Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

The Malden Observer, through Wicked Local Malden reported that on Monday, October 20, 2008 seven people were arrested and charged with having committed crimes.  Omitting the names of the defendants, the following was reported:

Case # 1.

A thirty year old Dorchester woman was arrested at 12:26 p.m. on Summer Street and charged with shoplifting by asportation.  This charge is codified in Massachusetts by G.L. c. 266 sec. 30A which states in part that anyone who intentionally takes any merchandise from a store without intending to pay for it and with the intent to deprive the merchant of that item shall be punished.  For a first offense, if the item is less than $100 the penalty is a maximum $250 fine.  For second offenses the punishment is up to $500 and for a third offense you can be punished for up to 2 years in jail.  If the value of the goods is $100 or greater there is a potential 2 1/2 year jail sentence.

Case # 2.

A thirty nine year old Malden man was arrested at 1:09 p.m. on Brentwood Street and charged with possession of an illegal knife.  This offense is established by a Malden City Ordinance Section 7.18 which states that no person shall carry on his person or in his vehicle a knife having a blade in excess of 2 1/2 inches in length.  If convicted the defendant in this case faces a fine of up to $50. 

Case # 3.

A thirty eight year old Everett man was arrested at 1:09 p.m. on Brentwood Street and charged with use of motor vehicle without authority and possession of an illegal knife.  The use without authority charge is established by G.L. c. 90 sec. 24.  To be convicted of this offense the prosecution must prove that the person used a motor vehicle, without the authority do so, knowing that such use was unauthorized.  The use without authority statute reads "whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for a second offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in the state prison or by both fine and imprisonment."

Case # 4.

A sixty eight year old Salem man was arrested at 1:38 p.m. on Broadway and charged with assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and leaving the scene of personal injury.  Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon in Massachusetts is a crime in accordance with G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A.  It is punishable by a state prison sentence of 10 years.  The leaving the scene charge is a violation of G.L. c. 90 sec. 24 and permits a 2 year jail sentence after conviction. 

Case # 5.

A twenty year old Saugus man was arrested at 4:04 p.m. on Centre Street and charged with shoplifting by asportation and possession of a Class C drug.  Possession of a class C drug is a violation of G.L. 94C sec. 34 and carries a possible one year jail sentence. 

Case # 6.

A twenty six year old Malden man was arrested at 4:30 p.m. on Judson Street and charged with assault and battery.  Assault and battery is an offense pursuant to G.L. c. 13A.  It carries a possible 2 1/2 year house of correction sentence. 

Case # 7.

A forty five year old Malden man was arrested at 4:32 p.m. on Eastern Avenue and charged with operating under the influence of liquor, third offense.  OUI 3rd offense in Massachusetts is punishable by a minimum mandatory 150 day sentence.  An 8 year loss of license is also imposed upon conviction.  A hardship license in not available for at least 2 years. 

If you have been charged with any of the offense listed above you should contact an experienced Malden Criminal Defense Lawyer.  Our office has successfully represented people charged with all of these offenses for over 20 years. 

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 Section 33E permits the Supreme Judicial Court to "(a) order a new trial or (b) direct the entry of a verdict of a lesser degree of guilt, and remand the case to the superior court for the imposition of sentence" in capital cases.  The standard for doing so requires the Court to be "satisfied that the verdict was against the law or the weight of the evidence, or because of newly discovered evidence, or for any other reason that justice may require".  The statute is raised in virtually every appeal from first degree murder convictions.  Challenges based on this statute rarely succeed.  Just last week however the Supreme Judicial Court used its powers pursuant to this statute and reduced a first degree murder conviction to murder in the second degree.  This case is Commonwealth v. Colleran, SJC 09107.  See full opinion.  This marks the first time that the Supreme Judicial Court has used G.L. c. 278 Section 33E to reduce a verdict based on mental illness as a factor. 

Facts of the Case:

The facts of the case are riveting.  They are paraphrased as follows.  In December 2001 the defendant and her boyfriend lived in Sandwich with their 2 1/2 year old daughter.  On December 17, 2001 at around 7:00 p.m. the defendant returned home after work to prepare dinner.  She and her boyfriend were in the process of trying to get the baby to sleep apart from them so they put her on the couch to sleep.  The child woke up around 2:00 a.m. and the boyfriend brought her into bed with them.  At 6:40 a.m. the boyfriend woke up to the arrival of police officers.  Apparently the defendant had killed the child and called 911. 

All accounts of the defendant's behavior at that time were consistent.  She admitted the crime to her boyfriend stating that she "can't feel anymore' and that had not "been normal." Her expression was blank. She showed no emotion and did not cry.  One of the responding police officers was a family friend who knew the defendant.  The defendant told him that she was going crazy.   The officer was "shocked by the defendant's appearance, because '[s]he looked like a skeleton.'"  She was unable to cry and she was expressionless.

The defendant's confession was chilling.  She told police that her baby woke up at about 6 A.M. on December 18, 2001.  She fed her a bottle and put her on the couch.  The child fell asleep.  The defendant then pushed her face into the couch.  The child cried.  The defendant pushed harder so that her boyfriend would not hear her.  She rolled the child "onto her back and noticed her lips were blue. Thinking the child was brain damaged, the defendant then choked her. The defendant said that during the incident she knew she could get in trouble for doing it, but she was "feeling possessed," and wondered why she was doing it. She said she was unable to focus or concentrate and her mind was constantly processing random thoughts. She could not explain why she strangled the child. She said she was severely depressed and just wanted to die. She thought if she killed her child, someone would kill her. She was placed on suicide watch."

By all accounts, aside from this incident things at home were good for the defendant.  The baby was good.  The defendant and her boyfriend had a good relationship.  The couple had no financial problems.  There was no history of child abuse.  The defendant was an overprotective mother.  Neither drugs nor alcohol were an issue. 

Mental Health Issues:

The Court stated that the defendant had been treated for depression in 1997. Her condition improved with medication, but onn her own she stopped taking the medication because it of they way it made her act. Her reaction to the medication suggested an emerging bipolar, or manic-depressive disorder. During the two or three weeks prior to the incident, the defendant began behaving "different" and "strange." She told her boyfriend that she thought she was dying and that she felt like she were "dead."  She stopped eating and lost a considerable amount of weight.  She became unable to sleep.  Three mental health experts testified on the defendant's behalf.  In essence, she was diagnosed as having suffered from psychotic depression.  The prosecution did not rebut this evidence with an expert of its own.

The Jury Verdict:

The jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder under theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty. 

G.L. c. 278 Sec. 33E Review:

In reducing the verdict the Supreme Judicial Court held that this "incident reflects spontaneity rather than premeditation".  The mental health experts agreed that this act was impulsive and not planned.  The defendant suffered from a severe if not psychotic depression.  She was "emotionally detached from her thought processes, and prone to acting illogically and contrary to her own self interest".  The Court also considered "personal characteristics of the defendant in mitigation, such as the fact the defendant was in a stable family relationship, and gainfully employed".  The Court concluded that in this case "verdict of murder in the second degree is more consonant with justice than a verdict of deliberately premeditated murder". 

Our office has appealed several first degree murder convictions.  Each time we request the Supreme Judicial Court to use its discretion pursuant to G.L. c. 278 Sec. 33E  to reduce the verdict.  Virtually every criminal defense lawyer handling first degree murder appeals does the same thing.  To succeed under this statute it is necessary for the Court to find that there exists a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.  The infrequency in which this law is provides relief for defendants suggests that the standard is a high one.  For a list of cases in which the Supreme Judicial Court used its powers pursuant to G.L. c. 278 Sec. 33E please call our office. 

The Suffolk County District Attorney's Office released a statement stating that a 38 year old Allston man is being held without bail pending his arraignment tomorrow in the Suffolk Superior Court for two rapes that occurred this past summer.  The defendant was indicted on October 8, 2008 and charged with two counts of aggravated rape, two counts of kidnapping, three counts of assault and battery, and one count of aggravated assault and battery.  The indictments stem from the following facts.  On July 5, 2008 the defendant met the first victim, a 28 year old Boston woman at the intersection of Harvard Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue.  The woman rebuffed his advances after which he grabbed her and forced her into his apartment.  There he held her against her will, beat her, strangled her and raped her.  The defendant subsequently let her go.  The victim immediately went to the police station and was taken to a local hospital.  The second victim, a 25 year old Cambridge woman suffered the same abuse on July 22, 2008.  In that instance, the defendant lured the victim into a cab and directed the driver back to his apartment rather than to the nightclub where he initially told her they would go.  This woman had seen the defendant in her neighborhood before.  Once in the apartment the woman was raped.  She too made her way to the police station, reported the attack and was taken to an area hospital.  The defendant was positively identified by both women through photographic arrays. 

Rape in Massachusetts is a crime pursuant to G.L. c. 265 sec. 22.   The law states that anyone who compels another to have sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse is guilty of the crime of rape.  Rape in this context carries with it a possible twenty year state prison sentence.  If serious bodily injury results during the commission of the crime then someone convicted can be sentenced up to life. 

Kidnapping in Massachusetts is a crime in accordance with G.L. c. 265 sec. 26.  That section states that anyone who forcibly or secretly confines or imprisons another person within this commonwealth against his will shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years.

Both of these crimes are extremely serious.  In Massachusetts rape cases and kidnapping cases are prosecuted in the Superior Court.  It is important to consult with an experienced Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer or a Boston Violent Crimes Lawyer if you are facing charges such as these.  Attorney Stephen Neyman has a great deal of experience handling these types of cases.  Contact our office now to discuss your criminal case.

Related Web Resources:

Boston Sex Crimes Law Firm, Attorney Kathleen McCarthy

Massachusetts Violent Crimes Attorneys, Stephen Neyman

The Metrowest Daily News reported Tuesday that a twenty one year old Marlborough man was arrested Sunday and charged with beating a pregnant woman.  The man was charged with assault and battery on a pregnant person, intimidating a witness and threatening to commit a crime.  At 1:15 a.m. the victim called police to report the assault.  Officers were able to hear the defendant yell to the woman that he was going to kill her.  They then heard a smacking sound followed by the woman crying and asking the defendant to get off of her.  The woman, who is almost two months pregnant, had bite marks on her arm, hand, cheek and neck, as well as a cut lip. She told police that the defendant held her down and hit and bit her. When she tried to call police, he threw the phone across the room.  The defendant was arrested, charged and arraigned in Marlborough District Court yesterday. Full Article Metrowest Daily News October 21, 2008. 

The crime of assault and battery on a pregnant person is defined by General Laws Chapter 265 Section 13A.  The portion of the statute pertaining to this crime reads "[w]hoever commits an assault or an assault and battery upon another who is pregnant at the time of such assault and battery, knowing or having reason to know that the person is pregnant shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment". 

If you have been charged with a crime involving violence you should immediately contact an experienced Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Lawyers.  Crimes like this can often be resolved without a person having a criminal conviction.  We have been defending people charged with crimes such as this for over 20 years.  Every lawyer in our office has in excess of 20 years experience.  Before you do anything you should contact a lawyer. 

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported on Saturday that an Andover couple was arrested during their morning jog yesterday on charges of criminal harassment, conspiracy, identity fraud, and filing a frivolous report of child abuse.  It is alleged that the defendants, William and Gail Johnson, made fabricated reports to the state Department of Social Services and phony online advertisements containing personal information used to target James Lyons Jr., a resident of 12 High Vale Lane and a neighbor of the Johnsons.  The prosecution contends that the motive for the crimes was an existing land dispute between the defendants and Lyons, their neighbor.  Nominal bails were set in this case.  $2,000 for William Johnson and $1,000 for Gail Johnson.  A third defendant, Gerald Colton of Lowell was arraigned in June on related charges.  The charges stem from the following facts.  In March of 2008 Lyons contacted Andover police after postings on the Web site Craigslist.org listed his name, address and phone numbers. The initial posting, an advertisement for the sale of nine used golf carts, attracted potential buyers to Lyons' home. After the posting was taken off the Web site, it appeared again the next day, along with a new post advertising the sale of a 1973 Harley-Davidson motorcycle for $300.  The posting claimed the motorcycle belonged to Lyons' "late son," a statement Lyons believed was a threat directed at one of his two sons, ages 13 and 14.  Emails referencing the golf cart and motorcycle sales were were linked to Colton's computer which was seized after his arrest.  Also on his computer was personal information pertaining to Lyons and his family.  In March, Lyons reported to police that someone had attempted to open up bank accounts using his personal information. He also reported that someone had signed him up as a member of the Florida-based American Association for Nude Recreation.  Also in March 2008, social service workers appeared at Lyons home to speak with his 14 year old son regarding fabricated criminal sexual assault allegations.  Additional fabricated allegations directed to Lyons were also reported to the Department of Social Services.  The harassment continued into April of 2008.  Then, Lyons received a letter from BioGift Anatomical Inc. stating that he had already expressed his interest in "donating his body for medical science when he passes away," a statement Lyons considered a "direct threat on his life".  Also in April, false allegations regarding Lyons' businesses prompted a visit from the board of health.  Again in April 2008 Lyons was sent a letter implicating him in a past case of molestation by a fictionalized former employee.  Read entire article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, October 18, 2008. 

Harassment in Massachusetts is a criminal act in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43A.  The statute states in part that "[w]hoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Such conduct or acts described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications or facsimile communications."  The harassment statute tracks the stalking statute, except that the stalking statute contains the additional element of making a threat to induce fear of death or bodily injury.  Here, the prosecution contends that reference to one of the victim's "late" sons' was a threat to one of the sons where both were in fact alive.  The threat to Lyons himself stemmed from the letter concerning him donating his body to science. 

Our office has handled stalking and harassment cases successfully for years.  Typically these cases are prosecuted in the district courts in Massachusetts.  In cases where someone who has already been convicted of this crime is found guilty again a state prison sentence is permitted.  Making sure you have an experienced Massachusetts harassment defense lawyer is important.  Call our office to discuss your case now. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Criminal Harassment Defense Lawyers

Massachusetts Stalking Defense Lawyers

The Waltham Daily News Tribune reported that a man charged with torturing and holding his estranged wife hostage will be released after posting $1,500 bail.  According to the article, the defendant appeared in Waltham District Court today for a dangerousness hearing before Judge Gregory Flynn.  After the hearing Judge Flynn stated that there was not enough "clearly convincing" evidence presented by Assistant District Attorney to warrant holding the man.  Apparently the wife told police she went to the defendant's home Sunday to ask for a divorce. The two argued and the defendant beat and kicked her.  The defendant also grabbed a semi-automatic handgun from beneath a pillow and struck his wife in the head and threatened to kill her.  The alleged abuse continued into the next day.  The wife fled the house when the defendant went to the bathroom and flagged down a car for help.  The driver then drove her to New Bedford.  Waltham police detectives obtained a warrant to search the defendant's home and were unable to find the gun.  The victim never appeared in court and told the investigating police officers that she suffered from mental health issues.  The defendant has been charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, four counts of assault and battery, intimidation of a witness, kidnapping and threats to commit a crime. Read entire article, Friday, October 17, 2008. 

Dangerousness hearings in Massachusetts are also known as 58A hearings.  These hearings are governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58A.  The relevant law reads "[t]he Commonwealth may move, based on dangerousness, for an order of pretrial detention or release on conditions for a felony offense that has as an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or any other felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result".  The standard judges must use is "clear and convincing evidence".  When the prosecution moves for detention on dangerousness grounds the judge must hold the person until the hearing is held.  The prosecution is permitted 3 days to prepare for the hearing.  These hearings are often used by prosecutors in Massachusetts in domestic violence cases such as this one. 

The defense lawyer representing the defendant in this case was Arthur Kelly.  Attorney Kelly is considered one of the best criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts.  He has tried countless cases including some very high profile murder cases.  Getting the defendant in this case a reasonable bail exemplifies his expertise and success. 

Domestic violence cases in Massachusetts are taken quite seriously by prosecutors.  This case certainly demonstrates that sentiment.  Here, notwithstanding the woman's mental problems and unsubstantiated story the prosecution tried to have the defendant held without bail in accordance with the dangerousness statute.  Some prosecutors ask for dangerousness hearings as a matter of course without scrutinizing the underlying circumstances surrounding the alleged incident, particularly in domestic violence cases.  That is why it is important that you hire a skilled and experienced Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Attorney if you get charged with crimes such as these. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Law Firm

DomesticViolence.org.

Massachusetts Laws About Domestic Violence

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that on October 10, 2008 a 45 year old Billerica man and a 25 year old Lawrence woman were charged with engaging in sex for a fee.  The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court.  According to the article, the man, drove his BMW through Lawrence passing a woman dressed in tight jeans, a halter top and wearing a lot of makeup.  The woman motioned with her head to the car.  A police officer witnessing the incident believed that the woman was working the streets.  The driver stopped and had a conversation with the woman.  She got in and the two proceeded to a residential neighborhood where the man parked the car.  The two engaged in an apparent conversation after which the woman's head dropped out of sight.  The officer witnessing the incident called for backup and approached the car.  When the officer got to the car he witnessed the two engaging in a sex act.  Both parties were charged with engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.  The man was also charged with soliciting a prostitute.  The woman was additionally charged with being a common streetwalker.  Read article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune October 11, 2008.

Engaging in sexual conduct for a fee is a crime pursuant to G.L. c. 272 sec. 53A in Massachusetts.  The portion of the statute pertaining to this case is subsection (a) which states that anyone who "engages, agrees to engage, or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee, or whoever pays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay another person to engage in sexual conduct, or to agree to engage in sexual conduct with another natural person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 1 year or by a fine of not more than $500 or by both such imprisonment and fine, whether such sexual conduct occurs or not".  The article does not make clear how the officer was able to determine that the act was being committed for a fee.  Obviously inferences can be drawn based on the clothing the woman was wearing, the circumstances surrounding the meeting and the place where the act was committed.  Any prior relationship between the parties could undercut the officer's opinion.  Additionally, if the woman had a legitimate means of support one could argue the unreasonableness of the inference.  An experienced Lawrence Massachusetts sex crimes defense lawyer would likely investigate these scenarios in preparing his defense of this case. 

Soliciting a prostitute is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 8.  That statute makes criminal anyone who solicits or gets paid for soliciting for a prostitute.  Punishment for a violation of this law permits imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both.  The question here is, if in fact the parties engaged in criminal activity who solicited whom.  The article suggests that the woman solicited the man.  If that is the case the man should not be convicted for this offense.  If you have been charged with a crime like this make sure you have a Massachusetts criminal attorney who has successfully defended sex crimes of this nature. 

Being a common streetwalker is a crime proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53 which states: "[c]ommon night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. "A person may be convicted as a night walker only "if he [or she] is 'abroad at night attempting to allure someone to illicit sexual intercourse".  Here, the officer witnessing the nod of the head suggests at least initially that the woman attempted to allure the man to having illicit sexual intercourse. 

Attorney Stephen Neyman is committed to defending people accused of committing crimes in Massachusetts and throughout the country.  There is no such thing as a hopeless case.  No matter how serious the allegations are you should immediately contact and hire the best Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer you can find.  Each lawyer in our office has at least 20 years experience handling criminal case.  Call us now to discuss your criminal case. 

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that a 35 year old Lawrence was arrested and charged with trafficking heroin in excess of 200 grams.  According to the article the defendant was a major supplier of heroin to Southern New Hampshire.  About 2 months ago this individual was identified by Plaistow, New Hampshire police as the major source of heroin in that area.  Once that determination was made Lawrence police were contacted to assist in an investigation.  The investigation resulted in a search of the defendant's home on Andover Street in Lawrence during which police confiscated 327 grams of heroin worth an estimated $32,700, and $14,000 in cash.  An arrest of the defendant was made at the apartment after the search.  Also arrested was his girlfriend who was present during the search as well.  Police expect 5 additional arrests from this investigation.  These individuals would make trips to Lawrence to obtain heroin and travel back to New Hampshire where they would sell to teenagers.  At times the defendant himself would go to New Hampshire and make sales.  In the last two weeks an undercover police officer made four purchases from the defendant in Lawrence.  New Hampshire police believe that this arrest will make a major dent in heroin activities in their state.  During a search a police canine located 223 bags of heroin.  Also found were stashes of money, scales, false identification and related heroin trafficking paraphernalia.  The defendant was held on $250,000 bail while his girlfriend was held on $100,000 bail.  Read entire article.

If the newspaper account is accurate, the defendant is likely in a lot of trouble.  He needs an excellent Massachusetts Drugs Crime Defense Lawyer to help him with this case.  Heroin trafficking over 200 grams carries a minimum 15 year state prison sentence.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 C Section 32E makes heroin trafficking a crime.  That statute states that "[a]ny person who trafficks in heroin . . . any derivative thereof by knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing or dispensing or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense or by bringing into the commonwealth a net weight of fourteen grams or more of heroin . . . any derivative thereof or a net weight of fourteen grams or more of any mixture containing heroin or any . . . or any derivative thereof or any mixture thereof is" guilty of trafficking.  "Two hundred grams or more, be punished by a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years. No sentence imposed under the provisions of this clause shall be for less than a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of fifteen years and a fine of not less than fifty thousand nor more than five hundred thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established therein."  Whereas in this case there were 4 controlled buys it will be difficult for the defendant win this case at trial.  Additionally, where the quantity significantly exceeds the threshold for the 15 year mandatory sentence it is not likely that the prosecution will agree to break this case down.  The defendant is also looking at a school zone violation which adds another 2 years mandatory to the sentence. 

The case against the girlfriend might be easier to defend.  If she was merely present at the time of the search and was not a party to the controlled buys she might have a good chance at a successful defense.  One of the Massachusetts jury instructions states that "[i]f it has been proved that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, that fact alone is not enough to find teh defendant guilty.  Presence alone does not establish a joint venture, even if a person knew about the intended crime in advance and took no steps to prevent it.  Our law does not allow for guilty by association.  There must be proof that the defendant intentionally participate in committing that particluar crime, not just that he or she knew about it".

If you have been charged with a drug offense in Massachusetts click on any of the following links and contact a Massachusetts Drugs Crimes Attorney now.

www.neymanlaw.com

www.kmmlegal.com

www.rjwheelerlaw.com.

All of the lawyers associated with these law firms have over 20 year criminal experience.  Each has handled countless drug cases with great success.

The Salem News reported that a 31 year old man pleaded guilty in the Essex County Superior Court this past Wednesday for deriving support from prostitution, procuring a person for prostitution and soliciting for prostitution.  The defendant, Trevor Jones had previously worked as a telemarketer, a landscaper and in retail before becoming a pimp.  According to reports, Jones was making thousands of dollars per week in his new trade.  The article continued that Jones forced at least two drug-addicted and desperate women into prostitution.  He demanded that the women bring him at least $1,000 per night.  The investigation leading to this prosecution started when one of Jones victims reported these activities to police.  Jones and another were then tracked to motels and hotels all over the North Shore, including places in Peabody, Danvers, Middleton, Salem and Saugus.  Police also learned that Jones met the women at parties and invited them to stay with him, while also providing them drugs,  Afterwards Jones would require the women to work the streets in downtown Boston while also arranging meetings with male customers at motels and hotels.  All of the money made by the women would be surrendered to Jones.  Jones was sentenced to 2-5 years in state prison.  He will also be on probation for 5 years after he is released.  Jones was already on probation for a similar case in Andover.  He will likely face a probation violation.   Read entire article, Salem Daily News. 

The primary statute under which Jones was sentenced is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 7.  That statute makes it a crime for anyone to derive any means of support or maintenance from the earnings or proceeds of his prostitution.  There is a maximum state prison sentence of 5 years and a minimum mandatory sentence of 2 years.  Soliciting a person for prostitution is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 8.  The statute reads that anyone who "shall solicit or receive compensation for soliciting for a prostitute shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both."  Procuring a person for prostitution is a violation of G.L. c. 272 Sec. 12.  That statute states that anyone who procures a person to practice prostitution shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than two years.

As you can see from this case, there are several statutes that pertaining directly to pimping in Massachusetts.  Hiring an experienced Massachusetts sex crimes defense attorney is a decision that might impact how your case is ultimately resolved.  For some sex crimes convictions you are facing a mandatory registration with the Massachusetts Sex Offenders Registry Board, also known as SORB.  If you have a case involving a sex crime we encourage you to call our office now. 

The Newburyport News reported that Joel Napolitano, 29 of Groveland has been charged with 3 counts of distributing obscene material, 2 counts of distributing obscene material to a minor and 5 counts of open and gross lewdness.  According to the report, since February Napolitano would use his cell phone to show employees of the Fitness Factory pictures of his genitals.  He also showed them a video in which he was engaged in a lewd sex act.  It is further alleged that the defendant had improper communications of a sexual nature with the 16 year old daughter of one of the employees.  Upon his arrest Napolitano told the police that he never showed the employees the pictures.  Rather, they located them on his cell phone without his permission.  Bail was set at $500 and the defendant was ordered to stay away from the Fitness Factory.  Read entire article in the Newburyport News. 

Open and gross lewdness is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16.  The law states that "[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."  In order to convict someone for open and gross lewdness in Massachusetts the "prosecution must show that (1) the defendant exposed his or her genitals, buttocks, or breasts to one or more persons; (2) the defendant did so intentionally; (3) the defendant did so "openly," that is, either the defendant intended public exposure or recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of public exposure to others who might be offended by such conduct; (4) the defendant's act was done in such a way as to produce alarm or shock; and (5) one or more persons were in fact alarmed or shocked by the defendant's exposure."  Commonwealth v. Kessler, 442 Mass. 770 (2004).  In this case it is unclear whether the 4th and 5th prongs of this test were met.  If in fact Napolitano did show the pictures to employees for an eight month period and no complaints were made until just recently there may be a defense to this crime.  You have to wonder why it took so long to make these complaints if the other employees were truly alarmed or shocked. 

Disseminating materials harmful to minors is a criminal act in Massachusetts under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 28.  It carries a potential sentence of 5 years in state prison and a rather stiff fine.  These crimes cannot be continued without a finding. Distributing obscene materials is a criminal act pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29.   This too is punishable for up to 5 years in state prison.  In order to convict under either statute, the materials must fit the definition set forth in G.L. c. 278, § 31. Section 31 defines "matter" for purposes of the obscenity statutes as "any printed material, visual representation, live performance or sound recording including but not limited to, books, magazines, motion picture films, pamphlets, phonographic records, pictures, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances." See Commonwealth v. O'Keefe, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 566, 567 (2000).

Stephen Neyman is an experienced Essex County Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer who has successfully defended against allegations that this defendant faces.  These charges are quite serious and in some cases a conviction could result in the defendant having to register as a sex offender with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board.  If you have been charged with one of these crimes you need a lawyers.  Contact our office now to discuss your case. 

A Suffolk County District Attorney's Office press release stated that James Atkins, a Chelsea Police sergeant has been indicted and charged with 5 counts of larceny.  In 2007 parents and Chelsea High School officials contacted the police to report their concerns about Atkins handling of monies raised for the Chelsea football team during fundraising events.  At that time Atkins was also the head football coach, booster president and someone with access to the fundraising bank account.  The account was to be used to purchase equipment, uniforms, team events and a pre-season camp.  Suspicions about Atkins management of the account were initially voiced in the fall of 2006.  Consequently, Atkins surrendered control of the account to a parent however he retained an ATM card for himself.  The card was used for several unauthorized purchases including personal travel and entertainment.  Atkins' tenure as coach terminated in 2007.  The total amount stolen by Atkins is estimated around $10,000.  He has been on administrative leave since August 2007.  An arraignment hearing has been set for October 22, 2008. 

Addressing the charges, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said: 

"The charges against James Atkins are serious and troubling.  Atkins abused the public trust in his role as a police officer, he violated the trust of the kids who looked up to him as a mentor and a coach, and the parents who put their faith in him. Were it not for the diligence of parents and school officials, and the hard work of prosecutors and detectives with both the Chelsea Police Department and Massachusetts State Police, he may have been able to continue to pilfer funds for kids to be used for his own entertainment. " Read Press Release, October 1, 2008.  The story was covered by Wickedlocal Medford as well. 

So what is Atkins looking at?  Larceny in Massachusetts is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 30.  The part of that statute most pertinent to this case states that "Whoever steals the property of another whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years".  There is no need to indict these cases.  Jurisdiction lies in the district courts as well.  Typically, when a case such as this that has concurrent jurisdiction is prosecuted in the Superior Court the prosecution is seeking an imposition of state prison time.  District Courts in Massachusetts have the authority to sentence someone to a house of correction, not state prison.  Thus, the prosecution in this case will likely be recommending a state prison sentence for Atkins.  This does not necessarily mean that he will actually serve state prison time.  A good Massachusetts theft crimes defense lawyer might be able to negotiate some sort of disposition whereby Atkins will not serve any time at all.  It is also possible that his case could be continued without a finding if certain compelling circumstances are in play here. 

If you have a case like this, or any criminal case in Massachusetts, we encourage you to call our office at once.  All of the lawyers in our office have at least 20 years criminal defense experience.  Our results are excellent.  Call us now to discuss your case.  www.neymanlaw.com ; www.kmmdefense.com; www.rjwheelerlaw.com. 

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that on October 2, 2008 Raul Rodriguez pleaded guilty to manslaughter and unlawful possession of a firearm.  The conviction stemmed from an incident two years ago during which Rodriguez was playing with a 9 millimeter handgun after a night of heavy drinking.  After trying to clear the weapon and believing that the chamber was empty, Rodriguez pointed the gun at the head of Rafael Ortiz and fired.  The gun discharged and a bullet struck Ortiz in the head killing him.  Rodriguez did not know that his efforts at clearing the weapon were unsuccessful and that he had in fact caused a live round to enter the chamber.   Rodriguez was initially charged with murder.  According to reports, upon initial inquiry Rodriguez was found crying and told the police "I know you guys are going to arrest me,...My buddy's shot, and it was over drugs."  No gun was found at the scene.  The judge sentenced the defendant to 2 1/2 years to 3 1/2 years in state prison.  The prosecutor asked for a more severe sentence of 6 to 8 years.  Defense counsel tried to convince the judge to impose a house of correction sentence.  Rodriguez was given a stay of execution of his sentence so that he could wrap up his auto repair business.  Read entire article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, October 3, 2008. 

Manslaughter in Massachusetts is a crime punishable for up to 20 years in state prison.  Manslaughter is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 13.  There are two types of manslaughter in Massachusetts, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.  Both come with several nuances and both require an absence of malice.  Voluntary manslaughter can arise 1) from heat of passion upon a reasonable provocation, 2) as a result of the heat of passion induced by sudden combat or 3) as a result of the excessive use of force in self defense or in defense of another.  Involuntary manslaughter can come about as a result of the wanton or reckless conduct.  Wanton or reckless conduct contemplates acts that create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. Often times involuntary manslaughter is referred to as criminal negligence or gross criminal negligence.  It is in essence a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.  It is likely that Rodriguez was charged with involuntary manslaughter under this theory. 

Our office defends people accused of committing violent crimes such as manslaughter.  Manslaughter is a serious crime that is not often charged.  Typically, murder is charged and manslaughter becomes an lesser option for the jury to consider.  Rodriguez was fortunate enough to be represented by an excellent criminal defense lawyer who succeeded in convincing the judge to impose a rather lenient sentence given the nature of the crime.  Hiring the right Massachusetts criminal defense attorney is a critical decision.  Please explore our website for a listing of our services and our experience. 

According to a Boston Police news release police on September 17, 2008 Boston Police arrested 23 year old Royal Smith of Roxbury and charged him with Attempted Kidnapping, Armed Robbery, Impersonating a Police Officer and Attempted Sexual Assault.  The arrest stemmed from the following reports.

At 1:10 a.m. officers responded to a concerned citizen's call reporting a sexual assault in Egleston Square in Jamaica Plain.  This person told police that while driving on Columbus Avenue he saw a woman crying.  He offered assistance and she told him that she had been sexually assaulted by a person she believed to be a police officer.  This belief was based on the fact that the assailant carried a gun, badge and radio.  The woman left the area and the police were never able to speak with her.  About 20 minutes later police in the Roxbury section of Boston observed a man and woman in an unlit school yard near Crawford Street.  The officers approached and found a BB gun and a police scanner in the man's possession.   The woman stated that the man identified himself as a police officer and pulled a gun from his waist area.  He brandished the weapon and made a sexually suggestive threat.   The man was arrested. 

The crimes Smith has been charged with are summarized as follows:

• Impersonating a police officer.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 33 makes impersonating a police officer a crime in Massachusetts.  The potential punishment for a conviction of this crime is one year in jail. 
• Attempted kidnapping.  Punishments for Attempts to commit crimes in Massachusetts are governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 274 Section 6.  In this case the maximum penalty is 5 years in prison.  This is because the crime that Smith is accused of committing, kidnapping, is punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison.
• Armed Robbery. The crime of armed robbery in Massachusetts requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant, while being armed with a dangerous weapon, assaults another and robs, steals or takes from his person money or other property which may be the subject of larceny.  There is a potential life sentence for armed robbery.   If the defendant commits this offense while being masked there is a minimum 5 year state prison sentence and if this is a second such offense then the defendant will be required to serve 10 years in prison if convicted.  If the armed robbery is committed while armed with a firearm a conviction mandates 5 years in prison.  A second offense for this section of the armed robbery statute mandates a 15 year sentence. 
• Attempted sexual assault.  This could mean virtually anything that fits within the Massachusetts sexual assault laws.  The press release is unclear as to what type of conduct Smith attempted to force the woman to perform.  The attempted act could be a rape, an assault with the intent to commit rape, an indecent assault and battery an more. 

Our office defends people accused of committing all of the crimes for which Royal Smith might be charged.  Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Attorney Stephen Neyman has tried and won many cases where the charges are identical or similar to those that the Boston Police claim Smith committed.  Our office has also had similar cases dismissed before going to trial.  We are available 24 hours per day 7 days per week to talk to you about any sex crime for which you might have been charged.  Call us now to discuss your case.  Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C.