambers
as testimony that there is no difference between the police, DAs and the judges
as independent units. They are all integrated as a single unit standing
against the ne'er do wells photographers.
Judge Douglas W. Stoddart stated that
one cannot challenge the veracity of anyone who has sworn an oath to
an imaginary creature (God)? What absolute bullshit. Therefore,
perjury cannot exist. Apparently
the imaginary creature
is a force to be reckoned with in the courts. This explains why
no one is ever charged with perjury. Who knew!
Judge Douglas W. Stoddart deliberately
allowed two witnesses to testify against me knowing full well that their
testimony had absolutely no relevance to the charge of
Judge Douglas W. Stoddart stated that
I could not call the DA (Emily Farley)
to the stand. I wanted
to know if she even knew where I stood, while she relentlessly prosecuted me
for trespassing. I wanted to show how stupid DAs really are.
Judge Douglas W. Stoddart stated that
there may not be any injury to any party for a crime to exist. WTF?
Judge Douglas W. Stoddart stated
that the jury is not entitled to know the penalty for breaking a law.
Why should the jury not know that the maximum penalty for taking pictures
is 30 days in prison?
The DA, Emily Farley wanted to sentence me to the full 30 days as stated in the by the trespassing (MGL-266-120) law. How malicious and malevolent to incarcerate someone taking pictures for 30 days. What a bitch! She was not the least interested in justice. She just wanted another gold star pinned to her little titties as a show of prosecutorial prowess. She may have been swayed by my previous muslim bitch ADA, Batool Raza who was watching my trial in the back seats. I actually had three ADAs present and you could almost hear them chant:
We are good, we are great.. We are here to incarcerate
The Middlesex DA's office had the deed of transference for five months but Emily Farley failed to verify it. Again, she just wanted another gold star pinned to her little titties as a show of prosecutorial prowess. There was no interest in justice. Her dictionary may not even have that word. Typical of Marian T. Ryan and her little bitches.
|State Appeals Court overturns OUI conviction of Framingham woman||February 10, 2016|
|Brad Avery 508-626-4449||Metrowest Daily News|
BOSTON - The state Appeals Court overturned a Framingham woman's OUI conviction on the grounds that comments made by the trial judge influenced the jury's verdict.
The Appeals Court ruling, released Wednesday, was in favor of Kristie Firmin, who was convicted of a second offense of operating under the influence of alcohol on Jan. 24, 2013. Firmin, who was 39 at the time, was arrested by Framingham Police on Feb. 29, 2012, after an officer noticed her car swerving down the road.
However, during Firmin's trial in Framingham District Court, instructions to the jury by Judge Douglas Stoddart were found by the Appeals Court to be coercive, putting pressure on the jury to reach a verdict.
"If we don't get a unanimous verdict, it's called a mistrial or a hung jury and we have to do this case all over again and we're booked out until May now," Stoddart said to the jury after closing arguments, according to the Appeals Court decision. "So, we'd really appreciate it if you guys could resolve this. So, I guess I would suggest that, maybe let everybody, you know, just chat informally, not take formal votes right away and then, at some point during the deliberations, if you see a ground swell of support in one direction or the other, then do whatever voting or whatever you need to do to get to that ultimate point."
Stoddart adjourned court at 12:41 p.m., shortly before the 1 p.m. lunch break. Court reconvened at 2:28 p.m., and the jury delivered a guilty verdict.
The Appeals Court ruled that Stoddart's comments may have pushed jurors toward voting for a conviction by asking that they vote with the majority opinion.
Jin-Ho King, Firmin's lawyer, said Firmin did not serve any jail time but was placed on probation, which she completed. Firmin also lost her driver's license and had to pay court and supervision fees.
"Trial judge is a very difficult job," King said. "It's hard to make cases accessible, understandable and interesting to jurors. It's a challenge. Sometimes comments intended to be helpful end up being coercive and I think that's what happened here. I don't think he intended that, but I am glad the Appeals Court recognized the comments as coercive."
King said she didn't know if Firmin will be retried, but that possibility remains. Meghan Kelly, director of communications for Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan, said the DA's Office is reviewing the decision and assessing options.
Stoddart was unavailable for comment Wednesday. On her lawyer's advice, Firmin declined to comment because the case is still open.
|Send comments to: email@example.com|