Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

The Malden Observer reported that a Malden man was arrested and charged with violating child pornography laws.  The defendant Daniel Morley has already been convicted in the past.  The charges now pending against Morley are two counts of possession of child pornography, second offense and dissemination of child pornography.  He is being held on $250,000 cash bail.  In January Morley was convicted of 10 counts of child pornography and placed on probation.  The investigation started when a Massachusetts Internet Crimes Task Force received information that someone from Malden using an AOL screen name had sent child pornography over the internet.  The police tracked the defendant through his internet connection.  A search warrant was obtained and executed at the defendant's home.  Seized during the search was a laptop kept under the defendants' bed loaded with nearly 100 child pornography videos. 

Related Web Resources:

Malden Sex Crimes Defense Attorneys

Malden Sex Crimes Defense Law Firms

Malden Sex Crimes Defense Lawyers

The charges against the defendant explained as follows:

Possession of child pornography is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29C.  The law states that anyone who buys or possesses certain materials,( i.e. a negative, slide, book, magazine, film, videotape, photograph or other similar visual reproduction, or depiction by computer) of any child whom the person knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 years of age shall be punished if this material shows the child engaged in actual or simulated  1) sexual intercourse, 2) oral sex, 3) masturbation, 4) lew fondling, 5) excreting or urinating, 6) sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic abuse in any sexual context, 7)  portrayed in any pose, posture or setting involving a lewd exhibition of the unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person is female, a fully or partially developed breast of the child.

Conviction for a first offense can subject you to up to 5 years in state prison.  Second offenses require the person to serve 5 years in state prison.   These cases cannot be continued without a finding. 

Dissemination of child pornographic material is a crime by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29B. That law holds that anyone with lascivious intent who disseminates any visual material that contains a representation or reproduction of any posture or exhibition in a state of nudity involving the use of a child who is under eighteen years of age shall be punished in state prison for a mandatory 10 years. 

Anyone charged with one of these offenses should call a lawyer immediately.  Cyber crimes are a constantly emerging facet of criminal law and you need an experience Massachusetts criminal lawyer to defend you if you are charged with one of these offenses. 

The Lowell Sun reported that Savong "Black" Moun has been charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute in a school zone, possession of marijuana, possession of a class C substance and illegal gambling while he was on an electronic bracelet and confined to home detention.  According to the article, Moun was one of several people charged in a major operation aimed at ending drug dealing by members of Lowell's notorious Tiny Rascals Gang. Moun was arrested on July 18, 2008 and charged with three counts of distribution of ecstasy and then released on bail. He was confined to his home, and ordered to wear an electronic bracelet so authorities could keep tabs on his whereabouts.

According to the Lowell Police however this did not stop him from continuing with his operations.  Moun remained confined to his home however he continued selling ecstasy out of his front door at 55 Parker St.  He also set up a lounge, complete with illegal video-poker machines, in his basement. Police claim to have received complaints that Moun was selling drugs.  Consequently they watched began to watch his house. In the process Lowell Police arrested two individuals they say bought drugs from Moun at his home.  Police obtained a search warrant and found Moun with marijuana, ecstasy pills, a prescription drug called Clonazepam, and about $8,000 in cash. In the basement, detectives found a lounge, complete with couches, tables, liquor and two video-poker machines that were set up to accept cash so players could place bets. Read entire article, Lowell Sun, November 17, 2008. 

Related Web Resources:

Lowell, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Lowell, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyers

Lowell, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Law Firms

The Charges:

Ecstasy is a class B substance in Massachusetts.  Possession with the intent to distribute a class B substance and prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Chapter 32A.  This crime carries with it a possible 10 year state prison sentence.  The school zone violation is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32J.  The Massachusetts School Zone statute criminalizes illegal drug activity within 1,000 feet of a school zone.  If convicted of this crime you must serve an additional two years on top of the sentence you receive on the underlying drug charge.  This sentence must be served.  If you have any questions about charges such as this please call our office.

The Boston Globe reported that a Charlestown man will face charges of motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence after a crash on Soldiers Field Road in Brighton early yesterday that killed a pedestrian.  Police reported that at about 3:00 a.m. the man was walking on Soldiers Field Road near Everett Street.  He was struck by a jeep driven by the defendant, a twenty six year old Charlestown man.  The defendant was arrested at the scene and charged with motor vehicle homicide and OUI.  The victim was pronounced dead at the scene.  Both the defendant and his twenty five year old passenger were not injured.  Read full story, Boston Globe November 17, 2008. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts DUI Lawyers

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Homicide Defense Lawyers

Motor Vehicle Homicide in Massachusetts is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 Section 24G.  The law states that anyone who operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher or while under the influence of liquor or drugs and operates a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently so as to endanger the lives or safety of the public shall be guilty of motor vehicle homicide.  Punishment shall range from 1 year to 15 years.  A conviction under this section requires the person to serve at least 1 year of his or her sentence.  The elements the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are (1) operation of a motor vehicle, (2) upon a public way, (3) recklessly or negligently so as to endanger human life or safety, (4) thereby causing the death of a person. The legislative intent of this statute was to enact a law to provide a middle ground between the felony of manslaughter and the misdemeanor of driving so as to endanger.

Our office has successfully handled motor vehicle crimes on many occasions over the past twenty years.  We often use expert witnesses to show the jury that our client was not impaired by the alcohol.  We also use accident reconstructionists to demonstrate that the accident was not our client's fault if the facts support that defense.  The Crash Lab in Hampton, New Hampshire is a group with whom we frequently consult in cases such as this one. 

If you have questions about a case such as this please call our office now. 

The Malden Observer reported that a 23 year old man who had been arrested for motor vehicle violations tried to avoid a cocaine prosecution by hiding the drug in his crotch.  Apparently, after being arrested the man asked permission to use the bathroom before he was formally booked.  A Malden Police Officer walked the defendant to a cell and uncuffed him so that he could urinate.  At that time the office saw the defendant take something from his groin area, put it is his mouth and begin to chew the substance.  The defendant refused the officer's demands to spit the object out after which the officer stuck his hand in the suspect's mouth.  The suspect was subdued when he tried to bite the officer's finger.  He then spit out a small plastic bag of cocaine. 

The incident started when another officer saw the defendant driving a green 1997 Toyota Camry.  The officer knew that the defendant had outstanding warrants.  Accordingly, he stopped the car.  The man was not wearing a seatbelt, was driving without a license and failed to stop or yield.  As a result he was arrested. 

In addition to the motor vehicle charges the defendant has been charged with possession of cocaine, a Class B substance.  The charges are pending in the Malden District Court.  In Massachusetts this is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94c Section 34.  Possession carries with it a possible one year jail sentence.  It is possible and often the case that first offenders will get their cases continued without a finding.  This is where good lawyering comes in.  If you are charged with a crime like this you should make sure your attorney is an experienced Massachusetts drug crimes defense crimes lawyer. 

Related Web Resources:

Malden Criminal Defense Lawyers

Malden Criminal Defense Attorneys

George Hassett writer for the Somerville News reported that on October 31, 2008 Somerville Police captured a suspect wanted for hitting two police officers and a civilian with his car as he fled the parking lot of the Winter Hill Yacht Club.  The suspect,22 year old Calvin Jones of Charlestown was found in Salem, Massachusetts and arrested and charged with two counts of armed assault with intent to murder and two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. It is alleged that Jones struck and dragged a Somerville Police Officer who had been searching his car.  The officer sustained minor injuries and was treated and released from the Somerville Hospital.  As Jones fled the area he struck a second officer and a civilian.  The incident started when Somerville Police Officers responded to the Winter Hill Yacht Club to investigate a report of several individuals who had driven into a boat storage yard and were suspiciously out on foot in the area, police said.  Officers made routine inquiries of several people, one of whom was Jones.  Jones gave consent for an officer to search inside the vehicle.  As the search was being conducted Jones sped off. Full Article, Somerville News October 31, 2008.

For information on these crimes or to consult one of our lawyers click on one of the following links:

Somerville Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Somerville Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firms

Salem Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers

Salem Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firms

The charges:

Armed Assault With Intent To Murder:

The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18 states that anyone who is armed with a dangerous weapon and assaults another with the intent to rob or murder that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years. 

Assault And Battery By Means Of A Dangerous Weapon

This is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A.  The law states that if you commit an assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon you shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for up to 10 years or in the house of correction for up to 2 1/2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.  There are aggravated forms of this law that often result in more severe punishments.  If during the commission of this crime you cause serious bodily injury, or if you commit this act on a pregnant person of if this is done in violation of a restraining order the punishment is likely going to be greater. 

The following story was reported by the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on November 11, 2008:

'A city man faces criminal charges in Lynn after he allegedly impersonated a police officer claiming to be conducting a fundraiser for a police-sponsored sports program.  Lynn police said Christen Agnew called a pizza shop in that city on June 23, representing himself to be a Boston police officer conducting a fundraiser for the department's youth golf program.  The owners agreed to donate $100 and told Agnew to come to the shop and get the money.  When he went to the shop, the owner asked for identification, and Agnew told him he would go and retrieve it from his car but never returned to the store.  The shop owner followed Agnew out the door and wrote down the license plate number of his car, helping police to identify and locate him.  Agnew, 34, of 73 Marshland St. was summonsed to appear in Lynn District Court on charges of impersonating a police officer, attempted larceny and driving after suspension of his license.  During his arraignment Thursday in Lynn District Court, Judge Michael Uhlarik warned Agnew not to drive and ordered him to return to court on Dec. 18 for a pretrial hearing."  Read Full Story, Lawrence Eagle Tribune November 11, 2008. 

We recommend clicking on one of the following links if you have been charged with a these crimes or similar criminal offenses:

Lawrence Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Lynn Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Lynn Massachusetts Theft Crimes and Larceny Defense Lawyers

Lynn Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Defense Lawyers

The crimes with which Agnew was charged are more fully defined as follows in Massachusetts.

Impersonating A Police Officer is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 33. The law states that anyone who pretends to be a police officer shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.

Attempted Larceny.  Attempts to commit crimes are considered crimes in Massachusetts.  The statute of attempts to commit a crime in Massachusetts is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 274 Section 6 which states that whoever attempts to commit a crime by doing any act toward its commission, but fails in its perpetration, or is intercepted or prevented in its perpetration, shall, except as otherwise provided, be punished as follows: First, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years, if he attempts to commit a crime punishable with death. Second, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, if he attempts to commit a crime, except any larceny under section thirty of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for five years or more. Third, by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, if he attempts to commit a crime, except any larceny under said section thirty, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for less than five years or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction or by a fine. Fourth, by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine, or by both such fine and imprisonment, if he attempts to commit any larceny punishable under said section thirty. Under the circumstances of this case Agnew is looking at a maximum of 2 1/2 years in jail. 

Driving With A Suspended License.  Typically this crime is punishable by a fine or a jail sentence of up to 10 days.  If however your license was suspended for OUI (DUI) you are looking at a minimum mandatory 60 days in jail. 

Earlier today, a jury in the Peabody District Court acquitted one of our clients of a second offense drunk driving charge.  The case was tried by Attorney Stephen Neyman, an experienced Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyer.  The facts of the case as reported by the arresting police officer are as follows:

On Sunday, March 16, 2008 shortly after 1:00 a.m. a Peabody Police Officer was on patrol on Andover Street when he observed a pick-up truck being driven by our client drifting over the right lane marker five times.  The officer observed this pattern from 300 Andover Street (Route 114) to the intersection of Andover Street and Sylvan Street.  After the vehicle turned left on Sylvan Street the officer activated his overhead lights.  The officer approached the driver and observed his eyes to be glassy and bloodshot.  He also detected an odor of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle.  The officer asked our client where he was going to which he replied "Denny's".  The officer then asked our client how much he had to drink to which he replied "a couple of beers".  When asked the produce his license and registration our client experienced some difficulties.  Accordingly, the officer asked him to get out of his car.  The client complied and the officer noticed that he was "stiff-legged" and "unsteady on his feet".  As a result, a series of field sobriety tests were offered.

Three tests were administered.  First was the alphabet test.  The officer stated that our client stopped at the letter "T" and then continued with the remainder of the alphabet, this time starting with the letter "T".  The officer opined that the defendant failed that test.  Second, was the "walk and turn" test.  The client was asked to walk nine steps, heal to to with his arms by his said.  The officer said that the defendant walked off of the line three times and that he kept his arms behind his back.  Conclusion:  another failed field sobriety test.  The third test was the "one legged stand" test.  After two tries our client admitted that he could not perform this test.  Once again the officer believed that this test too was not performed satisfactorily. 

The defendant was then arrested and booked.  The arresting officer looked in the pick-up truck and observed a half full beer, "cold to the touch".  The officer let the passenger, our client's girlfriend, drive the pick-up truck away.  During booking the defendant told the booking officer that he had six beers and one shot of tequila over a five hour period.  The breathalyzer test was refused. 

At trial the prosecution called the arresting officer and the booking officer.  Their testimony was as discussed above.  Our office called a toxicologist as an expert witness.  The expert testified that the number of drinks that our client consumed over that five hour period would not impair his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely given his weight, the time period over which he consumed the beverages, his tolerance and the amount of food he ingested.  The expert also made clear to the jury that field sobriety tests are not as easily performed as you might think.  He analogized this to riding a bicycle or skating for the first time.  It is not that easy to do however with time and practice it is easy to perfect these tasks.  This explains why the police can easily demonstrate these tests in front of a jury and why even well coordinated individuals might not perform these well without practice.  As to the half full beer in the pick up truck, our office argued four points.  First, liquor stores must close by law at 11:00 p.m. on Saturday nights.  Since our client had been placed in a bar for five hours it is unlikely that he made that purchase after leaving that establishment.  Two, even if he had half of that beer when he left the bar there would not have been enough time for his body to absorb the alcohol from that point until he was stopped a few minutes later.  Third, the bar admitted to never selling cans of beer.  Lastly, we had evidence that that can of beer had been in the pick-up truck for over twenty four hours and was not consumed that day by our client.  Our client also testified that he was fine as did his girlfriend who was with him that night.  As to the amount of alcohol consumed, our client admitted to consuming only four of the six beers at most.  He testified that he danced often that night and that he would set down his beer when doing so.  When he would return from the dance floor he would not resume drinking the beer if he could not identify which of the partially full bottles on the bar was his beer. 

The jury returned a verdict of acquittal in less than twenty minutes. 

Related Web Resources:

Peabody District Court DUI Defense Lawyers

Peabody Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Earlier today, a jury in the Peabody District Court acquitted one of our clients of a second offense drunk driving charge.  The case was tried by Attorney Stephen Neyman, an experienced Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyer.  The facts of the case as reported by the arresting police officer are as follows:

On Sunday, March 16, 2008 shortly after 1:00 a.m. a Peabody Police Officer was on patrol on Andover Street when he observed a pick-up truck being driven by our client drifting over the right lane marker five times.  The officer observed this pattern from 300 Andover Street (Route 114) to the intersection of Andover Street and Sylvan Street.  After the vehicle turned left on Sylvan Street the officer activated his overhead lights.  The officer approached the driver and observed his eyes to be glassy and bloodshot.  He also detected an odor of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle.  The officer asked our client where he was going to which he replied "Denny's".  The officer then asked our client how much he had to drink to which he replied "a couple of beers".  When asked the produce his license and registration our client experienced some difficulties.  Accordingly, the officer asked him to get out of his car.  The client complied and the officer noticed that he was "stiff-legged" and "unsteady on his feet".  As a result, a series of field sobriety tests were offered.

Three tests were administered.  First was the alphabet test.  The officer stated that our client stopped at the letter "T" and then continued with the remainder of the alphabet, this time starting with the letter "T".  The officer opined that the defendant failed that test.  Second, was the "walk and turn" test.  The client was asked to walk nine steps, heal to to with his arms by his said.  The officer said that the defendant walked off of the line three times and that he kept his arms behind his back.  Conclusion:  another failed field sobriety test.  The third test was the "one legged stand" test.  After two tries our client admitted that he could not perform this test.  Once again the officer believed that this test too was not performed satisfactorily. 

The defendant was then arrested and booked.  The arresting officer looked in the pick-up truck and observed a half full beer, "cold to the touch".  The officer let the passenger, our client's girlfriend, drive the pick-up truck away.  During booking the defendant told the booking officer that he had six beers and one shot of tequila over a five hour period.  The breathalyzer test was refused. 

At trial the prosecution called the arresting officer and the booking officer.  Their testimony was as discussed above.  Our office called a toxicologist as an expert witness.  The expert testified that the number of drinks that our client consumed over that five hour period would not impair his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely given his weight, the time period over which he consumed the beverages, his tolerance and the amount of food he ingested.  The expert also made clear to the jury that field sobriety tests are not as easily performed as you might think.  He analogized this to riding a bicycle or skating for the first time.  It is not that easy to do however with time and practice it is easy to perfect these tasks.  This explains why the police can easily demonstrate these tests in front of a jury and why even well coordinated individuals might not perform these well without practice.  As to the half full beer in the pick up truck, our office argued four points.  First, liquor stores must close by law at 11:00 p.m. on Saturday nights.  Since our client had been placed in a bar for five hours it is unlikely that he made that purchase after leaving that establishment.  Two, even if he had half of that beer when he left the bar there would not have been enough time for his body to absorb the alcohol from that point until he was stopped a few minutes later.  Third, the bar admitted to never selling cans of beer.  Lastly, we had evidence that that can of beer had been in the pick-up truck for over twenty four hours and was not consumed that day by our client.  Our client also testified that he was fine as did his girlfriend who was with him that night.  As to the amount of alcohol consumed, our client admitted to consuming only four of the six beers at most.  He testified that he danced often that night and that he would set down his beer when doing so.  When he would return from the dance floor he would not resume drinking the beer if he could not identify which of the partially full bottles on the bar was his beer. 

The jury returned a verdict of acquittal in less than twenty minutes. 

Related Web Resources:

Peabody District Court DUI Defense Lawyers

Peabody Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers