Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Yesterday's Metrowest Daily News reported that Kevin Porter of Stowe, Massachusetts was indicted by a Middlesex County Grand Jury for the June 24, 2008 murder of Jeffrey Weaver.  Porter was also charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  The Middlesex County District Attorney's office press release provided little information on this case. 

Porter was initially arraigned in the Framingham District Court on June 25, 2008, one day after the murder.  During the arraignment, Porter's defense lawyer argued that Porter acted in self-defense.  The prosecution claimed that Porter stabbed Weaver during a fight.  The defense contended that Weaver attacked Porter with a baseball bat, his fists and a chair.  Porter was held on $250,000 cash bail.  Read Article, Metrowest Daily News June 25, 2008.

The Salem News reported that on Tuesday Danvers police arrested two men responsible for breaking and entering cars at the Liberty Tree Mall.  According to police, a witness saw a man breaking into a car at the mall and stealing an unidentified item from inside.  The witness saw the suspect get into a Chevrolet and drive away.  He called the police and told them what he had just seen.  He provided a description of the suspect, the car in which he fled and a license plate number.  A patrolman received the information and spotted the car.  When he attempted to stop the vehicle the driver took off on Route 114 in Danvers and headed towards Middleton.  The suspect made an illegal u-turn at the Route 114/Route 1 intersection.  This caused a collision between that vehicle and a police cruiser. 

The police were finally able to apprehend the driver and his passenger.  The driver was identified as Lewis Diaz of Lawrence, Massachusetts.  The passenger was Christy Lebron, also of Lawrence.  Inside the car police found stolen car stereos and radio equipment. Diaz was charged in the Salem District Court with receiving stolen property, breaking and entering a motor vehicle, malicous destruction to a motor vehicle, driving without a license, providing a false name to police officers, possession of burglarious tools, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, failure to stop for police, resisting arrest, larceny over $250 and using a motor vehicle during the commission of a felony.  Lebron was charged with receiving stolen property, breaking and entering a motor vehicle and malicious destruction to a motor vehicle. 

In this situation it appears that the case against Diaz is much stronger than the case against Lebron.  An eyewitness saw Diaz break into two cars and take items from those cars.  This person will be able to offer direct evidence against Diaz as to the theft crimes.  The motor vehicle offenses were witnessed directly by the pursuing police officers.  The case against Lebron is a bit more tenuous.  Absent any statement admitting responsibility the case against Lebron is circumstantial.  If the stolen items were in her sight or in her possession then her chance of success at trial are reduced.  If the stolen items were concealed it is conceivable that she was not aware of what Diaz was doing. 

We defend theft crimes in Massachusetts  and motor vehicle crimes in Massachusetts on a regular basis.  No matter what you are charged with it is always important to hire a lawyer to help you defend your case. 

Related Web Resources:

Salem, Massachusetts Theft Crimes Defense Attorneys

Salem, Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Lawyers, Kathleen McCarthy

Danvers, Massachusetts Police Department

A fifteen year old girl was crossing Waverly Street shortly after 9:30 p.m. Wednesday August 20th when she was strike by a white Jeep Cherokee.  The vehicle stopped briefly but the operator never got out of the car.  According to Framingham Police the driver who was identified as Jose Cartagena was arrested about forty minutes later after a witness provided the police with the car's plate number and a description of the driver.  The victim was taken to a locan hospital.  The status of her condition was not released.  When questioned by police Cartagena denied driving the car tried to blame his brother. The brother told officers that he never permitted Cartagena to drive the car.

Cartagena was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, use without authority and operating without a driver's license.  He was arraigned in the Framingham District Court where he entered a plea of not guilty.  He was released on personal recognizance.

To find Cartagena guilty of using the car without authority the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:  1) that Cartagena used the vehicle; 2) that he did so on a public way; 3) that he lacked permission to use the vehicle; and 4) that he knew the use of the car was unauthorized.  The first two elements will be easily met by the prosecution.  That third element might present them with some problems.  It is not uncommon for siblings not to testify favorably for one another.  While Cartagena's brother initially told the police that he did not permit the defendant to use the car his story might change; he might deny that he provided police with that information or he might tell the prosecution that while he did not give specific permission for Cartagena to use the car that night he regularly allowed him to use it.  This would give Cartagena a legitimate defense to this charge in that he had a valid belief that his use of the car was permitted.

The charge of leaving the scene of an accident will present the defense with a greater challenge.  A conviction of that crime requires a six month jail sentence. 

Read Full Story Metrowest Daily News: "Cops say SUV hits girl, then takes off".

Stephen Neyman is committed to defending people accused of all crimes in Massachusetts.  Hit and run in Massachusetts is a serious offense.  If handled correctly by knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers you will usually have a chance at a very good result.  When hiring a Massachusetts criminal attorney be sure that you are retaining someone who has experience with the crime with which you have been charged and that the lawyer works in the court where your case is pending.  For over twenty years we have been working in all courts in Massachusetts.  We are in Framingham regularly.  Contact our office now to discuss your case. 

Related Web Resources:

Framingham, Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Defense Lawyers

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Attorneys

Framingham Police Department

A third victim in just one week has come forward to identify Peter Pearson as her assailant in a rape case dating back to 2005.  The facts follow a pattern similar to what has been alleged in the first two incidents.  Pearson pretended he was a police officer, solicited a prostitute, kidnapped her and forced her to perform oral sex acts on him.  On at least two occasions women have alleged that Pearson brandished a firearm.  Pearson flashed a badge and a large police flashlight during one of these incidents.  He told the victims that he was an undercover state trooper.  Pearson was arraigned on an initial set of charges last Tuesday and a second set yesterday.  Some of the crimes are said to have taken place as far back as five years.  Brockton police have stated that no less than ten other women have made similar accusations against Pearson.  All of the victims in these cases have worked as prostitutes in the past.  The first victim said the rape occurred in July.  The second said it happened sometime in 2003.  The third dates the acts back to 2005.  The second and third accusers came forward after seeing Pearson's picture in the news. 

Pearson is being held without bail pending a hearing on dangerousness scheduled for tomorrow.  Dangerousness hearings in Massachusetts were established by G.L. c. 276 sec. 58A.  By law, people are held in custody pending the hearing on dangerousness.  This statute requires that a hearing be held immediately.  The defense if it elects may continue the case for up to seven days.  Typically continuances for dangerousness hearings are requested by the defense when time is needed to round up witnesses and records that will support a request for release from custody.  The prosecution is permitted to request a continuance for up to three days.   A judge cannot release a defendant pending a dangerousness hearing if the prosecution demonstrates that there was probable to arrest the defendant. 

Read Boston Globe Article August 26, 2008

The strength of the government's case will be a determining factor in the judge's decision to release or detain Pearson.  Pearson's attorney stated that widespread news coverage prompted the second two accusers to come forward and make false accusations.  What was not mentioned in court was whether the second and third accusers reported the crimes to the police after they occurred or if these are their first complaints as to these crimes. 

Rape is a violent crime.  It is punishable by up to life in prison.  If this case is tried it will be done so in the Plymouth Superior Court in Brockton.  Juries in Plymouth County can be quite diverse.  Residents from the City of Brockton or the Town of Hingham can be members of Plymouth County juries.  Hiring a lawyer who understands these juries is critical if you are going to try your case. 

Related Web Resources:

Brockton Rape Defense Lawyers

Plymouth County District Attorney's Office

Prostitution Statistics and Rape

For the second time this week Boston Deputy Fire Chief Peter Pearson was arrested for allegedly raping and kidnapping a woman while impersonating a police officer.  On Monday Pearson was arrested by Brockton Police and charged with kidnapping, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, rape and impersonating a police officer.  According to the Brockton Enterprise Pearson posed as a state trooper and ordered a prostitute into his car.  He drove her to a park and forced her to have oral sex with him.  It was also alleged that Pearson stalked the prostitute for weeks prior to committing these acts.  These allegations initially surfaced when a woman being held on suspicion of prostitution told police that she had been raped by a state trooper weeks earlier.  The victim later saw the car and was able to identify Pearson as her attacker.  He was arraigned in the Brockton District Court and released on fifty thousand dollars cash bail. 

Just yesterday, Pearson was arrested at his home in Bridgewater after another woman came forward and claimed that he committed the same crimes in Bristol County.  He is facing charges in Bristol County for aggravated rape, kidnapping for sexual intercourse, impersonating a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon.  If convicted Pearson faces a possible sentence of life in prison. 

Pearson was arrested in 1996 for soliciting a prostitute and his case was continued without a finding in the Brockton District Court. 

Rape in Massachusetts is governed by G.L. c. 265 sec. 22.  The statute makes a conviction of the crime punishable by up to life in prison.  Impersonating a police officer is proscribed by G.L. c. 268 sec. 33.  If convicted you can serve up to one year in the house of correction for this crime.  G.L. c. 265 sec. 26 defines the crime of kidnapping in Massachusetts.  This statute permits a sentence of up to ten years for a conviction of this offense. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman represents people accused of sex crimes in Brockton.  We also have represented people charged with sex crimes in Bristol County.  We have also represented people charged with violent crimes in Brockton and Bristol County such as kidnapping and assault by means of a dangerous weapon.  We are available night and to respond to your inquiries about your criminal case in Massachusetts.  Either call or email our office if you have been charged with any crime anywhere in Massachusetts. 

Related Web Resources:

Hub fire official again arrested for assault, Boston Globe August 24, 2008

Boston deputy fire chief arrested again in Brockton.  Brockton Enterprise August 23, 2008

Contact Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyers Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C.

Salem Massachusetts Police reported that a concerned citizen's call prompted the arrest of a Salem man on drunk driving charges.  Apparently the caller followed the driver for several miles and stayed with the car until police were able to catch up to the parties.  The witness related that the driver had run over a traffic island, gone through a stop sign and driven the wrong way down a one way street.  The witness detailed the driver's route in great detail.  When the police stopped the suspect he admitted to drinking too much and stated that he just wanted to go to bed.  He refused a breath test and refused to take field sobriety tests.  The man was charged with drunk driving in the Salem District Court. 

Read Full Artricle, Salem Daily News August 23, 2008.

Drunk driving in Massachusetts is governed by G.L. c. 90 sec. 24 and G.L. c. 90 sec. 24D.  The penalties for a conviction of drunk driving vary.  Multiple offenders received sentences more severe than first time offenders.  If there is an accident or if someone is injured the penalties for first time offenders can be of great consequence as well. 

Most Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers handle drunk driving cases on a regular basis.  In the case discussed above, the defendant had an absolute right not to take the breathalyzer test and the field sobriety tests.  In Massachusetts your refusal to take those tests cannot be mentioned at trial by the prosecutor, judge or anyone else.  You should not be fooled by police officers who tell you that taking these tests is in your best interest.  If you have been drinking then it is usually advisable that you do not take these tests.  Field sobriety tests are very subjective.  The opinion of the police officer governs.  People who are not intoxicated are often intimidated by the process and are nervous when taking the fields sobriety tests.  This nervousness can result in a poor performance on the tests.  The breathalyzer test is often not administered properly.  In that situation your reading might provide a false positive. 

Our office has handled hundreds of drunk driving cases in Massachusetts and other states.  We understand how the tests work and what is required to get an acquittal.  We have proven that our clients were not impaired even in situations where they have admitted to consuming what some people might consider large quantities of alcohol. 

If you are looking to hire a lawyer for a drunk driving case consider our firm by clicking on Massachusetts Drunk Driving Defense Lawyers.

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Law About Drunk Driving  Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries

Massachusetts Drunk Driving Statistics  A statistical look at alcohol related fatalities since 1982

Massachusetts Drunk Driving Attorneys  Kathleen McCarthy

Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyers  Robert Wheeler

The Lynn Item reported that Ruben Ramos pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine, heroin and marijuana as part of a plea bargain agreement that will require him to serve at least three years on state prison.  During the guilty plea hearing the prosecutor told the judge that based on information that the defendant was selling drugs in the Lynn area police began an investigation.  An undercover police officer and Ramos agreed to meet in January during which an arrangement was made whereby the officer would receive from the defendant one gram of heroin.  The deal was completed in January.  Three similar deals followed later that month and in February.  The total amount for all four deals was one thousand eight hundred forty dollars.  After the last transaction was consummated Ramos was arrested.  Police found marijuana, marked "buy" money and a cell phone in his possession.  The cell phone was used to arrange the deals. 

Plea bargaining is part of any good criminal defense lawyers' arsenal.  Not all cases are triable.  When people sell to undercover police officers the chances of success at trial are slim.  Typically cases involving hand to hand sales are tried only when the prosecution fails to negotiate a favorable agreement.  In other situations people accused might opt to go to trial where the actions of the police amount to entrapment.  Entrapment does not mean that a person was "tricked" into selling to an undercover police officer.  Rather, it involves law enforcement's illicit efforts to compel someone otherwise not disposed to sell or provide drugs by breaking down that person's will.  Attorney Stephen Neyman has successfully tried three cases involving hand to hand sales to undercover officers, each time using an entrapment defense.  By clicking on the link above you can go to our website and view specific case results.  Each of these defendants was acquitted of the trafficking indictments. 

If you have been charged with a drug crime in Massachusetts contact our office right now.  We are prepared to fight your case. 

Read Article, Lynn Item August 19, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Lynn Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Attorneys

Drug Crimes Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts

Massachusetts Secretary of State Citizen Information Service

A Norfolk County Superior Court jury found Keely Johnson, a former Stoughton Court Officer guilty of two counts of distribution of Vicodin and violating the Massachusetts School Zone statute.  The prosecution alleged that in July 2006 state police began investigating Johnson for selling Vicodin inside and outside the Stoughton District Courthouse where she served as a Court Officer.  On July 28, 2006 Johnson sold 50 tablets of Vicodin to an undercover police officer.  She did so while her seven year old son sat in her car in a parking lot adjacent to the location of the transaction.  On August 3, 2006 Johnson sold the undercover officer more Vicodin tablets, this time at the courthouse which sits within one thousand feet of an elementary school.  A Superior Judge sentenced Johnson to the mandatory two years in jail for the school zone conviction and to an additional three months in jail for the distribution convictions. 

The Massachusetts School Zone statute makes it a crime to distribute, possess with the intent to distribute or traffic controlled substances within one thousand feet of a school zone.  Anyone convicted of violating this statute must serve at least two years in jail.  The maximum sentence for a conviction of this law is fifteen years in state prison.  The school zone statute also makes is a crime to commit these acts within one hundred feet of a public park or playground.

In spite of the mandatory sentence connected with school zone violations, experienced criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts often succeed in getting the prosecution to agree to dismiss the school zone offense in exchange for a plea to a lesser offense.  This is done in cases where the person does not have a remarkable criminal background and there are circumstances that mitigate the criminal act.  Trying the case is also an option.  Our office has proven that the similar crimes were not committed within one thousand feet of a school zone thus eliminating the mandatory sentence that the prosecution sought to have imposed.  On other occasions we have proven that our client did not commit the act regardless of what the police and prosecutor told the jury. 

In Johnson's case the defendant had an uphill battle.  Her crimes were captured by the police on videotape.  For more on Keely Johnson's case read Brockton Enterprise Article August 15, 2008. 

Stephen Neyman is an experienced Massachusetts drug crimes defense lawyer who knows how to defend people accused of violating the controlled substances laws and the Massachusetts School Zone statute.

Related Web Resources:

Boston Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firms

School Zone Anti-Drug Law Study Released

An Empirical Study of the School Zone Law in Three Cities in Massachusetts

In a ruling published today the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that victims of assault and battery in Massachusetts must be people when charged under G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A.  Commonwealth v. Wilson, slip opinion August 21, 2008.  In connection with a drug deal the defendant in Wilson was chased by police.  The chase ended when the car the defendant was driving hit a police car.  One of the counts charged the defendant with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The prosecution claimed that the weapon was the car.  The victim was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as owner of the police car that was damaged.  The defendant pleaded guilty to this count in the complaint.  Years later through a motion for a new trial he moved to vacate his conviction.  The trial judge denied the motion.  On appeal the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed.  It held that Massachusetts General Laws c. 265 establishes "Crimes Against the Person".  The section under which Wilson was charged, G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A requires that the victim be a person.  The conviction violated Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the defendant's right to due process.  As such it was vacated and the count was dismissed. 

Vacating criminal convictions is one of the services that the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman routinely provides to its clients.  Sometimes people are convicted of committing crimes that are not supported by law or fact.  This can happen when the defense lawyer or prosecutor or judge are unfamiliar with the law.  It can also happen when people are simply not paying close attention to the details of the case.  Criminal defendants unfamiliar with their rights often acquiesce to resolutions of their case that on the surface appear reasonable.  In doing so they are establishing a criminal record that likely will have an adverse effect on their lives later on.  The conviction can effect employment opportunities, require sex offender registration or be used to enhance the sentence for a conviction of another offense. 

If you have been wrongly convicted of a crime in Massachusetts or anywhere else you should contact our office now.  We have been representing people on post conviction matters for years with great results.  It is never too late to demand justice. 

Related Web Resources:

Lawyers Who Defend Violent Crimes In Massachusetts

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Examples Of Wrongful Convictions In Massachusetts

A thirty one year old Billerica man pled guilty in the Lowell Superior Court to two counts of statutory rape of a fifteen year old girl.  According to the Lowell Sun, the two met through a chat room on the internet.  In October 2006 the two met for the first time near the girl's home in Billerica.  The defendant would pick the girl up from her bus stop and drive her home.  Eventually the defendant brought the girl to his parents home where they had consensual sexual relations.  For the next nine months the relationship continued.  In June 2007 the two went to Salisbury beach for the day.  When the girl returned home her mother questioned her about her sunburn.  She admitted going to the beach with an older man.  The next day the girl's mother got the defendant's license plate and contacted the police.  The defendant was charged with two counts of statutory rape.

There are two forms of rape of a child in Massachusetts.  One is the rape of a child with force and the other is rape of a child without force, more commonly known as statutory rape.  In this case the defendant was convicted of statutory rape.  Massachusetts law specifically states that if the person is under the age of sixteen, the fact that he or she consents to the act or willingly enters into the act does not constitute a defense.  Thus, even though the defendant in this case was involved in a relationship with the fifteen year old girl for nine months and the sex acts were entered into voluntarily he was still guilty of a felony.  He will also have to register as a sex offender with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). 

It is important to note that even a good faith belief that the person with whom you are having sex is sixteen or older is not a defense to this crime.  Even if you tried to ascertain the person's age and were convinced that the person was at least sixteen years old you can be convicted of this crime if it is proven that he or she had not yet attained that age. 

Attorney Stephen Neyman has defended sex crimes throughout his entire career.  Statutory rape cases are difficult to defend.  The prosecution must prove only that the person was under the age of sixteen at the time that he or she engaged in sexual relations with the defendant.  Sometimes the defendant is also under the age of sixteen.  When this happens the defendant oftentimes files a cross complaint against the "victim".  In this situation, both parties will face a prosecution for statutory rape.  When that happens the parties usually exercise their Fifth Amendment privileges and the matter is resolved by dismissal without a trial. 

If you have been charged with a sex crime in Massachusetts it is important to act quickly and hire the best Massachusetts criminal defense attorney you can find.  For more information on sex crimes in Massachusetts please read our website or contact our office. 

Read Story, Lowell Sun August 16, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Boston Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyers 

Sex Offender Registry Board 

Statutory Rape

Saturday night, as a result of a surveillance, Methuen police officers arrested three men for violating the controlled substances laws.  According the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, the Methuen Police Drug Unit was conducting a surveillance at the intersection of Lowell Street and Wheeler Avenue.  Around 5:00 p.m. officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction.  When they attempted an arrest one of the subjects, Jose Mercedes-Leon fled on foot into the woods.  After a forty five minute chase Mercedes-Leon was apprehended.  He was charged with subsequent offense distribution of heroin, conspiracy, disorderly person, resisting arrest, providing a false name to police and trespassing.  Mercedes-Leon was also charged with being a fugitive from justice for defaulting on charges of aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Rhode Island. 

Two other men, Walter Zachary and Blair Despres, were also arrested in connection with this incident.  They were both charged with trafficking heroin and conspiracy.  Fifteen grams of heroin were found in their possession.

Attorney Stephen Neyman represents people accused of drug crimes in Massachusetts and throughout the country.  Cases such as the one discussed above are routinely defended by our office.  In this case, since both Zachary and Despres were charged with trafficking heroin it is likely that the prosecution will proceed against one of them as a joint venturer and the other as a principle.  There is a simple distinction that separates those theories.  Principles are those who actually commit the act.  The person directly distributing or selling the substance is the principle.  A joint venturer is someone who is "(1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement is willing and available to help the other if necessary."  In Massachusetts the penalties for the principle and joint venturer are the same. 

It is important to keep in mind there merely being present at the scene does not give rise to liability as a joint venturer.  The best criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts undersand this distinction and are often capable of getting their clients acquitted where they were present with no involvement.  If you have questions about a drug crime or your criminal responsibility in a case contact our office now. 

Read Article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, August 17, 2008. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Heroin Trafficking Defense Lawyers

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyers

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008) the United States Supreme Court held that under the Eight Amendment to the United Stated Constitution the death penalty cannot be imposed where the crimes did not result in the death of the victim and where death was not an intended result of the crime. 

History of the case:

The defendant Patrick Kennedy was charged with the aggravated of his eight year old stepdaughter.  He was convicted.  The jury voted to sentence him to death under a Louisiana statute that permitted executions for raping a child under the age of twelve.  Kennedy appealed the conviction to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  That court affirmed the conviction.  In doing so it held in part that fourteen other states authorize the death penalty in cases other than homicide cases and that this is a trend representing a "direction of change". 

Facts:

In March of 1998 Patrick Kennedy called 911 to report that his stepdaughter had been raped.  He claimed that while in his garage getting his son ready for school two boys from his neighborhood dragged his stepdaughter into the yard, raped her and fled the scene.  The police arrived to see the victim bleeding from her vagina and wrapped in a bloody blanket.  The defendant told them that he carried her from the garage to the bathroom and started to clean her.  The victim was taken to the hospital.  Her injuries were so severe that emergency surgery was required. 

The case was tried five years later.  The victim testified against Kennedy.  There was ample corroborating evidence that he had in fact committed the crime.  His story was replete with inconsistencies.  Physical evidence at the scene and the police investigation made clear to the jury that Kennedy indeed committed this crime.  During the death penalty phase of the trial Kennedy's ex-wife's cousin testified that when she was eight years old Kennedy violated her sexually on three occasions.  The jury voted for the death penalty and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. 

The Holding:

Reiterating principles set out in earlier cases the Supreme Court stated that the death penalty must be reserved and limited to those who commit the most serious crimes.  The involvement of the defendant must make him most deserving of the death penalty.  The imposition of the death penalty must be proportionate to the crime that was committed.  Where the rape of a child is committed death must result for the death penalty to be imposed.  The Louisiana statute permitting the death penalty in this case, La. Stat. Ann. sec. 14:42 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court concluded that the death penalty must be limited to those situations where the victim was killed. 

Four Supreme Court Justices dissented in a scathing opinion written by Justice Alito. 

Massachusetts no longer has a death penalty.  It was struck down as unconstitutional in Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 393 Mass. 150 (1984).  In recent years this has been the subject of great debate in Massachusetts. 

Related Web Resources:

Boston Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firms

Massachusetts Death Penalty Facts

A Haverhill man and his girlfriend were charged with selling cocaine at a cosmetic counter in the Haverhill Walgreens located at 301 Main Street.  Police were alerted by an informant that Enery Fernandez, a store employee was selling cocaine during her work shift.  After receiving this information police arranged a controlled buy during which Fernandez sold cocaine that she had concealed in her purse and bra.  It was further alleged that the boyfriend, Luis Ledesma would supply the drugs and provide the same to Fernandez.  Customers would call Ledesma who in turn would direct them to Fernandez at the Walgreens.  Fernandez would take the customer to a bathroom or a secluded area and consummate the transaction.

Bail for Fernandez was set at five thousand dollars cash.  Bail for Ledesma was set at twenty five thousand dollars cash.  Ledesma had recently been released from jail after having served a fifteen month sentence.  Ledesma was not arrested at the scene.  He had no drugs at the time of his arrest.  Fernandez has no criminal record.

Read Lawrence Eagle Tribune August 12, 2008, first article on this story.

The defendants in this case are likely to face charges of distribution of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy violation the controlled substances laws.  The maximum sentence for distribution and possession with intent is ten years in state prison.  It is unlikely for either of these defendants to be sentenced to the maximum.  This is particularly true for Fernandez who has no criminal record.  If Ledesma has a prior conviction for this offense and is charged as a second offender he faces a mandatory three years in state prison. 

As with all experienced criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts our office defends cocaine distribution, possession with intent and conspiracy charges regularly in Haverhill and courts throughout the Commonwealth.  We have a proven track record of success.  It is never too late to hire us to defend your criminal case.

Related Web Resources:

Haverhill Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyers

Distribution and Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine, G.L. c. 94C sec. 32A.

Massachusetts Drug Enforcement Administration Fact Sheet

The Lowell Sun reported that a forty two year old Lowell man withdrew $62,000.00 from his bank account, placed it in a duffel bag and went out to get drunk.  After accomplishing his goal he decided to solicit a prostitute.  He succeeded in finding Jessica Garcia, 30 of Aiken Street in Lowell.  The two settled on a fee of thirty dollars and went into the basement of 143 Westford Street to complete their transaction.  Garcia saw the cash when the victim Chanthen Pho went to pay for the services.  She then took the unsuspecting Pho's belt to bind his ankles, pushed him over and made off with the money. 

Pho managed to get himself to the police station to make out his complaint.  Officers searched local hotels eventually finding Garcia in the Double Tree Hotel.  Police entered the room and found Garcia and a friend scratching lottery tickets.  Police then found $42,521 in the room.  Aside from the lottery tickets it is unclear where the remainder of the money went.  Garcia was charged with unarmed robbery.

Read Article, Lowell Sun August 12, 2008

Unarmed robbery is a felony.  In Massachusetts it is punishable by a sentence as high as life in prison.  The elements of the crime require that the property be taken by force and violence or by assaulting the victim and putting him in fear. 

Garcia can also be charged with engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.  Pho can be charged under the same statute.  G.L. c. 272 sec. 53A makes is a crime for anyone to engage in, agree to engage in or offer to engage in sexual conduct for a fee.  This statute also makes it a crime to pay for or agree to pay for sexual favors.  Pho can also be charged with soliciting a prostitute. 

Criminal charges involving prostitution and soliciting prostitutes can often be resolved without a person having a criminal record, particularly where the defendant has never been charged with or convicted of a crime in the past.  Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers defending prostitution cases such as Attorney Stephen Neyman will help you fight these charges.  Our office has defended all types of prostitution and solicitation cases with great results.  To learn more about our services visit our website. 

Related Web Resources:

Boston Armed Robbery Defense Attorneys.

G.L. c. 265 sec. 19, Unarmed Robbery in Massachusetts.

G.L. c. 272 sec. 53A, Engaging is Sexual Conduct For a Fee

G.L. c. 272 sec. 8, Soliciting a Prostitute

The defendant was charged and convicted by a Suffolk Superior Court jury of possession of a firearm in violation of G.L. c. 269 sec. 10(a).  On appeal he claimed that there lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.  The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed and reversed the conviction.  The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and reversed the Appeals Court decision.  Commonwealth v. White, slip opinion August 11, 2008. 

The Court in White found the following facts.  The defendant and others were engaged in a gun fight in Jamaica Plain in front of a laundromat and a car wash.  Once the shooting stopped a witness to the incident saw a black man hold a gun and place it into his pants.  The man was wearing a black jacket with white writing on it.  The police arrived and observed the defendant in the vicinity of the car wash.  He was wearing a jacket resembling the one identified by the witness.  He was unarmed at the time.  The witness made a positive identification of the man.  She never identified the firearm.  Police subsequently located a weapon concealed in an air vent in a hallway in the vicinity of where they first saw the defendant.  Another firearm was found on a street near the building. 

The Supreme Judicial Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction.  It held that "circumstantial evidence is competent to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,... and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence."  In spite of other reasonable inferences that could have been drawn here, i.e. the gun having been placed in the air vent by someone else in the fight or the other gun possibly being the defendant's, the Court affirmed the conviction. 

Massachusetts Gun Cases

Under G.L. c.  269 sec. 10(a), the section under which this defendant was charged. the prosecution must proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant carried a firearm without license to carry and that he did so outside of his home or place of business.  A conviction for this offense carries with it a minimum mandatory eighteen month sentence.

Attorney Neyman has handled firearm cases throughout Massachusetts.  The statute is unforgiving.  People new to Massachusetts or visiting Massachusetts who are unaware of these laws can find themselves in need of a good Massachusetts firearms defense lawyer simply because they believed they were exercising a right to carry their gun.  If you have been charged with possession of a firearm in Massachusetts call our office now.

Related Web Resources:

Boston Globe Reports On Gun Court October 31, 2007

Suffolk County District Attorney's Office Press Release On Gun Prosecutions

A grand jury sitting in Middlesex County returned indictments against a fifty-seven year old Everett man charging him with three counts of rape of a child and four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen.  If convicted the man faces a possible sentence of life in prison. 

The Middlesex County District Attorney's Office press release stated that 57 year old Robert Shea raped and assaulted a young boy at his residence in Everett as well as in the High School building.  These acts occurred in 2007 over a period of several months.  The victim made his complaint in April of 2008.  Bail was set at fifteen thousand dollars.

For full story read Middlesex County District Attorney Press Release

Massachusetts law makes it a crime for anyone to have sex with a person under the age of sixteen whether or not the act is consensual.  The indictment Shea is defending against charges him with forcibly compelling the child to engage in natural or unnatural sexual intercourse.  This is commonly known as rape of a child by force.  To be found guilty of this offense the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act of rape and that the act was committed without the person's consent.  The elements of rape can be satisfied in many ways.  Digital penetration and fellatio may in some circumstances fulfill the requirement of rape.   

Indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen requires the prosecution to prove 1) that the victim was under the age of fourteen at the time of the act and 2) that the defendant intentionally and unjustifiably touch the private are of the child in a manner that is fundamentally offensive to today's moral values. 

Crimes such as this are difficult to defend.  The accusation is in and of itself hideous and the natural tendency is for people to ask "Why would someone make something like this up?".  In the past twenty years our office has encountered scores of reasons that answer this question and serve as a defense to people wrongfully accused of these and similar crimes.  Massachusetts criminal lawyers who have defended rape and sexual assault charges understand how to fight these cases.  Contact our office today if you have been charged with a sex crime in Massachusetts. 

Related Web Resources:

Boston Sex Crimes Defense Lawyers.

Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under 14.  G.L. c. 265 sec. 13B

Rape of a Child G.L. c. 265 sec. 22A

The Boston Herald reported that on August 7, 2008 Middlesex County register of probate John Buonomo was arrested and charged with eighteen counts of breaking and entering into a depository, eight counts of larceny under $250.00 and eight counts of theft of public property.  An investigation started in June after state employees detected shortages in their copy machines.  State police installed concealed cameras near the copy machines.  Videotapes captured Buonomo getting into the machines and pocketing the cash, usually towards the end of the work day.  Buonomo has no authority to access the copy machines in the Registry of Deeds.  If convicted Buonomo faces twenty years in state prison.  Buonomo is a county wide elected official. 

Larceny in Massachusetts is a criminal act proscribe by G.L. c. 266 sec. 30.  To be found guilty the prosecution must prove that 1) the defendant took the property of another, 2) without the consent of the owner and 3) that he did so with the intention of depriving the owner of that property permanently.  Often times criminal larceny charges are brought as a result of legitimate disputes as to rightful ownership of the property in question.  Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers familiar such cases often convince prosecutors, magistrates or judges that these cases are actually civil in nature and should be dismissed and handled in another forum. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman defends larceny cases throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Larceny cases can be prosecuted in the District Courts or the Superior Courts depending on the dollar amount of the property stolen.  There are usually no minimum mandatory sentences associated with larceny cases.  It is advisable to retain a lawyer with extensive experience if you are charged with a theft crime in Massachusetts.  If you have concerns about a potential criminal matter involving larceny call a lawyer right away. 

Related Web Resources:

Middlesex County Theft Crimes Defense Attorneys

Register of Probate caught stealing from office machines.

Massachusetts Larceny Statute G.L. c. 266 sec. 30

Charges of assault and battery issued against prize fighter Micky Ward after a clerk's hearing held in the Lowell District Court.  The victim, Ward's wife's stepfather alleged that on May 28, 2008 during a confrontation Ward punched him in the face.  The alleged victim Kevin Nolette claims to have sustained a split lip, a broken nose and lost some teeth as a result of the punch.  Ward maintains that he acted in self defense when Nolette was poking him in the chest and raised his hand in a threatening manner.  An arraignment date has been set for September 4, 2008 in the Lowell District Court.

Clerk's Hearings in Massachusetts are governed by G.L. c. 218 sec. 35A.  In the case of many misdemeanors, a clerk magistrate will hear evidence to determine whether there exists 1) probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and 2) that the person accused was the person who committed the crime.  The threshhold for the issuance of the complaint is low however good Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers are often able to convince the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. 

Our office has represented people accused of committing crimes in Massachusetts at clerks hearings on countless occasions.  Many times we have succeeded in convincing the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint.  We encourage you to visit our case results page to read about some specific examples of our victories at these proceedings. 

Related Web Resources:

Boxer Ward facing charges, Lowell Sun August 7, 2008

Lowell Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Massachusetts Assault and Battery Statute G.L. c. 265 sec. 13A

On August 5, 2008 police arrested two Beverly men identified as suspects in an early morning robbery.  The victims claimed that as they were walking in downtown Beverly they were approached by a group of four men.  One of the men brandished a knife and held it to one of the victim's neck.  The assailant then stole money and a cell phone from the man.  He then made the other victim surrender his wallet. 

With the victim's identifications two of the four men were apprehended.  They were arraigned in the Salem District Court and held without bail.

Armed robbery in Massachusetts is a felony.  It is punishable by anything from probation to a life sentence.  In order for you to be found guilty of armed robbery Massachusetts law requires the prosecution prove four elements: 

1.  That you were armed with a dangerous weapon;

2.  That you either intended to use force and violence to the victim or that you intended to use threatening gestures or words;

3.  That you intended to take the victim's property with the intent to steal it, and;

4.  That you intended to take the victim's property either directly from him or from his immediate control.

Many robbery cases in Massachusetts are ultimately reduced to larceny and the cases are kept in the district court.  Your choice of lawyers is critical in any case, particularly where the consequences of conviction are as severe as life in prison.  Our office has defended armed and unarmed robbery cases in many Massachusetts courts.  We are available to discuss your rights with you now. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Lawyers

Two held in early-morning holdup.  Salem News August 5, 2008

G.L. c. 265 sec. 17.  Massachusetts Armed Robbery Statute

In Giles v. California, slip opinion June 25, 2008 the United States Supreme Court examined at the doctrine of forfeiture by wrondoing in the context of its decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).  Giles was convicted for the 1992 shooting and killing his girlfriend.  At trial, prosecutors successfully introduced statements made by the same victim to police concerning an earlier domestic violence incident involving the defendant.  California Evidence Code section 1370 permitted such evidence in situations where 1) the declarant was unavailable, 2) the statement described the infliction or the threat of physical injury on the declarant and 3) the statement was deemed trustworthy. 

The Supreme Court acknowledged two forms of testimonial statements that were admitted at common law even though they went unconfronted.  The first involved dying declarations.  The second involved situations where a witness was kept away by the defendant to eliminate that person's testimony.  Under the latter exception courts held that a defendant should not benefit from such wrondoing and that "[t]he absence of a forfeiture rule covering this sort of conduct would create an intolerable incentive for defendants" to manipulate, bribe, itimidate, threaten or even kill witnesses against them.  The Court held that the California Evidence Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court exceeded the context of deliberate witness tampering and in essence violated the tenets of Crawford v. Washington.  The conviction was reversed.

Massachusetts recognizes the forfeiture by wrongdoing law as well.  The seminal case is Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 (2005).  Witness tampering in Massachusetts is also a crime in and of itself.  It is defined by G.L. c. 268 sec. 13B.  A conviction of that statute carries a ten year state prison sentence. 

The intimidation of a witness in Massachusetts is viewed as a violent crime.  The penalties for a conviction of this offense are severe.  If charged with any of these acts you should contact our office and speak to one of our Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Lawyers now. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Violent Crimes Lawyers

Giles v. California, slip opinion june 25, 2008

A Lowell, Massachusetts woman went to speak to her boyfriend after learning that he had been cheating on her.  During the confrontation the woman rammed his car with her car and clawed at his chest.  The victim restrained the woman until police arrived.  When the officers took over the woman fought with them and kicked one of them in the face.  Pepper spray was used to subdue her.  She will be charged with malicious destruction to property over two hundred fifty dollars, assault and battery and assault and battery of a police officer.

In Massachusetts crimes such as this fall under the umbrella of domestic violence.  People typically think domestic violence cases involve men battering or abusing women.  However, as with this case the opposite holds equally true. 

Stephen Neyman is a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney who has years of experience defending domestic violence cases.  Without proper representation there exists a possibility that you will be incarcerated if convicted of a crime involving domestic violence.  Do not wait.  Contact a criminal defense who understands how to defend against these charges. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Domestic Violence Lawyers Law Offices of Stephen Neyman

Lowell woman charged with assault on boyfriend.  Lowell Sun August 6, 2008

Domestic Violence

In Commonwealth v. Parreira, slip opinion August 4, 2008 the Massachusetts Appeals Court clarified joint venture and its application to sex crimes.  In Parreira, the defendant and another met up with two fifteen year old girls and agreed to get together the next day.  The girls wanted the older boys to buy them alcohol so that they could get drunk on Halloween.  The girls achieved their objective and after consuming some drinks ended up in a vacant apartment with the defendants.  One of the girls had been to the apartment before to attend parties. 

Eventually the two girls ended up in separate rooms in the apartment.  One ened up with the defendant and another with his friend.  One of the girls testified that the defendant penetrated her without consent after which he went into the other room where his friend was purportedly violating the other girl.  When he entered that room the girl got up and got dressed and rejoined her friend.  A jury convicted the defendant of being a joint venturer with his friend as to the lesser included offense of statutory rape of the other girl. 

To be convicted of being a joint venturer in Massachusetts the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the scene with the knowledge that another intended to commit a crime or with the intent to commit a crime and that by agreement was available and willing to assist the other if necessary.  As to sex crimes, there is a requirement that to be found guilty as a joint venturer there must be a common victim.  The defendant must also be present at the crime scene and either provide assistance or facilitate the crime for another.  Examples of this are driving the victim to her attacker and guarding the door while the act is being committed. 

In Parreira the Appeals Court concluded that the defendant's act of entering the room while his friend was violating another girl was insufficient to constitute culpability as a joint venturer.

If you are in need of an experienced Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Attorney contact the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman.  Convictions for sex offenses in Massachusetts can result in a prison sentence.  A sexually dangerous person proceeding can also be initiated against you and you will have to register as a sex offender. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyers

Massachusetts Rape Statute G.L. c. 265 sec. 22

Massachusetts Statutory Rape Statute G.L. c. 265 sec. 22A

Massachusetts Sexual Offender Registry Board SORB, G.L. c. 6 sec. 178C-178P 

An Essex County Superior Court jury convicted a fifty six year old man of trafficking over fourteen grams of cocaine on Thursday.  He was sentenced to the minimum mandatory three year state prison sentence, two years probation from and after that sentence and a five year loss of license. 

The case arose from the following set of facts.  On August 10, 2007 police executed a search at the defendant's home.  When they encountered the defendant they conducted a "pat frisk" and found ten small packages of cocaine.  As the search continued officers located over twenty grams of cocaine, thirteen bags of marijuana, some cash, a scale, a police scanner and other assorted drug paraphernalia.  The defense unsuccessfully attempted to convince the jury that the drugs were for personal use only. 

Massachusetts appellate courts have held time and time again that the presence of drug distribution paraphernalia permits juries to infer that a defendant intended to distribute the illegal substance.  See for example Commonwealth v. Lopes, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 988 (1998).  In cases such as this, where there are numerous separately packaged bags, scales, baggies and a police scanner the jury will be able to conclude that the defendant intended to traffic the substance.  In this case, the defendant did not take the stand.  That made rebutting the inference much more difficult for the defense attorney.

If you have questions regarding a drug trafficking case in which you are involved we encourage you to call our office.  You can also visit our Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense website. 

Related Web Resources:

Boston Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Attorneys

Lynn man sentenced to three years in prison for drugs  Lynn Item August 1, 2008

Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking G.L. c. 94C sec. 32E

Haverhill police arrested two young adults yesterday and charged them with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, conspiracy and a school zone violation.  The arrests came about as a result of a raid on the defendant's apartment that was authorized by a search warrant.  It is alleged that the couple had been selling cocaine in their own neighborhood for several weeks and that complaints were made to police about the recent drug activity.  During the course of the search police seized two bags of marijuana, five bags of cocaine and assorted drug distribution paraphernalia. 

Possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances in Massachusetts is punishable by imprisonment.  The Massachusetts school zone statute requires that a person convicted of either distributing, possessing with the intent to distribute or trafficking controlled substances be imprisoned for at least two years in addition to the sentence they received for the underlying offense. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is committed to defending the rights of those accused of committing drug offenses in Massachusetts and throughout the country.  Whether you are charged with simple possession, possession with the intent to distribute, distribution or trafficking you should contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.  Convictions for violations of Massachusetts drug laws can result in imprisonment and a loss of license.  If you are involved in a criminal drug matter you can help yourself by contacting our office now.

Related Web Resources:

Parents of tots arrested on charges of dealing drugs.  Lawrence Eagle Tribune July 31, 2008

Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyers

Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine G.L. c. 94C sec. 32B

Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana G.L. c. 94C sec. 32D

Massachusetts School Zone Statute G.L. c. 94C sec. 32J