Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

On December 31, 2008 the defendant Alexis Infante was charged with attempted murder in the Salem Massachusetts District Court.  It was alleged that he attacked his wife with a knife after claiming that she was "bad luck".  Those charges were eventually reduced to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  While he was out on bail however Infante exposed himself and masturbated in front of a young child and her babysitter.  He was charged with open and gross lewdness, also in the Salem District Court.  After that charge issued the defendant was held in custody.  On September 24, 2008 the defendant was given a two year suspended sentence with the time he had already served awaiting trial treated as sufficient.  This sentence accounted for all counts in both cases.  For full details read Salem Daily News, September 25, 2008. 

In the Massachusetts District Courts assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon carries a 2 1/2 year sentence in a house of correction.  The Superior Court also has jurisdiction over this offense.  If the case is indicted a defendant faces 10 years in state prison.  Assault and battery in Massachusetts carries a 2 1/2 year house of correction sentence as well.  Again, this crime could be presented to a grand jury and if indicted you could face up to 5 years in state prison. 

Open and gross lewdness is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16.  The statute reads as follows:  "A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.".  Exposure or attempted exposure of one's genitalia is not an essential element of this crime.  To be convicted of this crime the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt one or more persons was alarmed or shocked by the defendant's behavior and that the defendant intended to alarm or shock the person.  Keep in mind that this is a very serious charge.  A second or subsequent conviction for this offense can result in the consequence of having to register as a sex offender. 

There is definitely a distinction between open and gross lewdness and indecent exposure.  Having an experienced Massachusetts criminal attorney can make the difference between having a felony conviction for open and gross lewdness or a misdemeanor conviction for indecent exposure.  The line between the two crimes is often blurred by young prosecutors thereby making it extremely critical that you make the right choice in hiring a Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer who can convince a judge or jury that the felony charge should not stand.  You do not want to have to register as a sex offender if you do not have to.  That is why it is critical to hire the right lawyer to handle your case, particularly if the case has sex offender registration consequences.  The right disposition of your case can be the difference in having to register or not. 

Here are a few of the life altering issues associated with having to register as a sex offender:

1. Registering within 10 days of moving either from one town to another in Massachusetts or within the same town in Massachusetts;
2. Registering your current work address;
3. You will not be able to live in a nursing home;
4. Registering in Massachusetts if you are employed there even though you live in another state;
5. Registering in Massachusetts if you are employed there even though you live in another state;
6. Registering if you attend a school within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
7. The public can inquire about the sex offenders living in their towns;
8. Level 3 sex offenders are identified on the SORB website.

To learn more about the consequences of convictions for certain sex crimes contact our office now.   

The Quincy Patriot Ledger reported that two 17 year olds, both from Plymouth were charged with larceny and breaking and entering (B & E) more than a dozen motor vehicles in Plymouth.  The two were arraigned in the Plymouth District Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges.  According to the article numerous residents on Beach, Elm and Pearly Streets observed that their cars had been broken into.  They reported the break-ins to the Plymouth Police.  When officers arrived they saw one of the defendants, Bryan Hunter walking in between cars on Elm Street, manipulating the door handles and trying to get in.  As Hunter entered a vehicle one of the officers grabbed him.  Hunter confessed to the crimes and implicated his friend, the co-defendant Ryan Connors.  Connors refused to speak with the police but he did surrender himself to the station.  Hunter and Connors pleaded not guilty to 5 counts of breaking and entering in the night with intent to commit a felony, 3 counts of larceny of property valued at less than $250, and a charge of larceny of property valued at more than $250. Hunter was also charged with underage possession of alcohol in that he was caught with a bottle of strawberry vodka.  Read complete article, Quincy Patriot Ledger, September 25, 2008. 

The B & E charges are governed by General Laws Chapter 266 Section 16.  The maximum sentence is 20 years in state prison if the case is indicted to the Superior Court.  In some states a B & E case is called a burglary.  If the case remains in the District Court there is a maximum 2 1/2 year sentence possible.  The larceny cases carry a maximum 2 year sentence provided the case stays in the Plymouth District Court.  This charge was presumably brought pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 30. 

The smartest thing Connors did here was to keep his mouth shut when he went to the police station.  I would estimate that far more than one half of all my clients make some sort of statement before they hire me.  This often presents difficult problems.  Some statements amount to admissions or confessions.  Other statements, while not admissions, contain some sort of falsity that usually does not bode well for the client at trial.  Keep in mind that anything a criminal defendant or suspect says can be used against him unless a judge believes that the statement was coerced or obtained in violation of a constitutional right.  Here, unless the police have some other evidence to prove that Connors was involved in the crimes; i.e. fingerprints, stolen items found in his possession; surveillance tapes, witness identifications, etc., the only way to prove that Connors is guilty is through his co-defendant.  Typically co-defendants do not cooperate with the prosecution unless they are provided with some sort of incentive.  In cases such as this that is rare. 

On the other hand, Hunter was caught in the act by the police.  It will be extremely difficult to win his case at trial.  More likely than not he would enter into a plea bargain with the prosecution or his lawyer will ask the judge to dispose of the case in a particular manner.  If he has no criminal record and is able to make restitution it would not be unusual for a judge to agree to continue his case without a finding.  If this result is imposed and he successfully completes all terms of probation his case will be dismissed after the passage of a specific amount of time. 

Make sure when hiring a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer for your B & E case that the attorney has experience not only with these types of cases but also in the court where you have been charged.  This is particularly important in B & E cases in that while some judges view this crimes as "minor" others find the intrusion extremely offensive and might impose harsher sentences.  Plymouth County has many excellent criminal defense lawyers to chose from.  Chose your lawyer carefully.

If you want to discuss your case I encourage you to contact our office now.  We will discuss your rights, some potential pitfalls with your case and some options you might want to consider. 

On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 Alex Scesny was arraigned in the Worcester Superior Court for the 1996 murder of a Fitchburg prostitute.  Just prior to this arraignment, Scesny, a 39 year old construction worker was tried for charges of rape, assault with intent to murder, assault and battery and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  It was alleged that in March 2007 at a West Boylston motel Scesny raped a woman and tried to suffocate her with a pillow.  The woman testified Tuesday that he raped and tried to suffocate her last year at Reservoir Motor Lodge in West Boylston where they'd been smoking crack cocaine and had had consensual sex. He was acquitted of all charges except the assault and battery charge.  Scesny was sentenced to 18 months in the house of correction.  He is being credited with the time he served while awaiting trial.  Scesny was represented by Attorney Michael Hussey, a well-respected Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer who has handled many high profile cases in Massachusetts.  Hussey pointed-out inconsistencies in the story Scensy's accuser in the rape trial told and that she never had an exam for sexual assault. The prosecutor played Scesny's tape recorded interview where he said "I did not rape anybody. I never have raped anybody and never will rape anybody". 

As to the new case, the prosecution alleged that Scesny's DNA profile was found on samples taken from the victim's body.  The victim, Theresa Stone was a prostitute who fought a drug addiction.  Her body was found in 1996 along Kinsman Road in Fitchburg, partially clad and strangled.  Scesny became a person of interest in Stone's death in May of this year.  Police are also investigating similarities among this case and the murders of several other prostitutes with ties to the Worcester area, many of whose bodies were dumped alongside roads or near wooded areas.  Scesny was ordered held without bail.  Read entire article, Boston Globe, September 24, 2008 by Milton Valencia.  

On May 7, 2008 wbz.com reported that according to the Brockton Enterprise, investigators were trying to figure out if Scesny was in the New Bedford area in 1988 - the same year 11 drug-addicted women were reported missing. Police were then creating a timeline to figure out Scensny's whereabouts at that time.

Unfortunately for the defendant in this case there has been a tremendous amount of pre-trial publicity.  Both the right to a fair trial and the right of the press to publish information about criminal activity are guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial and the First Amendment gives the press their right to publicize the act or event.  These two important rights sometimes create conflict.  The result of any action can be an infringement on one of the party's rights.  Typically the right to freedom of the press prevails and issues relating to excessive pre-trial publicity are dealt with by the trial judge.  For example, at trial the defendant should not have to exhaust available peremptory challenges to prospective jurors who have been affected by excessive pre-trial publicity.  Also, judges have the discretion to transfer cases to another county.  Judges may question prospective jurors individually to see if they have been prejudiced by any pre-trial publicity. 

Our office has defended people whose cases have been subjected to substantial pre-trial publicity.  For the most part media coverage of cases decreases with the age of the case.  Criminal cases that make headlines on television or in print quickly become a thing of the past.  Very few cases are subject to constant scrutiny.  Moreover, pre-trial publicity is not necessarily detrimental to your case.  O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson and Michael Landis were all subject to excessive pre-trial publicity before their cases went to trial.  All three were acquitted. 

Scesny will most likely get a fair trial.  If he is lucky enough to be defended by Michael Hussey again you can be assured that will be the case.  It will be interesting to see if Scesny is charged with additional killings.  If so, it will be particularly interesting to see if the cases are joined or if each is tried separately. 

The Quincy Patriot Ledger reported that Paul Gillis, 55 of Rockland was arrested for the fourth time for drunk driving.  He was held without bail by a judge in the Hingham District Court.  According to police Gillis was drunk when he drove his car into a parked car, failed to stop and drove off to his home a short distance away.  He now faces charges of drunken driving, leaving the scene of an accident with property damage, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  The defendant admitted to hitting the parked car but claimed that he did not stop because there was nobody present at the scene.  Read full article, Quincy Patriot Ledger, September 23, 2008.

If this is in fact a 4th offense OUI Gillis is looking at a severe sentence if convicted.  Massachusetts establishes harsh penalties for fourth offense OUI convictions.  Gillis is looking at a fine of up to twenty five thousand dollars, up to 5 years in state prison and a 10 year loss of license.  This case has Superior Court jurisdiction in Massachusetts meaning that a conviction could result in the defendant having to serve his time in a state prison.  For more information on drunk driving in Massachusetts call Massachusetts Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer Stephen Neyman.  You should also look at Melanie's Law enacted in October of 2005.  The express purpose in passing this law to" enhance the penalties and administrative sanctions for Operating Under the Influence (OUI) offenders in Massachusetts".

Gillis is also looking at a prosecution for leaving the scene of an accident with property damage and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24 makes these acts a crime.  That law specifically states that anyone who operates a motor vehicle negligently on a public way so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered can be imprisoned for two years if convicted.  The same applies to anyone who fails to stop and identify himself by name and residence after knowingly colliding with any other vehicle or property or causing injury to any other vehicle or property.  One Massachusetts case has held that in order to support a conviction on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage the prosecution must present legally sufficient evidence for a judge or jury to conclude that the defendant operated the vehicle at the time of the accident resulting in property damage.  This is often difficult to prove in that people see the car involved in the collision but are rarely in a position to positively identify the driver. 

Holding defendants in cases such as this without bail is unusual.  The article fails to state the reasons articulated by the judge in doing so.  Most likely Gillis will appeal his bail to the Plymouth County Superior Court. That process is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58.  That statute requires the Superior Court to hear a petition for review of the District Court bail order "as speedily as practicable and except for unusual circumstances, on the same day the petition is filed.  The Superior Court judge may continue the hearing to the next day if the required records and other necessary information are not available. In Massachusetts this process is commonly referred to as a Bail Appeal.

Our office appears regularly in the Hingham District Court for all criminal matters including OUI cases.  We pride ourselves on our results many of which are published on our website.  Many drunk driving cases in Massachusetts are defensible.  No matter what the allegations are you should contact a Massachusetts criminal lawyer to discuss your rights.  Never appear in court without a lawyer if possible.  We are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  All conversations are confidential and advice is given by lawyers with at least 20 years experience.   

The Brockton Enterprise reported that David Gregoire of Quincy and William Hogrell of Raynham were arrested and charged with multiple drug crimes and weapons offenses in the Quincy District Court.  Read Entire Article, Brockton Enterprise September 19, 2008.  According to the article, police believed that the defendants were dealing cocaine, OxyContins and Methadone out of a 62 year old woman's apartment in a public housing complex in Quincy and that Gregoire "had set up shop" in that apartment.  The 62 year old woman was identified as Susan McDermott.  No charges have been filed against her.  Police reported that McDermott admitted to using crack cocaine and that she turned over a crack pipe that was in her apartment.  She also admitted that Gregoire was living with her and that he was selling cocaine.  McDermott permitted the police to search her house.  Police also located additional drug paraphernalia including scales and packaging materials.  The weapon was a pair of brass knuckles. 

The investigation began on Monday, September 15, 2008.  Police received a tip that a drug deal was going down at Coop's Bar and Grill on Washington Street in Quincy, Massachusetts.  A surveillance was set up during which Gregoire was arrested and found in possession of 2 bags of cocaine, some pot and 6 OxyContins.  The article was unclear as to why Gregoire was arrested and what probable cause, if any the police had to make that arrest.  Further information led the police to McDermott's apartment and the eventual purported consensual search of her apartment.  While the police were at the apartment Hogrell arrived.  He had 46 methadone pills in his pocket.  He did not have a prescription for the pills. 

It appears that at a minimum Gregoire will be charged with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and OxyContins.  Possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances in Massachusetts is a felony.  Possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, a class B substance, permits a sentence of up to 10 years in state prison.  Rarely is someone sentenced to that amount of time for this offense.  If this is a first offense it is possible to have the case continued without a finding.  If the case is disposed of in that manner you will not have a criminal record if you stay out of trouble for the period of time for which the case is continued.  Hogrell will likely be charged with possession with intent to distribute methadone, also a class B substance.  It is possible that McDermott was not charged with any crime because she has cooperated with law enforcement officials.  The basis for Gregoire's arrest may be subject to a constitutional challenge defending on the reasons articulate in the police report.  This is typically done through a motion to suppress.  A motion to suppress is a written request to a judge for an order to exclude certain evidence from being introduced during a trial.  It serves to keep law enforcement in check and ensure that they do not violate a person's constitutional rights.  Usually, where the judge allows the motion and the evidence is suppressed the case is over.  This is particularly true in drug cases where, without the drugs there can be no conviction. 

No matter what crime you have been charged with it is important to hire a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to defend you.  Attorney Neyman represents the accused in all courts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Our office is also engaged in criminal defense matters in many other states throughout the country.  If you are in need of a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer who has experience practicing in the Quincy District Court call our office now. 

For more information on OxyContin visit the United States Drug Enforcement Administration website. 

For additional information on cocaine facts go to the FreeVibe website. 

The Boston Globe reported that on September 15, 2008 a Boston Firefighter was charged with OUI and other related charges.  Read Full article, Boston Globe, 9/15/2008.  According to the newspaper report, On Sunday, September 14, 2008 at around 2:30 a.m. the defendant, Vernon Tiger Allen, 43, was driving between 45 and 50 miles per hour on the VFW Parkway.  At the intersection of the VFW Parkway and Baker Street Allen broadsided a car being driving by a 27 year old Connecticut man.  The driver of that car was trapped in the car.  A rescue crew arrived to extricate the victim from the wreckage.  He was taken to Brigham and Women's Hospital where he was reported to be in critical condition.  Allen took a breathalyzer test at the scene and blew a .14.  The legal limit in Massachusetts is a .08.  At the scene Allen told the police that he had only 2 beers and that he had finished his shift 2 hours earlier.  Boston Fire Department records showed that Allen had been off of work for 10 hours at that time.  The victim, Ryan Suprenant is also facing possible OUI charges and charges for running a red light.   

This is an interesting case.  Even though the victim might have caused the accident the defendant can still be prosecuted and convicted for OUI.  The victim faces the same plight as well.  Most likely the victim's blood alcohol has already been determined.  When people are taken to the hospital blood is routinely taken.  A toxicology screen is likely given the statements made in the newspaper article.  The victim's blood results might also be subject to suppression depending on the circumstances surrounding the taking of the blood.  Blood alcohol results can be tainted if hospital personnel used alcohol rather than iodine to clean the area around which they took the blood. 

As a Massachusetts OUI Defense Lawyer I have tried countless drunk driving cases.  While waiting around courthouses to get me cases called I have also had the privilege of watching scores of other drunk driving trials.  It am always amazed at how many people testify that they had "2 beers".  For some reason this seems to be a number that people accused of OUI feel is believable yet will not result in a conviction.  This sort of "creativity" is completely unnecessary.  It can result in a jury disbelieving your testimony.  I remember years ago trying a case in the Dorchester District Court before a very reasonable and compassionate judge.  My client elected to have the case tried by the judge and not a jury.  He, like many other clients testified that he had 2 beers.  The judge interjected "I wish I got a dollar every time I heard a defendant admit to drinking a '2-pack'".  Another judge in a similar situation wished he had invented the "2-pack" and commented that if everyone who testified before him had purchased one of his "2-packs" he would have been able to retire in his thirties.  For the reasons stated below relying on the "2 beer" testimony can be pointless.   

When trying OUI cases where the defendant refused to take a breathalyzer test I often engage a toxicologist to calculate blood alcohol.  These witnesses can be very persuasive.  Typically they use a formula that is accepted in the industry to calculate your blood alcohol level at the time of operation.  There are several of these formulas.  There are various websites that allow you to enter the variables used by the toxicologists to determine your blood alcohol.  The Police Notebook website allows you to do just this.  For instance, if you are 180 pounds and drink 6 light beers over a 5 hour period your blood alcohol should be a .04.  This is half the legal limit in Massachusetts.  This website discusses additional variables the factor into the equation as well.  The toxicologists engaged by our office use the Widmark formula.  The results are similar to those calculated through the Police Notebook. 

If you have been charged with OUI in Massachusetts and you have had more than a couple of drinks do not despair.  Call our office.  We will discuss your case and, if necessary hire one of our preferred toxicologists to calculate your blood alcohol at the time you were driving.  You might be very surprised by the results. 

On September 12, 2008 a 34 year old Ipswich man pleaded guilty to his 5th drunk driving charge in the Salem Superior Court.  He received a sentence of 2 1/2 to 3 years in state prison.  He will be on probation for 10 years after he is released from prison with 2 years home confinement.  His license has been revoked for life. 

Read Entire Article, Salem News, September 13, 2008. 

In 2003 the defendant's license was suspended for 5 years after he was convicted of his 4th drunk driving offense.  Nevertheless, on September 19, 2007 the defendant again decided to drive.  Again he did so under the influence of alcohol.  The decision resulted in a head on collision in Hamilton.  The victim was an 80 year old woman.  According to the prosecution the defendant was driving down Asbury Street in Hamilton when he drove his car over the center lines and crashed head on into a pickup truck being driven by the victim.  The defendant continued driving, this time down the wrong side of the street and hit another car being driving by a 49 year old woman.  The pickup truck driver, her passenger and the other woman were all injured.  The second victim was hospitalized for four days and is now unable to driver herself around. 

At the scene the defendant smelled of alcohol, was combative, denied driving and insisted that someone stole his truck.  He was bleeding and taken to the hospital where his blood alcohol registered at a .20.  At the plea hearing the defendant's lawyer stated that he had recently divorced, lost custody of his child and lost his business just prior to the crash.  He admitted to being an alcoholic. 

It appears that this defense attorney did a great job defending his client.  By all accounts this was not a very triable case.  There were witnesses to the crime, the defendant made incredible statements at the scene, he smelled of alcohol and his blood alcohol content was two and one half times the legal limit.  Massachusetts General Laws chapter 90 section 24 imposes a mandatory 2 1/2 year sentence for convictions of fifth offense OUI.  At least 24 months of that sentence must be served in accordance with the laws.  Typically, where accidents and injuries result from a person operating under the influence of alcohol sentences are higher than that mandatory minimum.  While the imposition of the home confinement and the state prison sentence (as opposed to a house of correction sentence) do exceed the mandatory minimum the added sanction is minimal.  The judge could have imposed a sentence of 5 years in state prison for the 5th offense OUI and additional time for operating with a suspended license. 

People faced with drunk driving charges are faced with difficult decisions.  The laws now make pleading guilty more attractive because in many instances you can obtain restricted operating privileges almost immediately after your plea.  Getting a case to trial often takes months during which you might not be able to drive.  People defending against multiple offense allegations face stiffer penalties if convicted.  You must keep in mind however that when defending second and subsequent offenses juries do not hear that you have prior convictions.  This enables you to defend against the new offense only without having to worry that a jury will be prejudiced by your prior convictions. 

An experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer will be able to help you decide whether you should go to trial on your case.  Call our office anytime to discuss your case.  Our results in trying OUI cases are excellent.  We encourage you to view our case results page for specific examples of our successes. 

The defendant, 34 year old Michael Smith was indicted by a Suffolk County Grand Jury on 1 count of kidnapping.  He was arraigned in the Suffolk Superior Court and held on $250,000 bail.  The prosecution alleged that in June the victim met Smith at a motel.  She had placed an advertisement on the internet soliciting customers for sex.  The defendant responded purportedly as a customer.  He then told the woman that he would be taking her to New York to work as a prostitute for him.  Over the next week and a half the victim worked for the defendant and gave him all of the money she earned.  She was threatened and sexually assaulted by the defendant.  She was beaten with a wooden hanger as well.  At all times she was being watched by Smith.  On June 10, 2008 the victim tried to escape by leaving the New York motel where Smith was keeping her.  During the escape attempt Smith dragged her into a waiting car that was ultimately driven to Massachusetts.  The victim later tried to escape from a rest area as well.  There, Smith choked her and grabbed her by the neck.  Finally, on June 11, 2008 while in Boston she was able to escape and call 911.  Surveillance footage confirms portions of the woman's story. 

When the police arrived to meet the victim she related her story, identified the defendant and the car in which he was riding.  Police later spotted the car and stopped and arrested the defendant.  A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for September 18, 2008.  This story was reported in the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office Press Releases. 

Kidnapping is a violent crime.  In Massachusetts it is proscribed by G.L. c. 265 sec. 26.  It is the taking away of a person against his or her will usually in furtherance of some other crime.  Most kidnapping statutes recognize different levels or types of kidnapping and punish accordingly.  In Massachusetts the maximum penalty under the statute cited above is 10 years in state prison.  Cases such as the one discussed in this post can in certain circumstances be difficult to prosecute.  You must keep in mind that rarely if ever do press releases reveal all of the relevant facts pertinent to a case.  Here for instance, the victim was a prostitute.  She solicited the defendant through an internet advertisement.  The press release is unclear as to whether or not she voluntarily accompanied Smith to Connecticut initially.  It is also unclear as to what acts she wilfully engaged in once in Connecticut and New York.  The fact that the defendant in this case may have abused or assaulted the woman violently does not mean that he kidnapped her.  It is clear that the prosecution believes that the kidnapping took place in Suffolk County, Massachusetts and that Suffolk is the proper venue.  Venue in Massachusetts for crimes like this is set out in G.L. c. 265 sec. 24A. 

Prostitution is also a crime in Massachusetts.  See G.L. c. 272 sec. 53A.  It is punishable by a house of correction sentence of up to 1 year.  In most countries prostitution is legal.  It is illegal in the United States, most Muslim countries, India and Argentina.  Prostitution is legal in 10 counties in the State of Nevada.  Rhode Island has a "prostitution loophole" that permits prostitution if done indoors. 

Our office has defendant people charged with kidnapping and prostitution.  If you have been charged with kidnapping or prostitution in Massachusetts or any other jurisdiction contact our office, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorneys now. 

On Thursday, September 10, 2008 the Salem News reported that an Amesbury woman was charged with drunk driving in the Salem District Court.  Read full article.  According to the report, the defendant, 52 year old Suzanne Sherman was seen driving her Mercedes northbound in the southbound lane of Route 1 in Danvers.  A state trooper responding to the scene found the defendant in her vehicle, stopped in the roadway.  The defendant subsequently drove her car into the parking lot of a nearby restaurant.  Sherman told the officer that she was going from Newburyport to Amesbury.  This made no sense geographically.  Sherman further admitted to having some drinks and making illegal U-Turns on Route 1.  At booking Sherman asked to call the Salisbury, Massachusetts Police Chief whom she claimed to be a good friend.  She was charged with OUI, a second offense and possession of a class E substance.  Sherman also refused the breathalyzer test.

In Massachusetts a drunk driving case is commonly referred to as an OUI (operating under the influence).  Penalties for convictions of OUI vary depending on several factors.  If you have prior OUI convictions your penalties can be severe.  If someone is injured or if there is an accident as a result of you operating under the influence judges will often increase your sentence if you are convicted. 

The current drunk driving statute in Massachusetts is commonly known as Melanie's Law.  It was passed in 2005 and its purpose was to increase the penalties for OUI offenders in Massachusetts.  The law itself has some interesting components that were designed to get first time offenders to plead guilty rather than try to win the case at trial.  For example, if you fail to take a breathalyzer test the law mandates a 180 day loss of license.  Many Massachusetts court calendars do not permit you to get your case tried within 180 days due to volume and backlog.  However, if this is your first offense and you plead guilty you will be eligible for a "hardship" license almost immediately.  Nowadays, many police officers who stop suspected drunk drivers tell them about this aspect of the law in hopes that they will take the breathalyzer test.  The police will tell you that if you pass the test; i.e. blow less than a .08 you will be free to go.  If you fail the test you face an immediate 30 day loss of license rather than the 180 day loss of license imposed if you refuse the test.  Keep in mind that even blowing less than a .08 can subject you to prosecution for OUI in some cases.

Stephen Neyman is a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer who successfully defends drunk driving on a regular basis.  He recently tried a fourth offense drunk driving case in Plymouth County that resulted in a mistrial after it was learned that a court officer had improperly tampered with the jury.  Drunk driving cases are a staple of most criminal defense lawyers' practices in Massachusetts.  Even if you have "failed" the breathalyzer test you might have a very defensible case. 

In Ms. Sherman's case several factors weigh heavily against her chances of success at trial.  Driving the wrong way down a major state highway is the first.  Telling the police that she was going from Newburyport to Amesbury when she was going in the entirely wrong direction is a second.  Stopping on a state highway is the third.  Aggressive behavior during booking is a fourth.  Admitting to drinking is the fifth.  Possessing prescription drugs without a prescription is the sixth.  Keep in mind however that there is much more to these stories than a simple newspaper account.

If you have been charged with an OUI in the Salem District Court call Salem Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer Stephen Neyman now. 

People often ask lawyers what goes on in a local district court on a given day.  The answer can be lengthy and depends on how busy a particular court might be.  Many local newspapers report a crime log or a district court log each week.  Here is a sample of crimes reported by the Gloucester Daily Times from on September 6, 2008 for the Gloucester District Court.  Read full article Gloucester Daily Times, Gloucester District Court Log. 

1.  A Gloucester man was charged with 7 counts of larceny by check.  Apparently he wrote a series of bad checks from November 2004 through January 2005.  A total of 8 bad checks were written over this time period to three separate businesses.  The total amount of bounced checks was $140.54.  The judge agreed to dismiss all charges provided that the man makes restitution in full. 

Larceny by check is defined by G.L. c. 266 sec. 37.  The statute states in part that it is a crime to write a check for goods and to obtain those goods with the knowledge that there are insufficient funds for the payment of the check.  Massachusetts law considers prima facie evidence of intent if the person does not make good on the check within 2 days after having been advised that the check did not clear. 

2.  A homeless man stabbed another man with a Budweiser bottle last April.  The case was dismissed. 

Stabbing is typically a crime under G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A.  The statute requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant while armed with a dangerous weapon committed an assault and battery with that weapon.  The defendant was accused of cutting another man with the bottle during a dispute over $20.  The law has a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.  There is also an aggravated form of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon on Massachusetts.  That portion of the law makes committing an assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon punishable by up to 15 years in prison if committed on a pregnant person, or if serious bodily injury results or if it occurs in violation of an existing restraining order or if the defendant is over 17 and the victim is under the age of 14.  It appears that this defendant was quite lucky.

3.  Charges against a man for assault and battery for hitting his girlfriend were dismissed due to the prosecution's inability to proceed with the case. 

Assault and battery in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum 2 1/2 year sentence.  Usually, when a case such as this is dismissed for want of prosecution it is due to the fact the victim either refuses to testify and there are no other witnesses or the prosecution was unable to find the victim to subpoena her into court to obtain her testimony.  In this case the girlfriend reported that her boyfriend had been drinking, was drunk, hit her, grabbed her by the neck and pushed her. 

4.   On August 2, 2008 a fight broke out in a parking lot on Main Street in Gloucester prompting someone to call the police.  Upon arrival learned that someone made a disrespectful remark to the defendant's girlfriend.  The defendant refused to calm down after the police arrived and he was charged with disorderly person.  The case was continued without a finding and the defendant was ordered to pay a fine of $250. 

Disorderly person is a crime established by G.L. c. 272 sec. 53.  It is punishable by up to 6 months in jail.  The continuance without a finding will result in a dismissal provided that the defendant remain free from trouble for 6 months and that he pay his fine.

5.  Another Gloucester man got upset when someone made a rude comment to his girlfriend.  He went to that person's home, threatened to slice the man's throat, and broke and damaged a door.  He was charged with malicious destruction to property and disturbing the peace.  The malicious destruction to property charge was dropped and the defendant was found guilty of disturbing the peace.  According to police reports, on July 11, 2008 police were called to a home on a report that someone was trying to break into the building.  The Gloucester Police arrived and saw the defendant yelling.  He had awakened residents.  He had been drinking and was upset about comments one of the residents made about his girlfriend. 

Malicious destruction to property is a criminal act in Massachusetts in accordance with G.L. c. 266 sec. 127.  It carries with it a 10 year maximum state prison sentence if the value of the property destroyed

6.  A 22 year old Gloucester man pleaded guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  Apparently the defendant beat his victim on two occasions.  The first time with a piece of wood.  The second time with a "pressure car wash handle".  The incident occurred on July 21, 2008.  Gloucester Police responded to a call for a man being chased by the defendant who was carrying a weapon.  The same defendant had assaulted the same victim earlier.  The defendant pleaded guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to 6 months in jail.

7.  A 24 year old New Hampshire was found in possession of marijuana.  He was ordered to pay a fine and his case was continued without a finding for 6 months.  Other charges had been lodged against this defendant as well.  Possession with intent to distribute marijuana and drinking in public.  The latter two crimes were dismissed.  The crimes occurred on June 27, 2008. 

Possession of marijuana is a crime in accordance with G.L. c. 94C sec. 34.  First offenses are continued without a finding for not more than 6 months.  The law makes a special provision that permits sealing the record promptly for first offenders who successfully complete their probation during the continuance period.  On the other hand, the possession with intent to distribute marijuana in Massachusetts charge was more serious.  It is a felony and carries a potential 2 year jail sentence. 

8.  Another Gloucester man was pulled over on April 1, 2008 and charged with driving without insurance and driving an unregistered vehicle.   The driving without insurance case was dismissed. 

Stephen Neyman is a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer who has successfully handled all of the charges mentioned in this article.  If you are charged with any of these offenses call our office right away. 

Caridad Hernandez is a 51 year old grandmother who lives in Lawrence, Massachusetts.  On September 5, 2008, she was arrested for trafficking cocaine over 28 grams, trafficking cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone and possession with intent to distribute prescription drugs.  Charges will be initially filed in the Lawrence District Court.  After the case is indicted the case will be handled in the Essex County Superior Court.  Lawrence police stated that the drugs were found in sandwich bags, a candy tin and pill bottles.  Officers also located drug packaging paraphernalia.  According to an article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune police had made several controlled buys from the defendant.  Afterwards they obtained a search warrant.  It was during the execution of the search warrant that the majority of the drugs were located.  Read Article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, September 6, 2008.

Search warrants in Massachusetts are governed by G.L. c. 276 et seq.  Search warrants can be issued in Massachusetts upon a showing of probable cause.  Police officers seeking to conduct a search are required to file an affidavit with a judge or clerk magistrate.  The affidavit must contain facts and information upon which the officer relies that are sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrant to issue.  Criminal defense lawyers often challenge the issuance of the warrant through motions to suppress.  Grounds for the motion to suppress vary from case to case.  Sometimes criminal defense lawyers challenge the sufficiency of the facts in the affidavit and ask the judge to suppress the search.  Other times criminal defense lawyers challenge the integrity of the officer's representations by asking the judge to look beyond the affidavit by using collateral evidence to show the judge that these facts were untrue. 

In this case Caridad Hernandez is looking at a minimum mandatory state prison sentence of 7 years.  The trafficking over 28 grams carries a mandatory 5 and the school zone carries a minimum mandatory 2 that must be served from and after the trafficking sentence is served.  It is likely that during the course of her defense her attorneys will try to locate anyone who was present during the controlled buys to ascertain the accuracy of the police officer's account of these transactions.  I also imagine that a motion to suppress will be filed challenging the constitutionality of the search. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C. has 20 years of experience handling drug trafficking cases.  We have won cases such as this by filing and arguing successful motions to suppress.  We have also tried similar cases to a jury and won acquittals for our clients.  If you have been charged with a drug crimes in Massachusetts you should contact our office now. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Sentencing Guidelines

Lawrence, Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer, Kathleen M. McCarthy

Last fall Christopher Al-Nabulsi was a senior at Salem High School.  On December 6, 2007 he sold a $15 bag of marijuana to another classmate at school.  The other student was caught and identified Al-Nabulsi as the supplier.  School officials searched his backpack and found 3 additional packets of marijuana.  Al-Nabulsi was expelled from school and charged with distribution of marijuana in a school zone.  At that time he was the captain of the football and lacrosse teams.  On September 4, 2008 he was convicted in the Salem District Court for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana.  Through a plea bargain he received a 2 1/2 year suspended sentence with an additional 2 years probation.  In exchange for his guilty plea the prosecution agreed to drop the school zone charge.  Al-Nabulsi has not graduated from high school as neighboring towns will not accept his enrollment due to these charges.  The story was reported in the Salem News.  Read full article, September 5, 2008.

Under the Massachusetts school zone statute the defendant in this case was facing a minimum mandatory 2 years in jail.  The prosecution exercised great discretion and elected to drop the school zone charge provided that the defendant plead guilty to the possession with intent to distribute marijuana charge.  Massachusetts law makes this crime a felony. 

As noted by the defense attorney in his interview with the Salem News, this case calls into question the fairness of certain aspects of the Massachusetts drug laws.  Al-Nabulsi was just 17 at the time that he committed this crime.  The person to whom he sold was 15 years old and also a student at the same high school.  The quantity was small.  The substance, while illegal is perhaps the most benign controlled substances.  Al-Nabulsi now has a felony conviction and no high school degree.  Prior to this incident his life appeared to by quite promising.  Felony convictions however cannot be sealed for at least 15 years in Massachusetts. 

Criminal convictions and the record that follows can have devastating consequences on an individual.  The defendant in this case will be 33 years old before his felony conviction can be sealed.  Understanding your rights and options is critical.  Before you plead guilty make sure you have consulted a lawyer.  If you have already pleaded guilty you still have certain rights that you can exercise to improve your situation. The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C. has succeeded in sealing records and getting criminal convictions vacated.  Contact us now to discuss your case. 

Related Web Resources:

High School and Youth Trends, National Institute on Drug Abuse

Massachusetts Law About Criminal Records

On Wednesday August 27, 2008 a drug deal went bad on Quincy Terrace in Lynn, Massachusetts and resulted in the murder of a 24 year old man.  On August 28, 2008 a Lynn man was arraigned in the Lynn District Court on charges of murder.  Court papers stated that the victim and two black males and a female went to Quincy Terrace where one of the group had been ripped off during a marijuana distribution transaction.  An argument followed during which the defendant brandished a gun and scared the group away.  The victim retrieved a firearm from his car and returned to the scene.  A gun battle followed.  When the police arrived they observed the defendant holding the clothes that witnesses saw him at the time of the shooting.  They also saw the defendant lying dead on the ground with a .40 caliber handgun lying close by.  A .38 caliber handgun was found at the rear of the Quincy Terrace apartment. 

Arguing for bail the defense attorney told the judge that the victim fired the first shot and the defendant acted in self-defense.  The judge in the Lynn District Court held the defendant without bail.  Witnesses said that the defendant fired three shots.  The defendant has been identified as Walter Clare.  Read full article, Lynn Item Online, September 3, 2008. 

Self-Defense in Massachusetts 

Homicide in Massachusetts is excused if it is committed while acting in self defense.  It is not the defendant's burden to show that he acted in self defense.   Rather, it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.  You are allowed to use deadly force during a proper exercise of self-defense.  However if deadly force was used you must have had a "reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death and a reasonable belief that no other means would suffice to prevent harm".  The person causing death must have reasonably believed that he or she was about to be killed and there was no other way to avoid the attack.  However, prior to the exercise of self-defense you must have tried everything to avoid the combat.  The victim's reputation for violence comes into play if the defendant knew of this reputation.  Recent acts of violence might also be considered by a jury when deciding a self-defense case. 

Attorney Stephen Neyman has employed the theory of self-defense on several occasions and succeeded in getting his clients acquitted.  If you have been charged with a violent crime in Massachusetts call our office now. 

Related Web Resources:

Lynn Murder Case Defense Lawyers, Kathleen M. McCarthy

CityRating.com crime statistics

A Newburyport District Court judge found sufficient facts to convict Methuen High School Assistant Principal Donald Gibson of a second offense OUI last week.  The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that on April 25, 2008 Gibson was stopped by the Amesbury Police for a marked lanes violation after having left the Winner's Circle in Salisbury, Massachusetts.  Gibson admitted to drinking 5 beers and was placed under arrest.  He was charged with OUI second offense which carries a penalty of 30 day mandatory in the Essex County House of Correction.  Read Article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune August 29, 2008.  However since Gibson's prior conviction was more than 10 years old the judge had discretion to treat this as a first offense.  See Massachusetts Drunk Driving Laws G.L. c. 90 sec. 24D.  The judge suspended Gibson's license for 90 days, twice the minimum mandatory, placed him on probation for 2 years and required him to attend the alcohol awareness program.  Gibson will be entitled to apply for a hardship license immediately.  The case was continued without a finding, which essentially provides that if Gibson successfully completes his probation the case will be dismissed.  There will always be a court record to alert judges and prosecutors that Gibson was given this break in 2008.  With the exception of the 90 day license suspension this defendant was given the equivalent of a first offender's disposition under G.L. 90 sec. 24D.  Gibson's first OUI offense was in 1981 out of the Lowell District Court.  The result of Gibson's case was typical of how second offense drunk driving cases (with the prior offense being over 10 years old) are resolved in Massachusetts. 

People generally believe that if they had 5 beers as did Gibson they have no choice but to plead guilty.  This however is not always the most prudent way to resolve the case.  Our office utilizes toxicologists to evaluate the quantity of alcohol our clients drank over the period of time the beverages were consumed.  This, coupled with the person's weight and food consumption yields a fairly accurate estimate as to what the person's blood alcohol was at the time of operation.  You can drink and then drive.  You cannot drive under the influence of alcohol.  The presumptive level of impairment in Massachusetts is .08 blood alcohol.  Five beers over five hours will not result in a .08 for most people. 

These days people charged with OUI in Massachusetts usually want to resolve their case quickly particularly if this is a first offense.  This is due to recent changes in the Massachusetts Drunk Driving laws.  The most recent statute is also known as Melanie's law.  It rewards first time offenders who plead guilty by restoring their operating privileges almost immediately with certain restrictions.  People opt for pleading guilty so that they can resume driving and continue on in life with minimal inconveniences.  While seductive this is not always the most prudent way to resolve your case.  Our office takes the time to analyze your case and advise you of all alternatives so that you will consider more than just getting your license back as soon as possible.  Call us now with any questions about your drunk driving case in Massachusetts. 

Related Web Resources:

Newburyport Drunk Driving Defense Lawyers, Stephen Neyman

Newburyport Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys, Kathleen M. McCarthy

Massachusetts Drunk Driving Information

An Andover man who is a former dean of the Business School at Merrimack College was arrested and charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.  The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court.  The defendant has been identified as Edward Popper, 63.  According to an article in the Andover Townsman an undercover Pennsylvania police officer had online meetings with Popper and learned that Popper possessed a large amount of child pornographic photographs.  The office notified the Essex County District Attorney's office which subsequently learned that Popper was the person communicating with the undercover.  Popper was arrested, arraigned and released on $10,000 bail.  During the arrest police seized Popper's computers.  As a condition of his bail he is ordered to keep off of the internet and any technological device through which he can have access to children.  A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for September 16, 2008. 

In Massachusetts it is illegal to purchase or possess child porn.  The statute, G.L. c. 272 sec. 29C prohibits 1) the possession or purchase of any picture, film, negative, book or compute image of a person he knows to be under the age of 18 or "reasonable should know" is under the age of 18; 2) that shows that individual having sex with a person or animal, masturbating, being lewdly touched, being bound, abused or portrayed in any lewd pose.  A conviction for this offense carries a five year state prison sentence.  The case cannot be continued without a finding. 

Distribution of child pornography in Massachusetts is made criminal by G.L. c. 272 sec. 29B. That statute prohibits the dissemination of child porn or the possession with the intent to disseminate child pornography. A conviction under this statute requires the defendant to serve 10 years minimum in state prison.  Consent is not a defense under this statute. 

Given the severity of the punishments defendants face in Massachusetts child pornography cases one's choice of defense lawyers is critical.  Make sure when you are looking to hire a lawyer to defend you against child pornography sex crimes in Massachusetts you choose someone who understands the laws and has a proven record of success.  For example, just this past summer a Massachusetts state worker was exonerated of child pornography charges when it was learned that his laptop contracted a virus that placed child porn on his hard drive.  Once the virus hit the defendant's laptop it filled up the browser's cache with hundreds of child porn images.  A good criminal defense lawyer will investigate his case to see if this or a similar situation placed his client in this terrible position. 

A conviction for violating these laws also requires registration with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyers, Stephen Neyman

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Attorneys, Kathleen M. McCarthy

Federal Child Pornography

A New Hampshire man charged with aggravated rape faces potential additional charges now that other women are coming forward with similar stories.  The Newburyport Daily News reported that Thomas Currier meets women on an internet dating site, invites them over for dinner and rapes them.  According to the police, Currier gives the women a drink that contains some type of drug that incapacitates them.  The story initially broke on Thursday.  See Full Article, Newburyport Daily News when it was reported that on August 3, 2008 a woman having dinner at Currier's home experienced an inability to control her body after having a few sips of a drink.  Currier then took her into his bedroom where he proceeded to have sex with her against her will.  The victim was physically unable to stop the attack.  After Currier was finished he threw the woman out of his apartment.  The next day the victim told her family and a rape kit was conducted at the Lawrence General Hospital.  The victim then obtained a restraining order against Currier. 

A state police investigation is ongoing after other women have told of similar stories.  Currier has been violent towards women in the past.  One woman claimed that when she refused to drink the drugged beverage Currier threatened to shoot her.  Investigators believe that other victims might be from Massachusetts and Maine.  The defendant is currently held without bail. 

Rape is punishable by a prison term of up to life in Massachusetts.  It is possible to receive a much light sentence defending on the nature of the allegations.  However, drugging a person for the purpose of committing rape in Massachusetts is also a crime in Massachusetts and it is punishable by a minimum mandatory 10 year state prison sentence.  Defending cases involving drugging and raping victims requires an understanding of the effects of certain drugs on individuals.  Most lawyers need to be educated on how these substances effect a person.  The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman uses renowned toxicologists like Dr. David Benjamin to assist in the preparation of cases involving drugs and sometimes alcohol.  Dr. Benjamin has testified on several of our cases, all with great results.  Dr. Benjamin is a compelling knowledgeable witness who captivates juries and judges.  He regularly provides our office with advice and updated information on toxicological issues.  He is able to distinguish what drugs do in fact incapacitate and what quantities are necessary to achieve the illicit objective.  On any case involving impairment we strongly recommend using a toxicologist to inform the jury of the exact effects of the substances on the human mind and body. 

For more on sex crimes defense in Massachusetts contact our office. 

Related Web Resources:

Essex County Sex Crimes Defense Lawyers, Kathleen M. McCarthy

Massachusetts Law About Rape and Sexual Assault.

Rape and Sexual Assault Statistics

The Lowell Sun reported that James Loughran will was sentenced to 3-4 years at the Massachusetts Correction Center (M.C.I.) at Cedar Junction for beating his girlfriend and fracturing her eye socket.  Read Article, Lowell Sun September 1, 2008.  According to the prosecution, on January 24, 2008 police responded to Loughran's home after receiving a 911 call.  Loughran answered the door but pretended not to speak English.  Eventually the defendant allowed the police to enter the apartment.  They could hear his girlfriend calling for help from another room and when they located her lying on the apartment floor.  She was found bleeding from the mouth and nose.  One of her eyes was swollen shut.  Loughran was eventually charged with assault and battery causing serious injury and intimidation of a witness. 

Crimes like this in Massachusetts are more commonly known as domestic violence.  This occurs when a partner or family member tries to overpower another either physically or emotionally.  Domestic violence can refer to spousal relationships, intimate partners or people living together.  Massachusetts recognizes that both men and women can commit acts of domestic violence.  The violent act can by physical or emotional.  It can take the form of threats or intimidation.  In Massachusetts people committing domestic acts that involve violence or other criminal behavior are often charged with crimes like assault and battery or intimidation of a witness as was Loughran. 

Loughran was charged with aggravated assault and battery.  In Massachusetts this is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in state prison.  The elements that must be proven by the prosecution in this case were that Loughran committed an assault and battery that cause serious bodily injury.  Serious bodily injury has been defined as causing permanent disfigurement, loss of bodily function or limb or a substantial risk of death.  Intimidation of a witness in Massachusetts is punishable by as much as 10 years in state prison.   A prosecution under this statute requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intimidated someone who was a witness in a criminal proceeding or investigation. 

Stephen Neyman is a Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer with 20 years of experience defending people accused of committing acts that fall under the umbrella of domestic violence.  Call us immediately if you have been charged with this or any other type of crime.

Related Web Resources:

Lowell, Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Attorneys, Kathleen M. McCarthy

National Domestic Violence Hotline Website

Massachusetts Law About Domestic Violence

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported Friday that a 27 year old Florida man was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for convincing a 15 year girl to run away from home to be with him.  The defendant, Daniel Lenz met the girl through an internet video game.  The defense tried to get sentencing continued so that Lenz could get a psychiatric evaluation to aid in his sentencing.  Sentencing documents claimed that Lenz suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, that he has experienced suicidal tendencies and that he had a troubled relationship with his father.  The judge refused to continue sentencing after prosecutors claimed that Lenz was still having phone sex with the girl while incarcerated.  The prosecution further stated that Lenz poses a danger to the girl and refuses to admit that he committed a crime.  Apparently the girl would visit Lenz in prison and during at least one visit exposed herself by flashing him. 

On August 30, 2007 a federal jury convicted Lenz of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2423.  That statute makes criminal transporting anyone under the age of 18 for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct.  The statute requires a mandatory 10 year prison sentence.  There is also a maximum of life in prison for a conviction of this offense.  While Lenz received the minimum sentence he will also be on supervised release for life after his release from prison. 

This is an extremely strict statute when compared to some state laws.  For example, in Massachusetts the age for consent is 16.  Arguably the federal statute would make criminal a consensual act that involved for example a 19 year old boy and an 17 year old girl.  Hopefully law enforcement would use discretion in such a case and not choose to prosecute that type of act and limit its use of this statute to those situations that result in the exploitation of young vulnerable victims. 

Federal crimes are the most difficult to defend.  The prosecutors typically indict only their strongest cases.  The witnesses who investigate these cases are FBI agents, DEA agents, ATF agents, and members of various other federal law enforcement entities.  Most of these people have extensive educational backgrounds such as law degrees, masters degrees or doctorates.  They are well prepared for trial and their investigations are usually the most thorough.  In federal criminal cases it is of the greatest importance that you hire a lawyer experienced with the federal criminal system.  The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman has been representing defendants in federal criminal cases for over 20 years. 

Related Web Resources:

The Mann Act

Boston Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers

Federal Sentencing Guidelines