News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

Indictments Handed Down by Jury In Ongoing Cambridge Election Probe

By Mary G. Gotschall

A new wrinkle developed in the four-month-old investigation of curruption in Cambridge city politics last Friday when a Middlesex County Grand Jury issued 15 indictments against four men accused of violating the state's election laws last November.

The man facing the heaviest charges for allegedly tampering with 150 absentee ballots in Ward One is Edward "Ted" Steward, a three-time candidate for City Council. He recieved 1020 first-place votes from Ward One out of his total of 1452.

Also indicted were Joseph P. Szulewski, Jr., Allen Bradbury, and Joseph Morris.

Steward faces a variety of charges, including conspiracy to make false certificates; conspiracy to utter false documents; and 21 counts of violating election laws.

His attorney, Somerville lawyer Thomas August, said yesterday. "My understanding of the case is that my client committed a technical violation; there was no mens rea [criminal intent] present."

August added that the existing absentee ballot laws are so "extremely complicated" that few candidates understand how they work.

City Councilor Sandra Graham, however, yesterday repudiated August's claim of a "technical violation." "Steward knew exactly what he was doing," she said. "He's run for office too many times; he knows the election laws, in and out."

Graham added, "Whether or not it was 'technical,' none of us can push the law that far." Graham is a member of the liberal-moderate Cambridge Convention '75 which "challenged" 150 absentee ballots used in Ward One last November, thus triggering the controversy.

August also said that he thought it "extremely peculiar" that a case involving political tampering should be contested in a criminal, rather than a civil court. "There's absolutely no reason why it should be," he said. He added that there was "no question in his mind" that there were political overtones behind the placement of the trial in a criminal court. "The Grand Jury no longer provides a protection of the citizen against the state," he said, citing his client's inability to appear on his own behalf before the month-long election inquest.

After the arraignments, the attorneys have 20 days in which to file motions for the defense. County District attorney John Droney said that because of the amount of evidence to be gathered, the trial would not take place until the fall.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags