Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Members of the Essex County Drug Task Force concluded an investigation into illegal drug activities of four Lawrence, Massachusetts men. The result was Drug and Gun Charges. Apparently the investigation was initiated by a hand to hand sale of drugs by an man named Amado Colon to an undercover official. Once Colon was arrested a Search Warrant was obtained and his Morton Street home was searched. During the search officers located enough heroin to justify the filing of Cocaine Trafficking Charges and Possession of a Firearm. Colon has also been charged with a School Zone Violation and Possession with the Intent to Distribute Heroin. The investigation also resulted in the arrests of three other Lawrence, Massachusetts men. Pedro Berroa was charged with Trafficking Over 28 Grams of Heroin, Conspiracy and a School Zone Violation. Luige Cabrera was charged with Conspiracy, a School Zone Violation and Trafficking Over 28 Grams of Heroin. Laura Cabrera was charged with Selling Drug Paraphernalia, Trafficking Heroin, a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy. The cases will ultimately be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Bail for the defendants ranged from fifteen thousand dollars to one hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Essex County Drug Defense Lawyer

One of my clients recently asked me a very simple question that as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I often take for granted. He wanted to know just what is meant by "conspiracy". Almost every person charged with a Drug Case in Massachusetts faces a count for Conspiracy. The legal definition for Conspiracy in Massachusetts is a combination of more than one person, acting together in some fashion with the intention of accomplishing a criminal objective or two or more people acting with criminal means to accomplish something that is not necessarily itself criminal in nature. One Massachusetts Criminal Case stated that "conspiracy as a criminal offence is established when the object of the combination is either a crime, or if not a crime, is unlawful, or when the means contemplated are either criminal, or if not criminal, are illegal, provided that, where no crime is contemplated either as the end or the means, the illegal but non-criminal element involves prejudice to the general welfare or oppression of the individual of sufficient gravity to be injurious to the public interest."

We typically see a common pattern of facts when someone is charged with Conspiracy only. That person is usually present when others are either using, selling, possessing, possessing with the intent to sell, trafficking, manufacturing, cutting, guarding or buying drugs. The police lack probable cause to charge this person with a substantive offense, i.e. possession or distribution of the drug. But, their belief is that since the person was present at the scene of the crime, and somehow associated with the drug dealers, he or she is conspiring with that person and will be charged with a crime. It is very likely that in these circumstances, an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will succeed in getting that charge, particularly if it is the only charge, dismissed against his client.

Continue reading "Essex County Drug Task Force Investigation Results in Arrests of Four Lawrence Massachusetts Residents, Gun and Drug Charges Filed" »

Yesterday the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Podgurski, 10-P-2135 holding that the trial judge committed reversible error when she refused to permit the defense to offer its entrapment defense and refused to instruct the jury on the issue. The facts in Podgurski are as follows. In September of 2005 Brockton Police began watching the defendant's home. On October 5, 2005 an informant arranged a meeting between the defendant and an undercover police officer. This occurred at the defendant's home. At that time Podgurski sold Percocets to the undercover officer. The next day another controlled buy was arranged, again at the defendant's home. Surveillance watched the house during the deal. Shortly thereafter Podgurski left his home by car. He was stopped. He was arrested. The car was searched. A significant weight of drugs was found in the car. More than enough to support a trafficking indictment. A Search Warrant was obtained and Podgurski's home was searched. More drugs were found as was some Drug Paraphernalia. The defendant testified that on the date of his arrest a man who knew through a drug related acquaintance came to his home and gave him Oxycontin and Percocets. Podgurski tried to show that he delivered the drugs because he was afraid for his family in that the person who provided him with the drugs was a member of a motorcycle gang and had coerced him into doing so. The defense tried to show that this person and the informant had also threatened his family. Defense counsel sought to establish that the informant was setting him up in order to get himself out of trouble. The trial judge rejected all defense efforts to introduce such evidence. As to this issue, the Massachusetts Appeals Court stated "Entrapment by law enforcement involves 'implanting criminal ideas in innocent minds and thereby bringing about offenses that otherwise would never have been perpetrated.'" To establish an entrapment defense the defendant must simply show an inducement by the government to commit the crime. The district attorney must then show beyond a reasonable doubt that either the defendant was predisposed to committing the crime or that there was no government inducement. The defendant is permitted to inquire about the relationship between the government and the informant. Podgurski was denied this right. Podgurski was also deprived of an opportunity to elicit testimony that the informant threatened his family should he not deliver the drugs. The Appeals Court found this too reversible error as it bore on Podgurski's state of mind. In essence, the defendant was denied his right to present a defense at trial.

Also at trial the prosecutor had the police weigh the drugs on a police scale in front of the jury. The drugs, Oxycodone, weight nearly sixty grams thereby satisfying the requirement for Trafficking Oxycodone over 28 Grams. The defendant objected to this strategy. The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that this was error. The district attorney failed to lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of such evidence. To do so, it must first show that the device is accurate. There must be a showing of proper calibration. This can be done by getting the device tested by a neutral, non-government agency or by using a known object with a know weight as a test for the device.

Read Opinion:

Commonwealth v. Podgurski, 10-P-2135.pdf

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am often perplexed at how some judges refuse to apply the law and deny a defendant the right to present a defense. This issue is not that difficult. Podgurski's lawyer did everything he was supposed to do to. He established that he had a good faith basis for his questions and his defense. The defense of entrapment is an affirmative defense that has its roots in common law. This defense is not new. It has been around for years. The defense contention that Podgurski is not a drug dealer is sound, reasonable and might likely succeed before a jury.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Reverses Drug Conviction Holding That Trial Judge Refused to Allow Defendant to Raise Entrapment, Coercion Defense" »

A thirty one year old Lawrence, Massachusetts man pleaded guilty for the second time in regard to charges of Conspiracy, Larceny and Fraud. The man initially pleaded guilty to twenty six counts of Auto Fraud. He subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, a violation of his Sixth Amendment right. That motion was allowed in September of 2010. The defendant subsequently offered his cooperation to the prosecution in its efforts to prosecute auto fraud scandals in Lawrence involving staged car crashes. The defendant would refer the cases to local personal injury lawyers and chiropractors and collect a finder's fee. The victims and the accidents were non-existent. They were all part of a lucrative insurance fraud scheme. In return for his cooperation the defendant was permitted to plead guilty to eleven counts of insurance fraud related indictments. An additional twenty five charges will be dismissed if the defendant successfully completes a period of probation scheduled to last five years.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer

Insurance Fraud, Lawrence Criminal Lawyer, Essex County Criminal Lawyer Salem Superior Court Defense Attorney

This article shows just how important it is to have an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer at every stage of the proceedings. In this case the defendant initially pleaded guilty without being properly advised of the consequences his guilty plea would have on his status in this country. In March of 2010 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Padilla v. Kentucky. There, it held that criminal defense attorneys must advise their clients who are not citizens of this country that their guilty pleas might have certain immigration consequences. Padilla holds that a lawyer's failure to properly advise his client of these consequences constitutes a deprivation of the right to effective assistance of counsel. Padilla holds that the Sixth Amendment requires affirmative, competent advice regarding immigration consequences. A lawyer's silence constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel even if the immigration warning was read to the defendant by the judge during his plea colloquy. Commentary to the Padilla decision suggest that defense attorneys should be familiar with the basic immigration consequences that flow from different types of guilty pleas, and should keep this in mind in investigating law and fact and advising the client.

The case involving the man in Lawrence shows that getting proper representation applies not just to the result itself but to all consequences stemming from the attorney's representation of the client. This is a perfect example of why it is critically necessary that when you investigate who to hire as your Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer you find out how long the person has been practicing, how many cases of a similar nature he or she has defended and the lawyer's overall experience. Make sure that you are comfortable with you decision. Do not hesitate to ask questions to make sure that the lawyer you are hiring focuses his or her practice on defending the accused.

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Man, 31, Avoids Jail as Part of Plea Deal for Charges of Larceny, Fraud and Conspiracy" »

A twenty-nine year old Marblehead, Massachusetts woman in facing charges of Larceny of Prescription Medication in the Salem District Court. The Salem News reported yesterday that the woman worked at Brightview, an assisted living complex in Danvers, Massachusetts. It is alleged that the defendant was swapping oxycodone and Vicodin with acetaminophen. A relative of one of the residents of the facility became suspicious and brought her concerns to the attention of the administrators of the home. An investigation resulted in the nurse being questioned. She confessed and was charged with six counts of Larceny and Possession of a Class B drug. The defendant apparently became addicted to pain medications after having orthopedic surgery.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer, Danvers, Salem, Marblehead

There is a pretty interesting aspect to this case that is not often discussed or applied in Massachusetts Courts. The defendant's lawyer attempted to delay his client's arraignment in this case and put her in a drug treatment program. He wanted her to enter a five year sanctioned treatment program for which she already been qualified. This was a great effort on his part. Basically, get your client evaluated and treated. Then go to the district attorney's office and try to resolve matters prior to arraignment. If successful, the defendant's CORI remains entry free and future employment is not negatively impacted. The prosecution should be satisfied if it is determined by the evaluating and treating professionals that the defendant has addressed her problem and will likely not re-offend. Yet here, the district attorney opposed this effort and demanded the defendant be arraigned. The judge agreed with the prosecutor.

On its website, the Essex County District Attorney lists its own drug diversion program as an alternative to conventional prosecutions for people in this defendant's position. The link to the program is http://www.mass.gov/essexda/prevention-and-intervention/school-safety/essex-county-drug-diversion-program.html. The program sets out specific parameters. It is for non-violent drug offenders. It is mostly for people ages seventeen to twenty-six charged with drug or drug related crimes. The purpose of the program is to reduce drug abuse. The program is run through the various district courts in Essex County. The program provides "comprehensive substance abuse treatment services in lieu of being prosecuted through the traditional court process".

So why then would the prosecutors object to the defendant's request to continue the arraignment until the program was completed. The statute of limitations will not expire meaning that if the defendant fails to comply with the program's demands the district attorney can still prosecute her for these crimes. Her progress can be monitored by the probation department of the Salem District Court prior to arraignment thereby preventing the case from falling through the cracks. It seems to me then that the defense attorney's request was reasonable and consonant with the interests of justice. The position of the prosecution under these circumstances lacks substance. If their office policy endorses what the defense lawyer is seeking to impose then why voice an objection. Drug addiction is an illness that can be successfully treated. If this woman can benefit from such treatment then it seems reasonable that she be in the best position to go back to work. A clean CORI would make this much more likely than would having a drug entry.

Continue reading "Nurse at Danvers Massachusetts Assisted Living Facility Charged With Larceny of Prescription Drugs" »

Allison Avagianos and Tricia Mendez were both in custody and serving sentences for criminal convictions in Essex County. Avagianos was serving her sentence for Larceny Over $250 and Reckless Operation of Motor Vehicle. Mendez, a Lynn, Massachusetts resident had been sentenced for Assault and Battery, Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle and Attempting to Commit a Crime. Avagianos, from Salisbury, was due to be released in April of this year while Mendez was scheduled to be freed next week. Both were serving their sentence at the Essex County Sheriff's pre-release center in Salisbury. Three days ago, the women left the institution and walked to a local shopping center. There, they met up with a man who brought them to his apartment. Early Wednesday morning the women were arrested at the man's apartment. The man in whose apartment Mendez and Avagianos were found, Byron Isbell was arrested as well. He has been charged with Aiding and Abetting and Escape. The two women have been charged with Escape. The cases are pending in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Salisbury, Lynn, Newburyport Crimes

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 2769 Section 16 covers the Crime of
Escape in Massachusetts. The law states that anyone who is incarcerated and escapes or attempts to escape from a penal institution in Massachusetts, or from any courthouse, or from the custody of an officer of a courthouse or penal institution can be punished by up to ten years in state prison. This law also applies to someone who is temporary released from custody but required to return and fails to do so. The crime is a felony. Anyone who harbors an escapee is guilty of being an accessory after the fact and can be sentence to up to seven years in state prison. Since all of these crimes are being prosecuted in the Newburyport District Court the maximum sentence for all defendants is two and one half years in the house of correction.

The crime of Escape from jail or prison is significantly on the decline. One report has this crime declining from 2,583 to 660 in a ten year period nationwide. Some suggest that that the reason for the decline is the construction of more modern facilities built with technology that makes the crime more difficult to commit. Another report states that prison escapes have decline from two percent to one percent over a ten year period. The vast majority of escapes are known as "walk aways", people serving sentences at community corrections facilities or minimum security jails. Mendez and Avagianos would fall into that category. People convicted of escape in Massachusetts usually serve their sentences in more secure facilities to prevent the repeated commission of the crime. There is also a tendency to sentence escapees to higher sentences as a punitive measure. It is critical that anyone charged with this crime consult with and hire an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. These crimes can be defended successfully.

Continue reading "Two Massachusetts Women, One From Lynn, the Other From Salisbury, Face Criminal Charges After Escape From Correctional Facility" »

Two days ago at about 10:30 in the morning two women were walking past a home in Lowell, Massachusetts when they noticed smoke coming from a roof. Firefighters were called and quickly surmised that the fire was coming from a wood burning stove. While at the scene the firefighters smelled an odor of marijuana. Consequently they called the Lowell Police. A Search Warrant was obtained. During the execution of the search warrant the police found evidence of what they have called a large-scale marijuana. Specifically, the police observed and seized twenty-nine marijuana plants and forty four pounds of packaged marijuana. They also found grow lights, a water filtration system and three thousand five hundred dollars cash, all Drug Paraphernalia indicative of an intent to distribute. The owner of the home, Angel Luna was charged with Distribution of Marijuana, a Class D Substance, a School Zone Violation and Trafficking Marijuana. Bail was set at three thousand dollars cash. Luna's defense attorney argued that the total weight of the marijuana when accurately calculated will be less than fifty pounds which is under the weight necessary to sustain a Marijuana Trafficking Prosecution in Massachusetts. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

Trafficking Marijuana in Massachusetts is a felony in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32E. The law states that anyone who trafficks in marijuana an amount of at least fifty pounds but less than one hundred pounds must serve at least one year in the house of correction. This is a minimum mandatory sentence. There is a maximum penalty of fifteen years in state prison.

One troubling aspect of this statute states that the substance trafficked does not have to be pure or have any degree of purity. Thus, the plants will be weighed individually and tallied with the packaged substance. The defense attorney's suggestion in this case is that a portion of this substance was for medicinal purposes and not for distribution. While the argument is perhaps legitimate Massachusetts does not have a medicinal marijuana law. Right now, only sixteen states have this type of law, those being Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The District of Columbia has a similar law as well. Right now six states have medicinal marijuana laws pending before their legislature. Massachusetts is one of them. If the law passes and has a retroactive application then Luna might be able to avail himself of its provisions insofar as the plants are concerned. Of course, all of this assumes that the number of plants residents are permitted to grow falls within the facts of this case. But at least for now, if the total quantity of marijuana in this case exceeds fifty pounds Luna's defense will have to focus on his intent and show a jury that at least the plants were for his own personal use due to certain medical problems.

Continue reading "Lowell Massachusetts Firefighters Stumble on Marijuana Cultivation, Trafficking After Responding to a Call" »

According to reports, a forty year old southeastern Massachusetts man has been charged with Video Recording or Surveilling a Person in the State of Partial Nudity. The defendant, Marco Silva is being accused of putting a hidden camera in the bathroom of his catering supply company and secretly watching women who worked for him going to the bathroom. He was arrested yesterday morning. Here is how Silva was caught. One of his employees noticed that anytime one of the female employees went to the bathroom the defendant would go into his office and close the door. When the woman was in Silva's office she saw the bathroom captured on a computer monitor. Police officers, armed with a Search Warrant located the monitor, a VCR and a camera hidden inside of the bathroom. The case is pending in the Fall River District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Attorney

Silva is being charged with a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 105. The law states that anyone who intentionally videotapes someone who is naked or partially naked and does so secretly when the other person is in a place where he or she enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that person's knowledge or consent is guilty of this crime. The crime itself is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two and one half years in the house of correction. There is also a fine of up to five thousand dollars than can be imposed.

We are seeing these charges in Massachusetts more frequently today than in the past. This is due to relatively inexpensive recording and transmitting devices that are common to most personal computers on the market today. The act itself typically begins as a prank. The defendants are usually college and high school students who think this is clever or funny. Trouble usually comes their way once one of their victims learns of the act. Prosecutions can be difficult to sustain in many of these cases since there is not actual recording of the act, rather, the defendant watches contemporaneously. Thus, without a witness there is no evidence for the police to find. Here is where the suspect usually makes a critical mistake. The police arrive with a Search Warrant as they did here. They find the camera and monitor. This corroborates the witness or victim's complaint. Then the officers talk to the suspect who admits having committed the crime. Had the defendant not confessed when questioned, then in many cases there would be no sustainable prosecution. This once takes me back to my regular admonition. Never talk to the police without first consulting with a lawyer. Nothing good can come from it. No one talks his or her way out of a criminal prosecution. An extremely large number of prosecutions and indeed convictions rely on the defendant's admission of guilt. It makes no sense to make the district attorney's case for him. Simply say nothing and hire a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to defend you. If Silva did not speak to the police his chances of successfully defending his case improve significantly. If he did speak then suppressing the search and his statements become more important to his defense.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man, 40, Charged With Videotaping Person in a State of Nudity " »

Lowell, Massachusetts police were watching a Dublin Street address concerned about suspected activity. Then, this past Sunday, with the aid of drug sniffing dogs police were able to intercept a couple of United Parcel Services packages addressed to this location. It is estimated that the two packages contained at least seventy five pounds of marijuana. The drugs were located in heat sealed packages surrounded by coffee beans, a substance commonly used to mask the odor of the marijuana. Once the controlled substances were identified an undercover police officer, dressed as a United Parcel Services worker delivered the packages. They were received by Sanith Siv. Shortly thereafter, armed with a Search Warrant, Lowell Police officers arrived and searched the home where they found the drugs and Drug Trafficking Paraphernalia. Phaly Chhoeun opened the door. Also present were Mao Keo and Samnag Sath. All defendants have been charged with Trafficking Marijuana, a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy. Keo was charged with Possession of a Firearm in addition to the drug charges that all four are facing.

Read Article:

Lowell Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney

The defendants Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer in this case will likely mount a challenge to the search of the packages. The article is unclear as to whether the packages were opened prior to the undercover delivery or afterwards. Usually, once the drug sniffing dogs alert their handler to the package it is searched. If drugs are found it is then re-packaged and delivered in an undercover manner. That is probably what happened here. Two questions then have to be answered. First, should the reliability of the dogs' findings be challenged? Second, should the Search Warrant be challenged, particularly if the affiant is relying on the dog's work.

Not too long ago the Chicago Tribune reported findings only forty four percent of the time that dog sniffing dogs alerted their handler to drugs in cars did drugs or Drug Paraphernalia in fact exits. This can be attributed to the fact that dogs' noses are so sensitive that they can pick up residue from drugs no longer present at the scene where the dog makes its alert. The dogs might also be getting their cues from their handlers. When the driver of the car searched was of a particular race the accuracy dipped to twenty seven percent, thereby implicating a racial profiling issue. Getting the dog training records and alert history might be a beneficial discovery effort for the defendants in this case. Just how current the dog's certification is can be an issue that results in the suppression of the drugs and a dismissal of the case. Some courts have held that the use of a dog unjustifiably enlarges the scope of a routine traffic stop. As Supreme Court Justice Souter has said: "The evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times."

Continue reading "Four From Lowell Massachusetts Plead Not Guilty to Marijuana Trafficking Charges, Conspiracy" »

A Massachusetts drug and major crime task force had been involved in a one month long investigation of Heroin Sales in the greater Brockton and Taunton areas. The investigation resulted in the arrest of Leah Nelson, Abel Parker and Bryan Donachie, all Massachusetts residents residing in Plymouth County. An article in the Brockton Enterprise states that police watched Donachie travel from Wareham to East Bridgewater in Nelson's car. Implicit in the article is that Donachie was using the car and making the trips as part of a Heroin Distribution effort. The officers obtained a Search Warrant for the car. This past weekend detectives saw the three defendants in the car. They approached and found Nelson in the driver's seat, Donachie in the front and Parker in the back. As they approached the car the officers saw Parker packaging heroin. All occupants were searched. The police found about ten grams on Donachie. Each defendant was charged with Conspiracy, a School Zone Violation and Possession with the Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A substance. Nelson's car was searched as well. There, officers located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia, about one thousand dollars worth of heroin and some heroin ingestion materials. Authorities claim that Donachie was purchasing about ten grams of heroin per day, breaking it down and reselling for a substantial profit. The cases are being prosecuted in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Attorney

The School Zone Violation is the biggest problem the defendants in this case, particularly since this case is being prosecuted in Plymouth County. The district attorney in that county does not like to break down school zone cases. The result is that the case will likely be litigated either through a Motion to Suppress, Motion to Dismiss or trial. The prohibition against selling drugs in school zones in Massachusetts is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32J. The law states that anyone who sells drugs or possesses drugs with the intent to distribute the drugs within one thousand feet of a school zone or within one hundred feet of a playground shall be punished by a minimum mandatory two year jail sentence. The defendant's intent or knowledge relative to the school zone itself is of no relevance.

From the perspective of a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer, it appears that Donachie and perhaps Nelson and Parker have drug problems. The presence of the needles and syringes supports that at least one, if not all of the defendants were using Heroin. Using narcotics is consistent with Possession, not the intent to distribute. The district attorney will argue that the act of packaging suggests otherwise. The evidence as taken from this article suggests that a combination of the two are at work here. At times this factor can motivate prosecutors to consider a reduction of the charges to something less onerous and perhaps something that will not include jail time. Much of this depends on the record of the accused, the extent of his or her drug problem and the quantity of drugs involved. In cases like this one, the defendants need a good lawyer.

Continue reading "East Bridgewater Massachusetts Drug Investigation Results in Arrest of Three, Charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute, Conspiracy, School Zone Violation" »

Just a couple of days ago a Massachusetts State Trooper stopped a car that he witnessed run a stop sign. His intention was to issue a citation to the driver. When he approached the car the passenger made a furtive movement towards his legs. The officer asked him to get out of the car. The passenger, Jesus Silva-Santiago complied. Then, according to reports Silva-Santiago punched the cop in the face. A chase followed. The trooper caught up with the defendant and the fighting continued. The trooper was able to subdue Silva-Santiago with the help of some Brockton police officers who responded in support. Jesus-Santiago was transported to the police station for booking. There, officers located eighteen bags of heroin tucked in his buttocks cheeks. Jesus-Santiago was charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class A, Heroin, a Second and Subsequent Offense, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Disorderly Conduct. The case is currently in the Brockton District Court however it will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I really enjoy defending cases like this one. Like many Drug Crimes in Massachusetts, the strength of the district attorney's case lies in the legality of the police officer's actions. The stop of the motor vehicle will probably survive a challenge however the Exit Order may not. Exit Orders, ordering a driver or passenger out of a car, have become the source of considerable litigation in Massachusetts. The success of Silva-Santiago's defense will hinge on the validity of the trooper's actions in forcing the defendant to exit the car.

Federal Courts have embraced the rule that under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution police officers may order both the driver and passenger out of a car. There is not need to show facts warranting the officer to be reasonable apprehensive. However, as is often the case, the Massachusetts Courts and Constitution provide more protection. A 1999 Massachusetts set out the rule for exit orders as follows: "art. 14 requires that a police officer, in a routine traffic stop, must have a reasonable belief that the officer's safety, or the safety of others, is in danger before ordering a driver out of a motor vehicle." The test is whether or not a reasonably prudent person in the police officer's position would be justified in believing that his safety or the safety of others was in danger.

The officer contends that Silva-Santiago "reached down below his legs". This gave him concern for his safety. So here is the question in this case. Did he have a reasonable belief that his safety or the safety of others was in danger based on what he saw Silva-Santiago do? The analysis for this challenge is done on a case by case basis viewing the totality of the circumstances. I would be interested in seeing the police report for this incident to see what if anything, in addition to the defendant's movements led the officer to fear for his safety. A successful Motion to Suppress might result in a dismissal of all the Drug Charges.

Continue reading "Brockton Man Charged With Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer After Motor Vehicle Stop Becomes Violent" »

Angel Anaya of Fall River, Massachusetts and Jose Rivera of Lawrence, Massachusetts were arrested early Tuesday night following a brief encounter with the police. According to today's Lawrence Eagle Tribune, an auto theft strike force was working in Lawrence that day. They received a stolen car report for a Toyota. Shortly thereafter, a patrol officer spotted the car in a restaurant parking lot. This took place around 7:30 in the evening. The driver later identified as Anaya hit the officer and fled in the car. A chase ensued. Anaya hit another car as well as a police cruiser and along with his passenger, Rivera, they fled the scene on foot. Rivera was charged with Receiving a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Resisting Arrest. Anaya was charged with Assault With a Dangerous Weapon, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Failing to Stop for a Police Officer. The cases are being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court however these matters could be indicted and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crime Lawyer

Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle in Massachusetts is a felony pursuant to M.G.L. c. 266 Section 28. The law states that anyone in possession of a stolen car, knowing the same to be stolen is guilty of that offense. The statute permits a sentence of up to fifteen years in state prison or two and one half years on the house of correction. A judge cannot continue a case like this without a finding. Anyone who gets convicted of a second or subsequent offense must serve a minimum mandatory one year jail sentence. Prosecutions for this crime cannot survive attack if it is determined that the district attorney did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had possession of the car, knew that the car was stolen and that he intended to deprive the owner of the car permanently.

In this regard, the district attorney in this case might have trouble proving this crime against Rivera. There is no indication that Rivera knew that the car was stolen. Things that might suggest otherwise are a popped ignition, simultaneous engagement in other illicit activity, particularly Theft Crimes, visible signs of ownership by another or the presence of other stolen motor vehicles. None of this appears present in this case. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I have had many cases where the charge of Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle has been dismissed due to an absence of evidence to attribute knowledge to my client. These cases are often difficult for the district attorney to prove, particularly as to passengers. Nor for that matter should evidence of Rivera's flight be compelling. Anaya's actions might well have surprised and scared him. Being present in a car responsible for striking a police officer, getting into a chase and an accident could understandably give people reason to flee. While that action was probably not the best course of action for Rivera it is not a determinant of guilt.

Continue reading "Criminal Charges Filed in Lawrence Massachusetts for Larceny of a Motor Vehicle After Chase, Accident" »

Kaitlynn Niles of Lynn, Massachusetts and three friends rented a hotel room at the Red Roof Inn in Framingham, Massachusetts two days ago. At approximately eleven at night Niles went to the front desk and attempted to get change for a counterfeit fifty dollar bill. A wary employee recognized something to be wrong with the bill and called the police. The officers went to the room and noticed marijuana smoke coming from inside. They also saw money in plain view. Two of the occupants, Niles and Joshua Jefferson from Lowell gave false names to the officers. Jefferson was searched. In his possession police found four hundred fifty dollars cash and a scale. Jefferson admitted to making the money from Selling Marijuana. On of the other occupants in the room , Elias Breit admitted to buying from Jefferson. Officers conducted a Search of the room during which they located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia and more counterfeit cash. Jefferson has been charged with Distribution of Cocaine, a Second and Subsequent Offense, Distribution of Marijuana, Second and Subsequent Offense and Conspiracy. Niles was charged with Uttering a False Note.

Read Article:

Framingham Drug Case Defense Lawyer

Uttering a false note in Massachusetts is a felony. The proscription is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 267 Section 5 which states "[w]hoever, with intent to injure or defraud, utters and publishes as true a false, forged or altered record, deed, instrument or other writing mentioned in the four preceding sections, knowing the same to be false, forged or altered, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or in jail for not more than two years." To prove this offense the district attorney must show four things beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the defendant either used or tried to use the note as being genuine, 2) that the note was counterfeit, 3) that the defendant knew it was counterfeit and 4) that the passing of the note was done with the intent to defraud. In this case the district attorney will want to introduce the additional counterfeit bills the police seized in the hotel room to show that Niles was not making a mistake when trying to change the fifty dollar bill, rather that she knew it was a fake and that she was trying to get real money in exchange for the fake. These cases are often continued without a finding particularly if the defendant does not have a criminal record and the amount passed is small.

As to Jefferson, he has some problems. I will repeat again my admonition that it is never a good idea to talk to the police without first engaging the services of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. If the statements the police attribute to Jefferson are true then he has admitted to committing the felony for which he is being charged. This was stupid and unnecessary. Breit too made a big mistake. The facts of this article suggest that if he had said nothing then the charges against him might not stand and be subject to a dismissal after a Motions Hearing. Let me say it again. You have no obligation to talk to the police. When you do you are likely to get yourself in more trouble. Contact a lawyer before speaking to anyone.

Continue reading "Woman Who Tried To Change Counterfeit Bills At Framingham Massachusetts Hotel Gets Busted In Room With Three Friends On Drug Charges" »

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I am often perplexed by certain "office policies" that overlook justice for the sake of appeasing the public. Yesterday for instance I was in a Massachusetts district court on a case where my client was charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender. My client is twenty four years old. When he was sixteen years old an aunt made a complaint that four years earlier he had inappropriately touched her daughter, the defendant's biological cousin. The touching, if true amounted to an Indecent Assault and Battery. The allegation was that the defendant grabbed his cousin's buttocks. The victim's mother and the defendant's mother are sisters.

By "coincidence" these allegations came to light after the two sisters became embroiled in a lawsuit over a piece of property that the two inherited. The dispute became bitter. The sisters still do not speak with one another. Now stupidly the defendant pleaded guilty to the Indecent Assault and Battery charge as a juvenile. He was placed on probation for two years. At the time of his guilty plea he was made aware of the Sex Offender Registry consequences. This admonition was conveyed by the judge, not the defense lawyer. The lawyer never told him about this prior to the hearing on his change of plea. However, once this obligation was conveyed to him he immediately complied with the laws.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Laws have stringent registration requirements. Correctional institutions have the obligation to report the convicted offender to the registry. Parole and probation departments have the same obligation. Sentences of less than ninety days for a conviction of a sex offense require the judge to advise the accused of his duty to register in accordance with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry laws. Sex offenders who move into Massachusetts must register within two days. The registration must include the Sex Offender's address, work address and the school he or she is attending. Sex Offenders who move around within Massachusetts must provide their new home, work or school addresses. Sex Offenders who want to move out of Massachusetts must notify the Registry. There is a special provision for work addresses as well; that being an offender must notify the board ten days prior to starting work in that establishment.

The client about whom I am speaking works as a chef. He has moved among jobs and homes about eleven times over the past several years. He has always complied with the registration requirements. He took a new job this past summer. He believed that he had once again registered in accordance with his obligations as he had on eleven prior occasions. He was wrong. He made a mistake. He forgot to do so. Now keep in mind that his residence remained the same. That notwithstanding, over the Labor Day Weekend he was stopped for a Motor Vehicle infraction. The officer learned that he had not registered and he was properly arrested. He was held until his arraignment on that Tuesday and he registered upon his release. I provided this information to the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case. As is her office policy, she called the Sexual Assault supervisor. The recommendation came back: guilty with two year probation. The supervisor never took the time to look at the facts of this case, rather, she held to the rigid policy of her office, refusing to even look at this client's history of registering and the substance of the crime that occurred twelve years ago to which he pleaded guilty eight years ago. What is even more troubling is that this same district attorney's office, second earlier, recommended pre-trial probation for a man accused of driving one hundred ten miles per hour on the highway.

Continue reading "When A Massachusetts District Attorney's Office Puts Form Over Substance As A Matter Of Policy The Public Is Not Being Well Served" »

Michael Rubino of Braintree, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn last Friday. It is alleged that the Massachusetts court officer had sexual contact with a couple of female prisoners while he was on duty. The alleged acts took place last year and early this year at the Boston Municipal Court on New Chardon Street in Boston. An article in the Quincy Patriot Ledger states that on two occasions Rubino engaged in sexual misconduct with a woman when she was shackled and handcuffed. In another matter authorities allege that the defendant gave a female detainee cigarettes and money in exchange for sexual acts at the courthouse.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer, Sexual Assault

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am interested in knowing exactly what acts are alleged against Rubino and what evidence exists to support these allegations. The reason for my curiousity is simple. There is no law prohibiting consensual sex between court officers and inmates. This is not the case for correctional officers. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A makes it a crime for any correctional employee to engage in sexual relations with an inmate during the course of his or her employment. A conviction for this offense is punishable by up to five years in state prison. The crime is a felony. There is no defense of consent for correctional officers whereas there is for court officers. The full text of the law reads as follows:

"An officer or other person who is employed by or contracts with any penal or correctional institution in the commonwealth, and who, in the course of such employment or contract or as a result thereof, engages in sexual relations with an inmate confined therein, within or outside of such institution, or an inmate who is otherwise under the direct custodial supervision and control of such officer or other person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in a state prison or by a fine of $10,000 or both. In a prosecution commenced under this section, an inmate shall be deemed incapable of consent to sexual relations with such person. For purposes of this section, sexual relations shall include intentional, inappropriate contact of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to conduct prohibited by section 22 or 24 of chapter 265 or section 2, 3, 35 or 53A of chapter 272."

There is very little case law in Massachusetts. This is understandable in that this is one of the few laws in Massaschusetts that does not have any gray area. Either the act happened or it did not.

One of the things I wonder about in this case is the extent of the evidence against Rubino. The lockups at the courthouses are monitored with video cameras. There are several of these cameras mounted throughout the lockup area providing surveillance at numerous angles and in all cells and areas used for transporting detainees. These monitors are installed for continuous viewing of prisoners to ensure their safety and the safety of the court officers moving them in and out of the courtrooms. The video monitors are also used to ensure the safety of the correctional officers transporting the prisoners from correctional facilities and jails to and from court. Anyone such as Rubino, working the lockup is aware of these devices and what they are constantly revealing. If the basis for these allegations is simply the word of the accuser then Rubino's defense might depend on the cameras, other inmates present at the time of the alleged incidents and the testimonies of his co-workers.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Court Officer Arraigned In Middlesex Superior Court On Charges That He Has Sexual Contact With Prisoners While On Duty" »

Actress Brooke Mueller was in a bar known as the Belly Up nightclub this past weekend. There, it is alleged that she struck another woman. The police were called to investigate the incident. They spoke to the victim and looked for Mueller. The actress was later located at another nightclub. When confronted by the police Mueller poked an officer in the chest. Mueller was arrested and in her possession police found between four and five grams of cocaine. Mueller admitted to having the drug to share with her friends. Mueller, the ex-wife of actor Charlie Sheen is being arraigned this morning for charges of Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor and Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, a felony.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

If this case were being prosecuted in Massachusetts an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would probably get the charge of Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B reduced to Possession of Class B. The case would also be continued without a finding assuming the defendant had no criminal record or a minimal criminal record. The Assault and Battery charge would also probably continued without a finding on the condition that restitution, if any, be paid to the victim.

This case should also serve as a lesson to my readers. Never speak to the police. I repeat this admonition consistently. I have never had a client "talk his or her way out of" a criminal charge. It never happens. Had Mueller just shut her mouth she would not be facing a felony charge. Rather, she would have been charged only with Possession of Cocaine. Her admission that she intended to "share" the drug with friends makes this case a felony. My office is currently representing several people who have made similar statements to the police relative to Marijuana Possession. They client gets caught with less than an ounce of marijuana. This is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. But when the police ask what they are doing with it they cavalierly say that they are only smoking it with their friends. Now, the non-crime becomes a crime and they get charged with a felony. In essence, this law has given young people a false sense of security about what they can do with marijuana. This past weekend we had a similar experience. We had a client who was arrested for a Massachusetts Sex Crime. The police told him that if he wanted to get bailed out over the weekend he needed to cooperate with them. He called us from the police station and we told him not to talk to the police. He listened to us and was bailed out anyway. Again, the lesson is this: shut your mouth. Do not talk to the police. There is absolutely no upside to this if you are a suspect or defendant in a criminal case.

Continue reading "Brooke Mueller Charged With Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine, Assault And Battery Following Altercation In A Bar" »