Hey, there! Log in / Register

Former prosecutor once declared Boston's most eligible bachelor sought on rape charge again


Update: BPD says he's been found and arrested.

Boston Police have put out an APB for Gary Zerola, 49, whom they say faces charges of rape and breaking and entering in the nighttime.

Police also posted a photo of a white Jeep similar to the one he may be driving, with Mass. plates of 571-SY3.

Zerola, a former assistant district attorney in Suffolk and Essex counties turned defense attorney, has faced a series of rape and other charges since 2001, when People magazine named him Boston's most eligible bachelor. He has been found innocent in several of the cases, but is still awaiting trial on two rape charges for an incident on Nov. 10, 2016.

Police did not say if they want him in connection with that case or on new charges.

Innocent, etc.

Free tagging: 



"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."


Definitely a "u" sound, but a bit more forceful than what's brown and sounds like a bell? (I can't find the original Monty Python version, but this one is pretty good as a substitute.)


seems like someone Dexter would pay a visit to.

Dude skates on like a million rape charges, gets hit with MORE rape charges that he'll probably beat, yet his name mysteriously returns no hits on Mass. SORB.

White privilege? Male privilege? White, male privilege? Prosecutors giving one of their own a break? Extraordinary luck? You be the judge.


You need to be convicted before you can be put on a sex offender registry. Zerola is scum, but nonetheless entitled to due process. Due process is not white privilege. You are only hurting the movement by falsely claiming white privilege where it doesn’t exist.


look at him, guilty guilty guilty

He can clearly afford superior representation. I'll bet either one of my testicles, I'm not too attached to them, that he's guilty and he got away with at least one case. So one law for him...

Looks eligible. Doesn't know what "No" means though.

He's guilty at the point that he is duly convicted in a court.

Until then, as a wise old lawyer once patiently explained to me, "being a scumbag is not, per se, legally actionable.


a privilege not given to all.

Sad but true.

Unfortunately most men skate on rape charges. #truestory

This guy is made of Teflon. And he still manages to convince women to date him.

Could you clarify if he was actually "found innocent" or rather was found "not guilty" or simply not charged with the other rapes? "Innocent" is not a common legal finding.

Which, yes, is legally different from "innocent," but which, in practical terms means the same thing.

Adam - Please don't add to general misunderstandings. The distinction between not being found guilty and being found innocent is extremely important. All that a "not guilty" verdict means is that the prosecution didn't persuade a jury beyond all reasonable doubt, whether through lack of evidence or poorly done presentation or whatever. Especially for crimes such as rape, which can be difficult to successfully prosecute, I'd hope you'd use accurate wording.


OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering two people, in criminal court. He was then found responsible for the deaths by a civil court, which ordered him to pay the victims' families compensation.

That said, there's a good reason why newspapers/websites/reporters etc. say "found innocent," because that bit of imprecision is safer than having someone forget to type "not" in "not guilty."

The requirement for a guilty verdict is evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Acquittal means only there is less evidence than that, not any evidence of innocence.

“Innocent” is usually used when someone is exonerated - meaning physical evidence they couldn’t have committed the crime.

They’re two very distinct things.

He was found Not Guilty, which is a far cry from “found Innocent.” His guilt was on trial, not his innocence.


The person is "allowed to maintain the presumption of innocence" at the trial outcome.

That seems long for a serious criminal complaint v. say trespassing or drunk and disorderly charge. Any law/court knowers on here care to explain if this is typical?

But basically each Trial has about 6-8 potential hearings before it. Each of those steps can take 1-4 months to schedule. That's the short version anyway.

edit: Cases in Superior Court also have Grand Juries which will often take at least six months in itself.

Seriously giving me those vibes

Held without bail until a dangerousness hearing next week