Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

In September of 2004 at 9:45 p.m. a Mashpee police officer observed the defendant driving down Route 151.  The officer knew that the defendant's license had been revoked and attempted to stop the vehicle he was driving.  In an attempt to avoid apprehension the defendant drove thirty to thirty five miles per hour over the speed limit.  The defendant continued his flight, driving his car over an embankment and two to three hundred yards into the woods.  The vehicle was located unoccupied and a K-9 officer and his dog tracked the defendant further into the woods.  The defendant was found lying on his back with his three year old child lying on his chest. 

Among other things, the defendant was charged with violating G.L. c. 265 sec. 13L.  The defendant proceeded with a jury waived trial and was convicted of reckless endangerment of a child.  This law became effective in 2002.  The defendant challenged its application to him under the circumstances of this case and its constitutionality on the grounds of vagueness. 

In the context of this case G.L. c. 265 sec. 13L required that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that 2) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.  The constitutional challenge required the Supreme Judicial Court to resolve whether the statute provides a person of ordinary intelligence the opportunity to know what type of conduct is prohibited and whether the statute provides comprehensible standards that limit prosecutorial and judicial discretion.  The Court held that this statute did in fact meet these requirements and the challenge was rejected.  Commonwealth v. Hendricks, slip opinion 7/31/2008.

Our office is regularly consulted and retained to defend violent crime cases such as this.  Whether you have just been charged with a crime or you have been convicted and want to appeal your conviction we are prepared to help you.  Call us now to discuss your case.

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firms

By late 2002 police in various Norfolk County towns were investigating reports of a telephone scam that victimized older persons.   Elderly people reported receiving telephone calls from males purporting to represent family members in trouble and in need of money.  The callers would ask their targeted victims to send certain amounts of money to certain locations.  Some of the victims agreed to meet the caller at the specified location.  Upon arrival they were met by the caller and when they asked about the whereabouts of the relative in trouble they were assured that he or she would be along shortly.  The victims surrendered the money requested, the caller left the area and the family member never showed up.  When the victims returned home they contacted the relative who was supposedly in distress and quickly learned that they had been victims of a scam.  The perpetrator was ultimately apprehended by an undercover police officer who replaced a targeted victim during one of the theft attempts. 

The trial was conducted in Norfolk County.  The defendant made the calls from Suffolk County and appealed claiming that the venue was inappropriate.  The prosecution was brought in part pursuant to G.L. c. 277 sec. 59.  That law makes the crime of larceny by false pretenses eligible for prosecution in any county where the false pretense was made or where the property obtained was carried or received by the defendant.  Rejecting the challenge the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that since the Suffolk County acts were designed to produce detrimental effects in Norfolk County, that the elderly persons were victimized in Norfolk County and that the victims had withdrawn funds from within Norfolk County that venue in Norfolk County was proper.  See Commonwealth v. Price, slip opinion July 29, 2008.

Larceny by false pretenses in Massachusetts is one of the many theft crimes the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman defends on a regular basis. This crime requires the prosecution to prove that you obtained the object through a false statement or representation and that you did so with the intent the defraud an individual or entity and that the victim relies on that false representation in parting with the object. 

Call the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman today to discuss your theft crime case. 

Related Web Resources:

Boston Massachusetts Theft Crimes Lawyers

G.L. c. 266 sec. 33

In Greenlaw v. United States ____ U.S. ____ (2008) decided on June 23, 2008, the United States Supreme Court overturned an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that increased a defendant's sentence by fifteen years. 

The defendant was charged with various drug and firearm offenses.  The government alleged that he was a member of a gang that controlled crack sales using firearms as a means of deterring competition.  The defendant went to trial and was convicted on seven of the eight counts for which he was indicted.  He appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds that his sentence was excessive.  The government did not appeal the sentence.  Nor for that matter did it file a cross-appeal.  Rather, it simply opposed the defendant's appeal.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on its own volition that the sentence was too low and it increased the sentence by fifteen years.  Greenlaw petitioned for certiorari and the Supreme Court heard the case.

The United States Supreme Court held that absent a government appeal or a cross appeal a court cannot on its own initiative increase a sentence.  The Court further stated that for appellate purposes, the parties frame the issues.  The function of the courts is one of a neutral arbiter of the issues raised by the parties.  This is known as the party presentation principle.  Any departures from this procedure have been justified usually in situations where a pro se litigant is being protected.  The Supreme Court continued that the plain error rule does not apply as an override to the cross-appeal requirement.

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is committed to protecting the rights of the accused at all stages.  We have argued before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  If you have been convicted of a crime you have certain appellate rights that can be exercised.  Call us now to discuss your case and potential issues.

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Criminal Appeals Lawyers

United States Supreme Court Opinions

G.L. c. 268 sec. 13D(d) was passed by the Massachusetts Legislature in March of 2006.  The law was passed in part as a response to claims that criminal defendants were disseminating grand jury testimony as a means of intimidating witnesses, particularly in murder cases.  The law permits prosecutors to request a hearing for a court ordered protective order prohibiting defense lawyers from distributing grand jury transcripts to their clients.  The law requires the prosecution to demonstrate that 1) the defendant is accused of a violent crime and 2) based on "specific and articulable facts" the defendant presents a threat to the witness.  In assessing the viability of these motions judges are to consider the defendant's history of violence, the nature of the charges against him and the existence of the threat to the witness.  A prerequisite to the order is that the defendant be permitted to cross-examine the witness. 

Recently, lawyers in Massachusetts have been confronted with prosecutor's motions for protective orders under this law as a matter of course, especially in murder cases.  Rather than order an evidentiary hearing that permits cross-examination of the concerned witness, judges are often times endorsing the motions. 

There are challenges that can be made in opposition to these motions that stem directly from basic constitutional guarantees in both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions.  Our office has been engaged in a challenge to this law for several months now.  It stems from a prosecutor's blanket request that our client not receive certain grand jury testimony transcripts except in redacted form.  The judge allowed the motion never requiring the prosecutor to demonstrate the "specific and articulable facts" required under the statute.  The order was also issued without regard to our client's right to cross-examine the witnesses to ascertain whether or not the client did in fact pose a threat to these witnesses. 

We are prepared to fight this issue as well as any others that arise for all of our clients.  If you are looking to hire a criminal lawyer in Massachusetts we encourage you to view our website and learn about the types of criminal cases we defend.  We are available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. 

Related Web Resources:

Criminal Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts

G.L. ch. 268 sec. 13D(d)

A 42 year old Fall River woman was held without bail after being arraigned in the Dorchester District Court on charges of kidnapping, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, kidnapping and assorted motor vehicle charges. 

At arraignment the prosecution disclosed that on July 22, 2008 around 12:00 p.m. Boston Police received information that a woman was screaming for help out of a window of the car being driven by the defendant.  The responding officer attempted to pull the car over at which time the defendant proceeded to weave in and out of traffic in an attempt to avoid apprehension.  Another officer observed the passenger crying out for help.  During the chase the defendant was driving approximately 80-90 miles per hour.  Police vehicles ultimately surrounded the defendant's vehicle and after a struggle effectuated an arrest. 

The woman was held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing.

Bail in Massachusetts in regulated by G.L. c. 276 sec. 42.  The statute was written in 1971 as a mechanism designed to establish the right of those accused to be admitted to bail.  In deciding whether to set bail, and how much bail to impose, clerk magistrates and judges consider several factors.  They look at the severity of the crime, the individual's roots in the community, the accused's criminal record and the individual's history of defaults. 

In addition to this statute Massachusetts has a law that permits pre-trial detention based on a finding that the person is dangerous.  See G.L. c. 276 sec. 58A.  Under that law the prosecution may move for an order of detention on the grounds of dangerousness.  You are entitled to a hearing on this issue and a judge must find by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community or any other person.  A person detained on dangerousness grounds cannot be detained for more than ninety days absent a showing of good cause.

District Attorney's Offices in many Massachusetts counties attempt to use the dangerousness statute for specific crimes.  The most common is domestic assault and battery.  If you are charged with a crime it is important to hire a criminal defense lawyer who is familiar with the bail statute.  Bail is typically set at the arraignment.  Our office has handled hundreds of bail arguments successfully in Massachusetts and other states.  If you are charged with a crime we encourage you to contact our office now.   

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Lawyers.

Highway Driver Charged With Multiple Assaults, Kidnapping Suffolk County District Attorney's Office Press Release

The Massachusetts Bail Statute G.L. c. 276 sec. 42

Dangerousness Hearings G.L. c. 276 sec. 58A  

Ariel Lara Aguasviva of Jamaica Plain and his cousin Jorge Luis Ortiz Lara were charged with distributing heroin.  The case is currently pending in the East Boston District Court.  The prosecution alleged that an informant made a controlled purchase of heroin from the defendants.  After doing so undercover officers descended on the defendants who in turn locked themselves in their car.  Officers saw Aguasviva swallow what appeared to be drugs.  An arrest ensued during which Aguasviva was shot.  He suffered non life threatening wounds. 

Distribution of heroin in Massachusetts is s criminal act.  The term distribution encompasses not only the sale of the illegal drug but giving or sharing the substance with anyone including friends.  Penalties for heroin distribution in Massachusetts are severe.  If convicted you can be sentenced to up to ten years in state prison.  Second and subsequent offense are punishable by a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence and as much as fifteen years can be imposed. 

Hiring a good lawyer is your best option for defending a heroin distribution case.  Often times the arrest was unlawful.  Searches and seizures that reveal the presence of drugs if not done within constitutional guidelines are subject to suppression.  Testing the weight of the substance can result in a reduction of the charges.  All top Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers defend people accused of committing drug offenses. 

Our office defends people charged with heroin distribution and all drug crimes.  If you need to discuss a drug related charge call our office now.  We are committed to protecting your rights. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyers.

Alleged drug dealers held after struggle.  Boston.com July 25, 2008.

Heroin Distrubution in Massachusetts is governed by G.L. c. 94C sec. 32. 

A joint task force comprised of the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Medford, Massachusetts Police and the Middlesex County PACT Unit executed a search warrant at a Medford man's home this past Monday.  Officers found and seized a total of nine kilograms of cocaine.  Seven were located in the defendant's home and the remaining two were found in a companion's SUV parked in the driveway of the home.  Law enforcement officials estimated the street value of the drugs around $500,000.00. 

The Medford man was identified as Heriberto Cruz.  His companion is Patricia Taia.  Both were arrested after the search was conducted.  They were charged with trafficking 200 grams or more of cocaine as well as conspiracy to violate the drug laws.  If convicted both face a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen years in state prison.

Trafficking is the most serious of all the drug crimes in Massachusetts.  Mandatory state prison sentences have been set by the legislature.  Cocaine trafficking is broken down into four separate crimes.  Trafficking cocaine of 14 grams or more requires a 3 year state prison sentence.  Trafficking cocaine of 28 grams or more mandates a 5 year state prison sentence.  Trafficking cocaine of 100 grams or more is punishable by a mandatory 10 year state prison sentence.  Trafficking cocaine of 200 grams or more mandates the greatest sentence, 15 years in state prison.

If you are looking for an experienced Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer you should call our office immediately.  There are several steps that you can take to protect your rights.  Often times good lawyering can result in charges being dismissed or reduced.  You can help protect yourself by hiring a top Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer right away.

Our office has the experience and skill you need to defend against allegations involving drug trafficking.  We have tried and won drug trafficking cases throughout Massachusetts.  Calling us is the first step. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyers

Read Middlesex County District Attorney's Office Press Release:  Two Arrested, Arraigned After Nine Kilos of Cocaine Seized in Medford Bust

Cocaine Trafficking in Massachusetts is governed by G.L. c. 94C sec. 32E

The defendant was convicted in the Superior Court for possession with the intent to distribute PCP and for violating the Massachusetts School Zone statute.  He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution's late disclosure of exculpatory evidence deprived him of his right to a fair trial.

At the time of his arrest the defendant had in his possession a quantity of PCP that the testifying officer considered consistent with an intent to distribute rather than for personal use.  Supporting this opinion was the defendant's possession of items consistent with an intent to distribute.  One of these items was neatly folded money that the officer believed the defendant used as his bank role.  One of the defendant's friends testified that the money was hers.  She further testified that she called the police station to claim the money.  Two prosecution witnesses testified to having checked the police logs and seeing no evidence of the friend's call. 

After the evidence in the trial had closed the prosecution located recordings of two telephone calls that indeed supported the friend's testimony.  The trial judge refused defense counsel's request for a mistrial and the case was appealed.  The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the late disclosure warranted a reversal of the conviction.  See Commonwealth v. Green, slip opinion July 21, 2008. 

Possession with the intent to distribute PCP in connection with the violation of the School Zone Statute warrants a minimum 2 years sentence of incarceration.  This sentence cannot be suspended and probation is not a permitted alternative.  Therefore your choice of lawyers is of the utmost importance if you have been charged with these offenses. 

Attorney Stephen Neyman is a criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts who has spent his entire career handling drug cases. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firms

Possession With Intent To Distribute PCP G.L. c. 94C sec. 32A

School Zone Violations G.L. c. 94C sec. 32J

In 1993 Dr. Linda Goudey was found murdered in her car parked in the Stoneham Hospital parking lot.  The cause of death was manual strangulation.  Her boyfriend at the time, Dr. Timothy Stryker has been a suspect in the killing ever since.  Today, in accordance with a press release issued by the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office Stryker has been indicted on seven counts of subornation of perjury and two additional criminal counts. 

The press release reports that a in June of 2006 a civil jury returned a verdict of more than seven million dollars in favor of the Goudey family against the doctor for the wrongful death of Goudey.  Nine months later Stryker filed a motion for a new trial claiming that a witness saw Goudey shortly before she was killed with a blonde haired man who looked like Boomer Esiason and nothing like Stryker.  It took this witness thirteen years to come forward with this evidence. 

Later in 2007 the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office called this witness, Craig Pizzano to appear before a grand jury investigating the 1993 murder.  Pizzano conceded that he was engaged by Stryker and another to give this story.  Pizzano was supposed to receive money from Stryker for his efforts once the civil judgment was set aside.

Subornation of perjury is proscribed by G.L. c. 268 sec. 2.  It is satisfied when the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has procured the commission of perjury.  The crime of perjury is defined by G.L. c. 268 sec. 1. In Massachusetts the prosecution must do more than simply show that the defendant's testimony was false.  It must also show that the false testimony was material to any matter under investigation by the grand jury.  See Commonwealth v. Kelley, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 934 (1992).   The penalties authorized for convictions of subornation of perjury are the same those applicable to perjury convictions. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is a Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm that has defended criminal matters involving perjury allegations in murder cases and other criminal matters in Massachusetts.  To discuss your rights call our office now. 

Related Web Resources:

Middlesex County District Attorney's Office Press Release.

Dr. Stryker faces perjury charge in girlfriend's death.  Boston.com July 22, 2008.

Contact The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman today. 

On January 12, 2007 a college student applied ex parte for and obtained a restraining order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A.  Her supporting affidavit stated that earlier that day the defendant, also a college student verbally harrassed her, calling her names and using profanities.  Her affidavit further stated that the two had dated for two and one half years and broken up on two occasions.  The complainant had not seen the defendant in over 5 months.  He had however been contacting her electronically. 

The judge scheduled a date for the defendant to be heard and to defend against the allegations.  At the time the defendant was represented by an excellent well respected Boston lawyer.  Through cross-examination the lawyer clarified that there had been no contact between the parties for 6 months.  Significantly, in response to a voicemail the complainant called the defendant herself.  Three times he hung up on her endeavoring to avoid any contact.  The defendant's lawyer presented cell phone records to confirm this fact.  Nevertheless, the judge extended the restraining order.

The defendant called our office seeking to reverse the order and clear his name.  Attorney Neyman appealed the ruling and on July 17, 2008 the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the lower court's order.  Slip Opinion July 17, 2008, WL 2756567.  It further ordered that all records of the erroneous order be destroyed.

In its opinion the Appeals Court reiterated two salient points.  First, even if a restraining order has expired your appeal will not be moot.  Future legal proceedings could be adversely impacted by a record showing that a restraining order issued against you in the past.  Second, the complainant in this case failed to establish a necessary element of the restraining order statute; specifically that there existed a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. 

All too often Massachusetts judges issue restraining orders that are not supported by adequate facts.  Rather than applying the law to the facts of the case the the judges "err on the side of caution" and rubber stamp the requested order.  Rarely are these orders appealed.  The consequences can be devastating.  There is a record showing that a restraining order was issued against you.  Any violation of the order can result in the issuance of a criminal complaint.  Lawfully possessed firearms must be surrendered.  Your liberty can be greatly restricted.  The restraining order statute is often abused by persons scorned in a relationship. 

There are legal actions available to you if someone is seeking or has obtained a restraining order against you.  You can try to vacate the order, have the order modified or appeal the issuance of the order.  Our office has handled restraining order cases with great success.  Conctact us anytime to discuss your restraining order concerns. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Massachusetts Restraining Orders are governed by G.L. c. 209A.

After a jury waived trial the defendant was convicted of two counts of cocaine trafficking in the Superior Court.  He appealed his conviction claiming that his waiver of his right to a jury trial was not effective in that he never signed the waiver form. 

G.L. c. 263 sec. 6 provides criminal defendants with the right to have their case heard by a judge or a jury.  The exception applies to capital cases and to cases in which there are co-defendants and one of the co-defendants elects to proceed before a jury.  Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 19(a) reflects this rule as well.  In 2006 the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed this issue and concluded that absence of the written waiver is fatal to the conviction.  See Commonwealth v. Osborne, 445 Mass. 776 (2006).  The Court in Osborne reasoned that G.L. c. 263 sec. 6 was designed to provide a record that persons waiving their constitutional right to a trial by jury were doing so in an informed manner.  It was further held that adhering to the letter of the statute would protect the defendant from falsely or accidentally waiving his or her constitutional rights. 

The decision of whether or not to proceed with a jury or a judge is not to be taken likely.  There are times when an objective determination of guilt or innocense by a jury is unlikely.  This can be the function of an unsympathetic defendant or a repugnant accusation.  In these situations your choice of lawyers is critical.  A lawyer's familliarity with the judges is essential to the determination of whether to have your case tried with or without a jury. 

Every lawyer in our office has over 20 year experience with criminal law in Massachusetts.  We are prepared to handle any type of criminal case.  We have successfully defended people accused of committing drug trafficking crimes.  Call our office now to discuss your case. 

Related Web Resources:

Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The Cocaine Trafficking  statute in Massachusetts is G.L. c. 94C sec. 32E.

The defendant was charged with OUI.  He took and failed a breathalyzer test.  He then filed and argued a motion to suppress the results of the breathalyzer test claiming that the test was improperly administered.  The trial judge allowed the motion to suppress and the prosecution appealed the ruling. The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard the appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision.

Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) Sec. 2.55 advises that the test operator observe the defendant for a period of fifteen minutes prior to administering the test.  The regulation is designed to ensure that the suspect is not doing anything that might adversely effect the accuracy of the test.  For example, people experiencing reflux might burp or hiccough thereby bringing up from the stomache food or drink.  This action could provide a false positive result.  The regulation was designed to prevent this from occurring.  Massachusetts courts have ruled that it is not necessary that the observation actually occur in the breathalyzer room.  Rather, the observation can occur during the stop of the defendant, the administration of any field sobriety tests and during transport to the police station. 

In this case the officer who administered the test believed that the fifteen minute waiting period was for the purpose of letting the breathalyzer machine warm up.  He never offered his observations, particularly whether he observed a contaminating event.  Rather, he talked about the events that transpired and provided time estimates as to each event. 

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the test results must be suppressed due to the improprieties.  See Commonwealth v. Pierre, slip opinion July 17, 2008.

In Massachusetts you have an absolute right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test.  You also have the right to refuse to take field sobriety tests.  It is important to know that if you choose to refuse those tests the prosecution is not permitted to mention that fact to a jury or a judge at trial.  To more fully understand your rights you should contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.  Our office has been handling OUI cases for over 20 years.  If you have been charged with OUI call the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman.  We will fight to protect your rights.

Related Web Resources: 

Boston Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyers.

Drunk Driving matters in Massachusetts are governed by G.L. c. 90 sec. 24 and G.L. c. 90 sec. 24D.