Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

The Somerville Patch reports that police officers who witnessed at least three drug deals in two days have arrested a Malden, Massachusetts woman, charging her with Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Here is a look at what transpired. Last Friday around 3:30 p.m. the woman was seen meeting up with another woman. The two walked towards a man at which point a drug transaction occurred. The buyer, a sixty one year old Brockton, Massachusetts man was charged with Possession of Heroin and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. The next day, the same woman was again seen engaged in a drug sale. The police followed her and saw her involved in yet a third drug deal. As with the first deal, the alleged buyer, a thirty seven year old Winthrop man was arrested and charged with Conspiracy and Drug Possession. The case is being prosecuted in the Somerville District Court.

Read Article:

Somerville, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Lawyer, Heroin, Conspiracy

Any time I read a story like this one I immediately become somewhat suspicious and wonder about the exact location police officers were in when they made their "observations". When I defend Drug Cases in Massachusetts like this one, one of the first things I do is visit the crime scene. Using the police report and other discovery materials I try to ascertain the surveillance location. When it is not clear from the report or more importantly, when it is clear that there was no legitimate surveillance point, I file a motion for the disclosure of the surveillance location. This is often met with opposition.

Discovery of information in criminal cases is often discretionary. The district attorney often argues that they are not obligated to disclose surveillance locations in that doing so might compromise ongoing investigations or that disclosure is not relevant to the case at all. The best Massachusetts case supporting the defendant's right to have this information is Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 421 Mass. 272, 274-276 (1995). In Hernandez, the Supreme Judicial Court held that disclosure was necessary where the surveillance location was helpful and relevant to the defense in terms of attacking the officers' represented observations. In many cases true cross-examination requires a disclosure of a surveillance location. There can be a need to show how certain obstacles might have impeded an officer's views and to show that he never saw what he reported to have seen. It is important to note that there is no obligation for the defense to show what it believes the evidence might show in order to justify the request for disclosure. All that is required is that the defendant make a preliminary showing that disclosure would provide material evidence needed by the defendant for a fair presentation of his case to the jury. Once the surveillance location has been disclosed, photographing the area might be helpful when arguing for suppression before a judge or an acquittal by a jury.

Continue reading "Forty Year Old Malden Massachusetts Woman Arrested For Distribution of Heroin in Somerville" »

In Broward County Florida a criminal charge issued in large part due to texting between defendants and Facebook posts that detailed their plan. The text messages discussed what to do with the victim's body. The Facebook posts were more detailed and accompanied by photos and entries that offered law enforcement a nice timeline of the defendants' activities. If this was not enough one of the defendants told a friend how he strangled the victim and where he left her body. This admission continued with complaints about how bad the decomposing body smelled followed by texts to the co-defendant repeating this concern. The defendant then went to visit with a drug counselor where he once again confessed to having killed a named and missing woman. The drug counselor contacted the police. The police responded and gave the man his Miranda warnings. He then spoke to the police and provided them with a statement.

Read Related Article:

Getting Confessions Suppressed in Massachusetts

Any Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell you what I have repeated countless times to prospective clients, existing clients and through this blog. Nothing good can ever happen when you talk to the police. Nothing good can happen when you text about having committed crimes. Nothing good can happen when you post details of your criminal activities on Facebook. I cannot find any crime statistics in Massachusetts or other parts of the country that identify how many indictments or complaints would not have issued had the accused not opened his or her mouth. I am confident that the number is much more than one half. Another statistic that I am interested in is how many criminal convictions are directly attributed to the accused opening his mouth, or taking out a pen or entering text into some sort of electronic device. That number must be staggering. In my practice alone I see way too many people who have talked, texted or posted prior to calling me for advice.

So how do Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers handle this issue. Well, filing a Motion to Suppress is always prudent. If the police took the statement without following proper constitutional requirements the case may be dismissed. Similarly, at times text messages or Facebook posts can only be properly accessed through Search Warrants and a failure to get one validly issued can be fatal to the district attorney's case. Where the post or text is published in a public forum suppression is not that easy and the accused may have to resolve his case without a trial to get the best result. Social media and electronic communications make prosecuting much easier these days. That is why it is necessary for the accused to Hire an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue reading "Text Messages and Facebook Posts Becoming More Common in Massachusetts Criminal Prosecutions" »

Jessica Senter, a twenty four year old nanny working for a Groveland, Massachusetts family has been charged with Larceny Over $250 in the Haverhill District Court. Also charged was her boyfriend, Jukub Councilman. In November of 2010 Senter started work for for the victims in Groveland. She started in a part-time capacity and was awarded a full time job just a couple of months ago. As part of her compensation Senter received a new car and a cellphone. Then, just about a week ago the family noticed that some jewelry was missing. In fact, it was a lot of jewelry, estimated at thirty thousand dollars. It was quickly determined that Senter and Councilman were selling the items at a pawn shop in New Hampshire. More items were found in their possession at the time of their arrest. For this, both have been charged with Larceny Over $250 which is a felony in Massachusetts. Senter however has other problems. Apparently she was convicted of felony larceny last month and sentenced to probation. The victim was also someone for whom Senter worked as a nanny. She was given a suspended sentence. Her conditions of probation included an order to remain free of alcohol and drugs. Senter is a suspect in a similar case in Newburyport.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Larceny Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Theft Crime Attorney

So just how much trouble is Senter in right now? That is an interesting question. A lot determines when the jewelry and other goods were stolen from the victim. If it was before she pleaded guilty on the unrelated case a couple of months ago she might have a chance at a reasonable resolution of this case. If the district attorney can prove that she committed these crimes after the probation was imposed then she is in much more trouble. At the very least she is facing the imposition of a one year house of correction on a Probation Violation. As a matter of law, if probation is revoked the judge must impose the original sentence unless the time for which a revise and revoke can be entertained has not expired. Depending on the exact nature of the suspended sentence and the date on which it was ordered Senter may be able to avoid the one year jail sentence.

Here is another interesting aspect to this case. How does the prosecutor prove that the jewelry was stolen after probation was imposed on the case in March? Well, there are two ways. First, the victims can testify as to when they last saw the item and when they then realized it was missing. This can be problematic in that there might be conjecture that would not satisfy the judge that the event occurred after Senter was placed on probation. The second and more effective way to show the time of the theft is to get the pawn shop dealer to provide testimony and records identifying the time and manner in which he came into possession of the jewelry.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Nanny Faces Felony Larceny Charges In Haverhill Court" »

On June 22, 2004 a woman in Boston, Massachusetts boarded a Green Line Trolley. The train was crowded that day as the Red Sox had a home game. The defendant, Timothy Day got on the same train at the Copley Station. While on the train Day allegedly touched the woman and himself in an inappropriate manner. The woman exited the train and detected a stain on her clothing and something on her purse. She washed her clothes and threw the pocketbook away. The latter item was retrieved and tested. A DNA profile was created with the substance. It was later learned that two years earlier a similar incident occurred in Virginia. There too a sample was obtained and tested. The two samples matched. Last year it was determined that Day was the source of the DNA sample. Day is not being prosecuted in Virginia due to a statute of limitations problem. Day has been charged with Indecent Assault and Battery and is being prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

Read Article:

Boston Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Indecent Assault and Battery Attorney in Massachusetts

Statute of Limitations defenses are very rare in Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 277 Section 63 limits the time for filing an indictment or complaint to six years in Indecent Assault and Battery cases. This would be great for Day except for the fact that Massachusetts exempts as time any period in which the defendant is not living openly in Massachusetts. Had he been living in Massachusetts for the established period after the alleged act occurred he might succeed in moving to dismiss this case. Other Sex Crimes in Massachusetts such as Rape of a Child or Rape have much more generous time frames in which to file a complaint and prosecute the accused. Child Rape Cases in Massachusetts have a twenty-seven year statute of limitations. Rape cases have a fifteen year statute of limitations.

As a Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer I would like to know what substance was specifically identified on the woman's pocketbook. DNA can be left at a crime scene through blood, head hair, body hair, skin flakes and more. Everyone leaves DNA traces behind through daily life activities. It can be left behind on cups, cigarettes, phones and other items. It can also be found in other bodily fluids, such as saliva, tear drops and semen. Thus, it would be helpful to know from what substance the DNA profile was obtained. Keep in mind that if Day ejaculated on the woman and her purse you would expect other people to have witnessed the act. This supposedly occurred on a crowded trolley. So what did other people see? Is anyone able to identify Day as the person committing the sexual assault? Can the woman make an identification? The answers to these questions will be helpful in the defense to this case.

Continue reading "Man Charged in Boston Massachusetts for Alleged Indecent Assault and Battery on T Nearly Eight Years Ago" »

Roberto Jordan of Haverhill, Massachusetts was arrested last night and charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and other related crimes. The crimes are both felonies and misdemeanors in Massachusetts. The incident started around midnight. According to reports Jordan and his girlfriend got into a fight. Jordan was hit in the head. When the police got to the scene they noticed him covered in blood. Jordan then allegedly charged at the officers, apparently striking at least one of them in the process. There were several other people in the area, some of whom might have witnessed the events. Jordan was taken to the hospital. He is being arraigned today in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer

Boston Criminal Lawyer, Assault and Battery Crimes

So here is the first thing that sticks out to this Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer. The police show up and see Jordan "covered in blood". He then gets charged with Domestic Assault and Battery. Why? What about the person who delivered the blows who put him in this position? Why was this person not charged? The article says that the "victim" was Jordan's girlfriend. I can see a couple of reasons why Jordan was charged and not the girlfriend. The first is that law enforcement has a bias when investigating domestics against males. The belief is that it is the male rather than the female who was the aggressor and the woman needs protection. This is not always the case but the trend is to err on the side of protecting the woman, removing the man from the home and charging him with the crime. The second reason Jordan might have been charged rather than his girlfriend might have to do with the other charges. As I have mentioned in past blog posts, police officers are sometimes very aggressive when arresting or subduing suspects in criminal cases. Some officers have a tendency to "over do it" and end up injuring the suspect unnecessarily. When they do this they tend to charge the person with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. While this is not always the case I find the most charges of A & B on a PO are reactive charges.

In this case it is reported that there was a crowd that gathered to watch the events. A Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will embrace this as an opportunity to locate witnesses who might be able to provide evidence that will exculpate the accused, in this case Jordan. My office uses private investigators to go out and interview percipient witnesses. At times we get written statements from these people so that their observations are preserved for trial. Other times we find it more prudent not to get written reports as Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure now require Defense Lawyers to surrender copies to the prosecution. Perhaps some of these people will be able to help out with Mr. Jordan's defense.

Continue reading "Haverhill Massachusetts Man Charged With Domestic Assault and Battery, Other Violent Crimes After Argument Spills Out Into Street" »

People living in an area of Tower Hill in Lawrence, Massachusetts were becoming concerned about what they believed to be drug deals occurring in cars in their neighborhood. In response they called the police. Two nights ago, following up on the complaints, an unmarked cruiser was patrolling the area. They observed a Toyota Camry parked in the troubled area. The Camry left the area. The cops followed it. The car then stopped a short distance away, in the middle of the street near another car. Officers saw what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction and they pulled the Camry over. Inside were Meghan Sardella, the driver of North Andover and Christopher Venezia, the passenger of North Reading. Sardella was found to be in Possession of Heroin for which she has been charged. Venezia has been charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept. The cases will be prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Heroin Possession Defense Lawyer

The crime of Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 35 controls this crime. The statute reads that "[a]ny person who is knowingly present at a place where heroin is kept or deposited in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any person who is in the company of a person, knowing that said person is in possession of heroin in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both." First time offenders can get their convictions sealed after they fully satisfy their conditions of probation.

From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer this law is extremely troubling. It cuts against well established Massachusetts case law that makes someone's presence at the scene of a crime without more insufficient to convict that person of the crime. In a well constructed opinion in 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed its position in this regard and expanded on it in detail. See Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009). In Zanetti the Court stated that presence alone does not establish a defendant's knowing participation in the crime even if he knew about the crime and took no steps to prevent it. There must be a showing that the defendant participated in the crime or that he had a shared intent to commit the crime. Simply being present is not enough. Very few cases in Massachusetts even discuss the statute in question here and no case defines it. The constitutionality of that statute is in my opinion and should be challenged.

Commonwealth vs Zanetti.pdf

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Cops Witness Hand to Hand Drug Deal, Arrest Two" »

During the jury selection process a prospective juror told the prosecution, judge and defense that he would rather stay home in bed than be a juror on the Roger Clemens Perjury trial case. The twenty seven year old unemployed juror will now get his wish. After repeatedly sleeping during the trial testimony and showing up late, the judge dismissed the juror. This comes on the heels of the judge warning the parties that the jurors appeared bored and imploring the lawyers to speed things up.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

So what does a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer do with the problem of sleeping jurors? Well the first thing to do is to bring the matter to the attention of the judge. Massachusetts law makes clear that a defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial may be put in jeopardy if a juror sleeps through testimony. A judge is obligated to make sure that all jurors hear all of the evidence. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 234A Section 29 a judge has the discretion to dismiss a juror at any time if he or she determines it is in the best interests of justice. The judge may order a hearing to establish a record pertaining to the issue of a sleeping juror. The defense lawyer should attempt to have the judge conduct a hearing on the matter to preserve the observations of others, particularly in the event that the judge refuses to act in accordance with the defendant's requests on that issue. Massachusetts judges have dismissed jurors who were acquainted with the lawyers or witnesses. One Massachusetts judge dismissed a juror who smoked marijuana to remain awake during a trial. A sitting juror was dismissed where his son was arrested and placed in the same jail as the defendant during the pendency of the trial. Sitting jurors who had travel plans were excused once it was determined that they could only deliberate in a limited time frame. Illness can serve as a reasonable basis for dismissing a juror. Dismissing a deliberating juror due to child care problems was found necessary and appropriate. A juror's failure to reveal his criminal history warrants his removal.

Massachusetts case law states that a judge's decision to remove a sitting juror will not be found violative of the defendant's rights unless doing so constituted an abuse of discretion. This suggests that it is critical for the defense to try to get the judge to have a hearing on any challenge to a sitting jurors' competence to remain. Even if the judge refuses to conduct a hearing making a record with affidavits supporting the defendant's position on removal will be critical to the appeal.

Continue reading "Juror on Roger Clemens Perjury Trial Dismissed For Sleeping During Testimony" »

The Brockton Enterprise reports that police in Rockland, Massachusetts acted after receiving nearly twenty civilian complaints of suspected Massachusetts Drug Dealing starting this past April. People specifically reported extensive automobile and foot traffic at a specific location. In response, officers set up surveillance of a home on Liberty Street to verify the complaints. While doing so they observed what they believed was a drug transaction between two people, defendants Richard Stanton and Selena Keaney. Stanton was driving a car and found to be in possession of Heroin. Keaney was found in possession about four grams of Heroin. Keaney has been charged with five criminal matters including Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Stanton is facing charges of Possession of Heroin. The cases will be prosecuted in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Lawyer, Heroin

The first thing that comes to mind for an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer when reading this article is moving to Suppress the Search. In past blog posts I have often repeated that police officers are not permitted to stop and conduct a threshold inquiry absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. The word "reasonable" requires the suspicion to be based on "specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom". In order to give that phrase meaning judges look at these matters on a case by case basis. One Massachusetts Appeals Court case held that an experienced officer's actions after making an observation of what he believed to be a drug deal in a "high drug crime area" was in fact an illegal search where even though the officer saw an exchange and purported counting of money. The same court has held otherwise on cases involving similar facts. Knowing the law in cases like this one and being able to persuade the judge hearing the motion that this case replicates one in which suppression was granted is the job of the criminal defense lawyer thereby making your choice of lawyer an extremely critical decision.

It is often difficult to determine how the Motion to Suppress will be turn out before the hearing. Police officers' testimony often exaggerates the narrative in their reports in an attempt to "fill in the blanks" that they either know or have learned necessary to sustain their Search and Seizure. This is yet another reason to make sure that you choice of lawyer is someone who has the experience to address this situation in court. This is also why Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers often reserve filing a memorandum of law in support of the motion to suppress until all evidence has been adduced at the hearing on the motion.

Continue reading "Two From Massachusetts Face Charges of Possession, Distribution of Heroin After Cops Witness Drug Deal" »

This past weekend police in Framingham, Massachusetts raided the home of Dylan Laird, a twenty one year old man living on Day Hill Road. The Metrowest Daily News reports that early Sunday night Laird was seen selling marijuana to a female not far from his home. Police stopped the woman. She surrendered the drugs and the police applied for and obtained a Search Warrant for Laird's home. Inside they found over fourteen grams of Meth (Crystal Methamphetamine) in various locations in the home. They also found several bags of marijuana. In excess of thirteen thousand dollars cash was taken during the raid. Scales, packaging materials and assorted Drug Paraphernalia were seen in the premises during the search process. Laird has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Trafficking Methamphetamine. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars. Laird is facing a Probation Violation as well. The case in currently in the Framingham District Court. The district attorney will likely indict this case and prosecute Laird in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Framingham Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that based on the information in this article Laird's chances of success hinge on the constitutionality of the Search Warrant. The first thing to analyze is the credibility of the police officer's observations relative to the sale between Laird and the unidentified woman. What did they see? From what vantage point or location did they see the purported transaction? Was their view clear? How did they in fact determine that this was a drug deal? The next thing to look at is the credibility of the woman they stopped. What was in her possession? If there were drugs, what type? Marijuana? Crystal Meth? How much drugs was she possessing? What information did she give the police? What was her motive in providing this information? Does she have a criminal record? Was she using drugs at that time? Was she arrested and if so, with what was she charged? The next part of the analysis contemplates whether the information this woman provided coupled with the police observations gives rise to the issuance of the Massachusetts Search Warrant. This woman's veracity and her basis of knowledge must be properly assessed if the information she provided is considered in the Search Warrant Application process.

Trying to Suppress Searches in Massachusetts is something our office attempts regularly for Massachusetts Drug Cases. Suppression often results in the dismissal of a criminal case. Without the drugs the district attorney is usually unable to proceed with its criminal charges. Hiring a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer who knows the law and is able to convince judges that a Search and Seizure was unlawful is critical to anyone charged with a Drug Crime in Massachusetts. Our offices have won countless drugs cases this way in counties throughout the state.

Continue reading "Framingham Man Arraigned on Drug Trafficking Charges After Raid Nets Meth, Marijuana, Cash" »

A Salem, Massachusetts police officer became suspicious the other day when he saw a car with dark tinted windows. He then followed the car. He observed the car failing to stop for people in a crosswalk. The officer pulled the car over and quickly learned that the driver, Julio Cruz of Salem, Massachusetts was Operating With a Suspended License. Cruz, who was known to the officer claimed that he was out delivering pizza. No pizzas were in the car. Cruz was then arrested. His passenger, Enrique Gray-Santana, also of Salem, Massachusetts was also arrested for carrying a knife with a blade longer than permissible by town ordinance. The car was towed. It was also searched. Inside of the vehicle officers found enough cocaine to justify a trafficking charge. Both men now face charges of Trafficking Cocaine in the Salem District Court. If the weight of the cocaine satisfies trafficking threshholds then the case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Cruz has a pending Cocaine Distribution case pending in the same county.

Read Article:

Salem, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Cocaine Distribution Law Firm in Massachusetts

Depending on the information contained in the police reports the district attorney's case here might be susceptible to a Motion to Suppress. Forget about the stop for a minute. Forget about the "Motor Vehicle Violation". Even if there is justification for the stop the officer's conduct might have exceeded what is permissible under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The law in Massachusetts does permit what are called "inventory searches" in some situations. The police may search someone arrested at the place of detention to secure the person's property. An inventory policy must be followed to justify the search and if done properly the items seized can be used as evidence against that person. Inventory Searches of Motor Vehicles however are subject to a different procedure. Impounding motor vehicles is generally found to be justifiable if the district attorney can show public safety concerns or a risk of vandalism or theft to the vehicle if abandoned at the scene of the arrest. If an unarrested passenger can drive the car the impoundment will be considered illegal. Subsequent searches of the impounded vehicle might however be subject to a constitutional challenge. For example, Massachusetts Courts have held that the search of a towed car was investigatory and not an inventory search where the police used a drug sniffing dog to find drugs. Investigatory searches require Search Warrants. Inventory searches do not. Police inventory polices must be in writing and followed for an inventory search to survive a Motion to Suppress. Inventory searches have three purposes in Massachusetts; to protect the property in the car, to protect the police against claims of theft and to protect the public from danger. It is the district attorney's burden to establish that he search was a lawful inventory search.

Continue reading "Salem Men Arrested, Charged With Trafficking Cocaine After Car Stopped For Traffic Violations" »

Last night Massachusetts State Police and Lawrence, Massachusetts police officers raided the Italien-American Civic Association on Essex Street looking for evidence of an illegal gambling operation. The establishment has been targeted by local police since a November 2011 murder occurring just outside of the club. The raid was permitted by a Search Warrant recently obtained by law enforcement. This investigation targeted conventional gambling activities such as craps and card games as well as Dominican lottery and cockfighting. Arraignments this morning are in the Lawrence District Court. There is no indication as to whether or not the case will be prosecuted in the district court or the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Gambling Defense Law Firm

Criminal Attorneys Who Defend Gaming Charges in Massachusetts

The prohibition against gambling in Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 271 Section 17. The law states that anyone who is in any way involved with gambling and convicted under this statute is guilty of a felony. There is a maximum three year prison sentence associated with a conviction for illegal Gambling in Massachusetts and a fine of up to three thousand dollars. This statute is all encompassing. At many levels there are constitutional challenges to this law that might result in a dismissal of charges against the accused. For instance, there is a phrase in the statute that provides liability for "whoever is present in such place". Massachusetts case law however has held that "[m[ere unwitting presence of defendant in same place where apparatus is does not constitute crime". There are many reasons why people might legitimately attend a social club that does not involve their participation in unlawful gambling. There is no valid reason to charge these people with a violation of this law even though they were present when a raid occurred. At times this is lost on district attorneys who prosecute large numbers of people, many of whom were simply caught up on the execution of the Search Warrant. It is not unusual to see as many as thirty people or even more initially charged with illegal gaming activities. Typically, the charges against many of these people will be dropped for a lack of evidence tying them to the Gambling.

In my experience as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer these cases usually involve Wiretap Warrants. After obtained a Wiretap Warrant law enforcement officials continuously monitor the content of telephone calls between the principles in the illegal business and their customers. The monitoring often goes on for months or at least until such time as the authorities believe that they have enough evidence to make arrests and/or apply for a Search Warrant. Sometimes the best way to defend one of these cases is to attack the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Wiretap Warrant. If successful all conversations will be suppressed as will the fruits of those conversations, meaning the Massachusetts Search Warrant.

Continue reading "Police in Lawrence Massachusetts Arrest More Than 30 on Gambling Violations" »

Edward Armstrong and William Scott, both from Framingham, Massachusetts were arraigned earlier this week and charged with Home Invasion. It is alleged that this past Sunday just after 10:30 p.m. both defendants forced their way into an apartment by their home. Present were a man and a woman. Scott held the woman against the wall. Armstrong punched the male occupant in the face several times. He also hit him with a crowbar. Prosecutors have stated that the male victim has suffered significant facial injuries and remains hospitalized. Both the defendants and the victim live on Grant Street. The defendants took the case that was in the man's wallet. Earlier in the day the male victim boasted about having won five hundred dollars from a scratch ticket. If fact, the ticket was only for five dollars. Neighbors were aware of the five hundred dollar windfall and it is suggested that through them the defendants believed that the victim had money. In addition to the Home Invasion charge both men face counts of Larceny Over $250, Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle, Armed Robbery and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Both defendants have prior criminal matters. Right now the cases are being prosecuted in the Framingham District Court. I would imagine that these matters will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Framingham Armed Home Invasion Defense Lawyer

Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Massachusetts Home Invasion statute is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18C. This law makes it a crime for anyone to enter someone else's home, knowing or believing them to be home, with a dangerous weapon and threatens and uses force on the occupant or occupants. This is a life felony and there is a minimum twenty year sentence associated with a conviction for this crime. There are some pretty interesting aspects to this statute. The district attorney has no obligation to prove that the accused had knowledge that people lived in the dwelling. All that they have to prove is that while in the dwelling the defendant remained there "knowing or having reason to know" that someone was in the property. Also, there can be no affirmative defense of "self defense" in Home Invasion Case in Massachusetts where the occupant of the dwelling uses force to repel the defendant. Even though there is a twenty year minimum sentence someone convicted of this crime can be placed on probation. However, if a sentence of incarceration is to be imopsed it must be for at least twenty years.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can tell you that very few of these cases are supported by the facts that the statute was intended to punish. Cases that are charged as Home Invasions initially have facts similar to those set out above. Sometimes the facts are in fact more egregious. The victim or victims will report that they were simply in their homes when someone broke in and beat them. Often times their complaints contain allegations of theft. In reality, many of these cases involve drug ripoffs or drug deals gone bad. The physical beating might be significant enough to warrant medical attention and during the course of treatment the "innocent" victim will state that he was robbed. Other times the victim reports the "crime" in retaliation for the failed drug deal. With the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer the accused might be able to fight these charges successfully at trial. Explaining these facts to the district attorney during plea negotiations is sometimes an option however this can unnecessarily alert them to defense strategy or theory. The "victims" in these cases are reluctant to testify. They often have exposure themselves either for drug dealing or some other type of illegal activity. Very few of these cases go to trial and if handled properly can result in a verdict of not guilty or a dismissal.

Continue reading "Two Men From Framingham Massachusetts Charged With Home Invasion " »