Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Janelle Grasty of Framingham, Massachusetts was engaged in an act of Prostitution with Nev Lima, another Framingham resident. After consummating the act Lima went to pay Grasty. She accepted her fee and pulled a knife on him, demanding the rest of his money. Lima defended himself and was bitten in the process. At least that is the story Lima told the police. Grasty on the other hand claimed that the money was hers, all one thousand two hundred dollars of it. According to a police report the two were fighting in a hallway, naked when the police arrived. Both have been charged with criminal offenses out of the Framingham District Court as follows:

Janelle Grasty

Prostitution,
Assault and Battery,
Armed Robbery

Nev Lima

Assault and Battery
Disorderly Conduct

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1510861880/Framingham-woman-tried-to-rob-john-after-sex-police-say

Framingham Sex Crimes Lawyer

So how is this case going to work out? A lot depends on what the police saw and more importantly whether anyone else witnessed this incident. According to the article the knife was found in a bathroom. Thus, it is difficult to determine who in fact is telling the truth here, at least about the Robbery allegation. It is true that prostitutes often get robbed. They also rob their customers. To prove the robbery allegation the prosecution will need a percipient witness. There is not one here. Here is another problem with this case from a prosecutorial point of view. Since both have been charged with criminal offenses it is probable that neither will be offering testimony against the other. Both Grasty and Lima will likely invoke their Fifth Amendment Privilege. That right, guaranteed by the United States Constitution provides that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". If Grasty and Lima decide to testify then they are waiving this privilege and, in the context of this case probably incriminating themselves. It would imprudent for either of them to do so, particularly where testifying truthfully would possibly result in an admission to the charges pending against them. The invocation of this privilege will make prosecuting this case virtually impossible. I would bet that the charges against these defendants get dismissed on the day of trial.

Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers have to help their clients make decisions like this one every day. It is important that your lawyer not only knows the law but that he or she knows how to utilize the law to help with your defense. The end result of criminal cases in Massachusetts and throughout the country often results on the strategies employed by the defense attorney. Knowing your rights and properly embracing them is a good formula for success.

Continue reading "Framingham Massachusetts Woman Charged With Robbery, Prostitution After Trying To Rob Customer " »

According to a representative from the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office, police officers saw Luis Hernandez, a known drug dealer in the Framingham and Natick areas engage in a drug deal in the parking lot adjacent to his apartment. It is alleged that Hernandez sold to to Gina Stucchi, Jennifer Mackey and Maria Woods, all of whom were in Stucchi's car. The police followed Stucchi's car and apprehended them right before they injected Cocaine in the car alongside Route 9. Woods told the police that she bought the drugs from Hernandez. In the meantime, Hernandez had gotten into a car being driven by Geraldine Martinez. Alisha Conti was also in the car. Conti was dropped off. She was later questioned and admitted to buying Heroin from Hernandez. Police then observed a drug deal between Hernandez and an unknown male. Hernandez was arrested. Martinez was questioned. She admitted that there were drugs in the car and that Hernandez kept drugs in a safe in his apartment. The safe was located and inside police found Heroin, Drug Paraphernalia and Cocaine. The charges against the seven defendants are as follows:

Luis Hernandez:
Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws
Resisting Arrest
Distribution of Heroin

Gina Stucchi:
Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws
Distribution of Cocaine

Maria Woods:
Conspiracy
Possession of Cocaine
Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine
Providing a False Name to a Police Officer
Intimidation of a Witness

Geraldine Martinez:
Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws
Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class "B"
Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class "A"

Alisha Conti:
Possession of Heroin

Jennifer Mackey:
Distribution of Class "B", Cocaine
Drug Conspiracy

William Roberts:
Resisting Arrest
Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws
Possession of Class "A", Heroin

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/features/x633529259/Framingham-drug-suspects-arraigned

There are some interesting legal issues that spring from this case, one of which was addressed by Hernandez' lawyer at the arraignment and bail hearing. The Distribution of Heroin charge can only be proved if Stucchi, Mackey or Woods testify against him. They probably will not in that they too face criminal charges thus enabling them to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. It is highly unlikely that the officers' observations alone are sufficient to sustain this charge. The same applies for the Conspiracy allegation. As to Possession With Intent to Distribute Class "A" Heroin there might be a legitimate grounds for suppression or a required finding at trial. An experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would be able to show a jury that Martinez, Hernandez' roommate, is likely the owner of the safe as opposed to Hernandez. This would make proof against him much more difficult and possibly result in a successful motion for a required finding of not guilty.

Continue reading "Seven Arrested In Framingham, Natick, Massachusetts Drug Bust After Cops Witness Drug Deal In Parking Lot" »

On May 20, 2011 I blogged on a similar case involving the same defendant. Norman Barnes, age twenty eight. He was arrested at a hotel in Quincy, Massachusetts after the victim used Facebook to contact a relative who immediately went to the hotel. Police were called to the scene and Barnes was apprehended. The Salem News now reports that Barnes crimes spanned several counties. The allegations are extremely severe. It is alleged that Barnes kidnapped the fifteen year old girl on May 8, 2011 after giving her friend a ride and dropping her off at a local T station. Barnes convinced the victim to remain with him with the promise of taking her home. He did not. Rather, he took her from hotel to hotel throughout various counties in Massachusetts forcing her to engage in acts of prostitution and raping her several times. It is alleged that the girl was forced to have sex with as many as eight men one of the days she was at a motel in Danvers and seven men on another occasion, also in Essex County. The case against Barnes now pending in the Salem District Court charges him with Enticing a Minor Into Prostitution, Deriving Support From Prostitution of a Minor and Statutory Rape. Bail was set in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars cash, by agreement. When Barnes was arrested he had nearly twenty thousand dollars in his possession.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1241069618/Police-Girl-was-forced-to-sell-sex

In cases like this one, where a defendant is charged in several counties for the same conduct and a single victim, the issue of consolidation is often considered. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) permits a defendant to file a motion for the transfer and consolidation of cases. The judge hearing the motion is to consider the convenience of the request relative to the witnesses and parties. The prosecutor for each county must agree to the request if it is to be permitted. This rule is designed for the purpose of judicial economy by eliminating the need for multiple trials committed in different counties. From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer this rule has a different value. If Barnes were to have separate trials in each county, and if he were to lose each trial, the circumstances of these cases might prompt a judge to consider a consecutive state prison sentence. This might be due to the fact that one judge might not believe that the first judge's sentence was severe enough. Or, it might be because the victim was forced to relive the horrors of her ordeal through her trial testimony on multiple occasions. Consolidation will result in one trial and one sentence. Consolidation for trial purposes is rare. The practice is much more common when someone is offering to plead guilty to criminal charges pending in multiple superior courts.

Continue reading "Boston Man Arraigned On Charges Of Kidnapping, Deriving Support From A Prostitute, Enticing A Minor Into Prostitution In Salem District Court Held On High Bail" »

Monday night members of the Lynn, Massachusetts Police Department were conducting surveillance near Ida Street and Western Avenue. They observed the driver of a car, later identified as Agapito Rivera of Lynn acting suspiciously. He was looking around as if he were waiting for someone. Within a few minutes another car being driven by co-defendant Juan Martinez of East Boston pulled up. Rivera got into the passenger seat of Martinez's car. At that time one of the surveillance officers appeared. Rivera then made movements towards the underside of the seat in which he was sitting. The officer then saw money and a plastic bagging in the center console. Rivera was asked to get out of the car. He complied. The officer then found a bag of cocaine under the seat. It turns out that there was in excess of fourteen grams of cocaine in the vehicle. Both Rivera and Martinez were arrested. They have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 14 Grams. The case is currently pending in the Lynn District Court. If the weight of the Cocaine is confirmed at over fourteen grams the district attorney will likely indict this case and the prosecution will take place in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Bail for each of the defendants was set at fifteen thousand dollars.

Read Article

Lynn, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Anytime I read an article like this one I immediately become suspicious. Were the police conducting the surveillance based on information that focused on one or both of the defendants or was the surveillance being conducted to target a known drug distribution area. The difference is significant to Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers who are defending Rivera and Martinez. In both cases the defense lawyers will be looking to suppress the search by attacking its constitutionality. If the officers were basing their efforts on information supplied to them by an informant the approach to suppression focuses on the credibility of the informant. What was his or her basis of knowledge? Was he or she reliable? Was the information supplied sufficiently corroborated? If the officers were in this area conducting a random surveillance then the focus for an attack on the search centers on the reasonableness of the police officers actions. What exactly did they do when the approached the car? What specifically were Rivera and Martinez doing or appearing to do while the officers approached? What were the officers' actions? What did the officers say if anything when approaching the car or once they got to the car? Motions to Suppress unlawful police activity are one of the most effective tools that Lynn, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Lawyers can utilize in defending their clients.

Continue reading "Two Men Arrested, One From Lynn The Other From Boston, Charged With Trafficking Cocaine In Lynn District Court " »

The Salem News reports that Patricia Papa, a former employee of the Sheriff's Department for Essex County Massachusetts has been charged with having sexual relations with an inmate. Papa worked at the Lawrence Correctional Alternative Center, commonly known as the farm. The allegations focus on a one month period covering most of March of this year. The case is being prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=sessexterminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Facilities&sid=Sessex&b=terminalcontent&f=lawrence_cac&csid=Sessex

It appears that the statute under which Papa is being prosecuted is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A. That statute makes it a crime for any corrections officer or anyone employed by a correctional institution to engage in sexual relations with an inmate. A conviction for this offense can result in a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and a five year state prison sentence. Consent is not a defense to these charges. So, how can Papa defend against these allegations? Obviously a lot depends on the evidence against her. Did someone see her engaged in sexual activities with the inmate? Were the acts caught on security and surveillance videos? Or was it the inmate himself who made the accusations? You would think that if this were happening that Papa would avoid such actions in view of any electronic monitoring equipment. As an employee of the sheriff's office she would arguably know that such devices existed and the location where the cameras were operating from. Eyewitness testimony in cases like this one are often suspect as well. Keep in mind, these people are convicted criminals sentenced to a period of incarceration. Their credibility is suspect. Jurors have difficulty believing the testimony of someone who is serving a jail sentence. The first thing that goes through a juror's mind when listening to an incarcerated person's testimony is "what is in this for this guy? Why is he testifying for the prosecution?" There almost always has to be substantial corroboration for jurors to convict someone based on an inmate's testimony. None was mentioned in this article. Rather, simply bare allegations that Papa had sexual relations with an inmate.

I can recall a case like this one many years ago where proof against the defendant was an easy task for the district attorney. The defendant was a woman, correctional officer at a state prison. She had a relationship with an inmate at a much more secure facility that the Lawrence Farm. She got pregnant and had the inmate's child. She was terminated. In Papa's case there is no indication that the prosecutor's case is that clear cut.

Continue reading "Woman Who Worked At Essex County Sheriff's Office Charged With Having Sex With Inmates In Salem Superior Court" »

This week the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Rivera, SJC - 10802 Commonwealth v. Rivera, a case in which the defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping. The facts presented in Rivera are as follows:

In early September of 2008 in the afternoon a boy was walking on a busy street in Dorchester. The boy was picking up a prescription for his mother. A car driven by the defendant came up next to him. The defendant told the boy to get into the car. The boy said no. He then went into the store to get the prescription. The entire incident took about two seconds. A witness saw the car. She took the defendant's plate number. She then saw the boy leave the pharmacy. She asked him what happened and then she called the police. The police arrested Rivera. During an interrogation Rivera admitted that he wanted the boy to go back to his home and listen to some music. After the district attorney presented the prosecution's case the defense moved for a required finding of not guilty. The motion was denied. The jury convicted Rivera. He was sentenced to two years in the Suffolk County House of Correction with six months to serve. He was also required to register as a sex offender.

Reversing the conviction the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reasoned that the district attorney failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that Rivera had the intent to "forcibly or secretly" confine the boy, an element necessary to sustain a conviction for attempted kidnapping. The Court cited Commonwealth v. Banfill, 413 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1992), a case with similar yet more egregious facts still not sufficient to sustain a conviction for these charges. In Banfill, the defendant had interaction with a girl for a longer period of time; twenty five seconds. As in this case, the defendant in Banfill told the child to get in his truck.

The lone dissenter in this case stated that the defendant's act of ordering the boy into his car with the admitted intention of taking him to his home satisfied the requirement of an overt act designed to "secretly confine" the boy. The dissent argued that the evidence could permit a jury to conclude that Rivera intended to abduct the boy. This was demonstrated by both his actions on Dorchester Avenue, the scene of the incident and his admission to police upon his arrest.

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman handles Criminal Appeals throughout Massachusetts state and federal courts. A conviction by a jury or judge does not mean that your case is over. In this case, had Rivera not appealed his conviction he would have had to register as a sex offender.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Reverses Dorchester Attempted Kidnapping Conviction" »

Yesterday Saul Morales of Lynn, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Lynn District Court after being charged with Rape. The Lynn Item reports that police responded to a call in the Albany Street area. They arrived to find a woman and someone else on the sidewalk. The woman was crying. She told police that she visited Morales to charge her cell phone. While there, Morales began grabbing her. She tried to walk away. Morales then grabbed her, pulled her pants down and raped her. The woman was taken to the hospital for treatment. The Lynn Item further reports that the woman's boyfriend arrived at the defendant's home after not having heard from her for a while. When he got to the home he could hear the woman crying inside. A few minutes later the woman left the homing claiming that she had been raped. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Rape Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer the first thing that comes to mind is the credibility of the complainant in this case. There is too much "coincidence" suggested by this article. The woman goes to Morales' home to charge her cell phone and finds herself sitting on his bed. Then all of the sudden he starts a sexual assault that ends in Rape. Meanwhile, her boyfriend becomes concerned that he has not heard from her for a while so he decides to check out the house. Ironically, he hears her cries yet he never calls the police. Instead, he does what no other man would do. Nothing. He waits until she comes out of the home. Now she is crying. She complains that she had just been raped. The two embrace on the sidewalk until the police arrive. Think about this for a minute. Why would the woman have to charge her phone at a friend's home? Why would the boyfriend become concerned when he had not heard from her? How could she call him when her phone was charging? Why didn't the boyfriend try to help her? Why didn't the boyfriend call the police? Something smells bad here. I have had cases like this in the past. Sometimes the "victim" has consensual sex with someone. She regrets this. Someone finds out about the act and she immediately cries rape. I am interested in learning about the physical evidence in this case. Were there any defensive wounds on Morales. What do the hospital tests reveal. Was the woman injured in any way. Why is there no mention of her physical appearance at the time the police arrived. I am sure that Morales' Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer will investigate these things while preparing Morales' defense.

Continue reading "Lynn Man Charged With Rape Of Friend Who Had Gone To His Home To Charge Her Cell Phone" »

Joshua Rockwood and his wife Jessica Rockwood, twenty seven and thirty one years of age respectively, are going to have to remain in jail for a while according to a judge sitting in Taunton, Massachusetts. Both have been charged with Trafficking Heroin in the Taunton District Court. The complaint follows a July 1, 2011 arrest during which police from several local law enforcement agencies conducted a raid pursuant to a search warrant at the couple's home. During the search police found over one thousand four hundred bags of heroin with a street value estimated at fourteen thousand dollars. Officers also found a sawed off shotgun during the search. Only Jessica Rockwood was home at that time however the next day Joshua was arrested and found in possession of over two hundred bags of heroin and two thousand dollars cash. In addition to Heroin Trafficking the pair was charged with Possession of a Firearm and Receiving Stolen Property Over $250. Both defendants have been charged on several occasions with crimes as indicated by the district attorney during the arraignment and bail hearing. The article does not mention the quantity of heroin allegedly trafficked however it is likely that this case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court in New Bedford.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1850042721/Couple-in-drug-case-denied-bail

What interests me most about this case as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer is the information law enforcement might have possessed prior to applying for a search warrant. I am sure that prosecutor provided the judge with a history of facts he felt deserving of a no bail order. None of these are however mentioned in this article. The quantity of heroin, the presence of a firearm and the criminal records of the defendants in this case without more might warrant the imposition of a high bail but not detention without bail. So what other facts might have been imparted to the judge at the bail hearing? Were there controlled buys made by undercover officers, informants or both? Were sales where the purchasers were apprehended witnessed for an extensive period of time? Perhaps most significantly, what involvement did each spouse have in the operation. Many times our office has been approached by couples who simply because of their relationship have been get charged together. Many times however the case against one of the spouses gets dismissed due to inadequacies in the evidence against him or her. However, almost always will the district attorney charge both the husband and the wife when a search warrant is executed at a home and drugs are found. Having an experienced lawyer is the best way to ensure that justice is done and that an innocent spouse does not suffer for the crimes of the other.

Continue reading "Taunton Couple Accused Of Trafficking Heroin Denied Bail" »

Today the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Gore, 08-P-2067, a case in which the defendant claimed that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The facts of the case are as follows:

In October of 1995 a complaint issued in the New Bedford District Court charging Gore with Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under the Age of 14, two counts. In November of 1995 a warrant issued for Gore's arrest. He was not notified of the outstanding charges. Two years later he picked up a case on Rhode Island. Gore was convicted of the cases in Rhode Island and given a prison sentence. He became eligible for parole in November of 2006. Rhode Island was at all times aware of the New Bedford case, a fugitive complaint was filed and Gore never waived extradition. In 1999 the fugitive complaints was dismissed. In December of 2006 the prosecutor in New Bedford applied for a governor's warrant. In January of 2007 the defendant was ordered extradited to Massachusetts. Gore was arraigned in New Bedford in February of 2007. A motion to dismiss was filed and denied in March of 2008. Gore set out as grounds a violation of his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Trial started in the spring of 2008. About twelve and one half years had passed since the complaint issued. Gore was tried convicted and sentenced to in the 1995 cases. He appealed.

Citing a United States Supreme Court case the Appeals Court evaluated four factors in determining whether Gore's speedy trial rights were violated. Those factors contemplate 1) the length of the delay, 2) the reason for the delay, 3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial and 4) the prejudice to the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 5301972). Finding the delay here unreasonable the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that Gore's decision not to waive extradition does not mean that he waived his right to a speedy trial. A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial. Additionally, the prosecution could have obtained a governor's warrant earlier than 2007. A twelve and one half year delay is presumptively prejudicial at least in the context of this case. In this decision the Massachusetts Appeals Court also embraced Article XI of the Massachusetts Declaration or Rights which states that everyone in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the right to a speedy trial. In addition to federal law state law was violated by the inaction of the district attorney's office.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Holds That 12 and One Half Year Delay From Time Of Issuance Of Complaint Until Trial Violates Speedy Trial Law" »

Late Monday night members of the Boston, Massachusetts Police Department responded to a call after it was reported that two people had been stabbed. The police arrived at Huntington Avenue to find two Cambridge, Massachusetts residents being treated by emergency medical personnel. The unnamed victims are men ages twenty two and twenty six. The Lynn Item reports that the alleged victims were in a group that was approached by another group who demanded to know where they were from. A fight erupted and the two men who were stabbed and some of their friends entered a taxicab and fled the area. Once police arrived an investigation began. Ultimately, Jose Soriano of Lynn, Massachusetts was identified as the assailant. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars in the Boston Municipal Court. Soriano has been charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

So exactly what is Soriano looking at? Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon in Massachusetts is a violent felony punishable by up to ten years in state prison and a five thousand dollar fine. The crime is codified in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15(A)(b). The court where this case will be prosecuted depends on the severity of the stabbing and Soriano's criminal record if any.

As a Massachusetts Stabbing Defense Lawyer I am concerned about the identification process and understanding just how it came about the Soriano was identified by the alleged victims. In Massachusetts the prosecution must prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt. Identification witnesses do not always have an adequate opportunity to view their assailant. Incorrect identifications are made all of the time. It is the duty of the defense attorney to ensure that any tainted identifications are suppressed. It is also the duty of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to make sure that any subsequent "in court" identifications are not suggestive. Sometimes suspects are presented in person to the identification witness. While Massachusetts has approved this procedure it is the least reliable method of identification and the most vulnerable to attack. This article makes me somewhat suspicious about the identification procedure that might have been used. Soriano is from Lynn. It is unlikely that he was identified so quickly from a photographic array in that the arrays would likely contain photos of Boston men. This procedure can take a long time due to the volume of photos that have to be assembled and viewed by the victims. The incident occurred around 11:30 Monday night and Soriano was arraigned in court yesterday. More likely, the police conducted a "show up" procedure. The circumstances of this process might lend themselves to an attack on the legality of the identification of Soriano. This might be his best defense to these charges.

Continue reading "Lynn Massachusetts Man Held On $25,000 Bail Following Boston Fourth Of July Stabbing" »