Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise Paul Perelli met up with defendant Eddy Monteiro, a Brockton, Massachusetts resident at Perelli's home in Marshfield. It is alleged that Monteiro owed Perelli one hundred fifty dollars and wanted to settle the debt. Monteiro and Perelli, along with Michael Capps and Stephen Burton smoked some marijuana together. Shortly thereafter, two unknown men arrived, bound Perelli, Capps and Burton and pistol whipped Capps. Monteiro allegedly participated with them as well. Perelli called the police. When they arrived they found "an elaborate indoor marijuana-growing operation, complete with hydroponic tanks for growing plants". Monteiro was arrested and charged with Home Invasion with a Firearm and several counts of Armed Assault in a Dwelling. His case is pending in the Plymouth District Court. Perelli and/or his friends may have problems as well. The article reports that the police seized two pounds of pot and several thousand dollars cash.

Read Article:

Plymouth Home Invasion Defense Law Firm

Brockton Violent Crimes Defense Lawyer, Gun Cases, Marijuana Distribution

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer reading this article is going to ask why Perelli called the cops. Either Perelli, Capps or Burton or perhaps all three have exposure for Cultivating Marijuana or Possession With the Intent to Distribute stemming from their marijuana growing operation. The penalty for a conviction of these Massachusetts Marijuana Crimes pales in comparison to the sentence Monteiro and his cohorts face if convicted of the Home Invasion. Yet you have to wonder why Perelli made the call. Was this in fact the drug rip that is portrayed in this article? Or was this a drug deal that went bad? On several occasions I have defended cases that look at the outset like the accused was trying to rob a known dealer. However every time these cases get more closely investigate I learn that not to be the case. There is usually some sort of mutual dispute that escalates. Someone then tries to get the upper hand by making an accusation about something like a Home Invasion. The person making the report wants the police to believe that he is the victim and does what he can to get that person in custody as a way of getting out of the dispute. This tactic doesn't always work. An experience criminal lawyer can expose the false accusation. Text conversations between Monteiro and Perelli can shed some light on what really happened here as can text messages between Monteiro and has unidentified "friends". Perhaps these people too had memorialized conversations with Perelli thereby suggesting that they were not unknown to him. All of this will rear its head during the discovery process and might serve Monteiro's defense well.

Continue reading "Brockton Man Arrested, Charged With Home Invasion In Plymouth District Court" »

Patrick O'Neill of Weymouth, Massachusetts was arrested last week and charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Oxycodone, Distribution of Oxycodone, a School Zone Violation and Drug Conspiracy. An investigation into O'Neill's activities started several weeks. Neighbors complained to the police that they believed O'Neill was dealing drugs. Following up on their leads the police watched O'Neill and his home. They applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. Then, last Thursday afternoon police stopped O'Neill as he left his apartment. They searched him and found him in Possession of Oxycodone and cash. They then searched his home. They found more pills. All charges are pending in the Quincy District Court. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Oxycodone Drug Offenses in Massachusetts

Every Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who defends drug cases is seeing more and more cases like this one. The anonymous "complaining neighbor" is becoming a fixture in Massachusetts drug detective's police reports. From a legal perspective, the complaining neighbor takes on the status of an anonymous informant. This person's veracity must be established in order for the district attorney to survive a challenge to the issuance of the Search Warrant. To satisfy the veracity requirement, this type of information must be supported by precise detail and police corroboration of that detail. So what happened here? Assuming the police did actually receive the information from an anonymous neighbor they probably started watching O'Neill's apartment. Their subsequent observations must have led them to conclude that O'Neill was dealing drugs. They probably stopped and interrogated people they saw meeting with O'Neill and used this information to enhance their investigation. They may have used an undercover officer or known informant to engage in a controlled buy from O'Neill. If this happened the officer's observations would be provided in detail in their Affidavit in Support of the Application for a Search Warrant. Much of this can be confirmed or contradicted by O'Neill's lawyer if an attack on the Search Warrant is considered. If the police observations are simply general and conclusory suppression might be in order.

Sometimes the anonymous "complaining neighbor" does not exist. He is a fiction used by the police to help ensure that their Search Warrant Application is approved. Pretrial discovery motions and/or a private investigator can help to determine whether or not these people actually exist. Suspicious Search Warrant Affidavit can result is a dismissal of a criminal case or suppression of the drugs seized. It is a criminal defense lawyers' job to dig and challenge the information set out in these documents.

Continue reading "Weymouth Massachusetts Man Charged With Drug Crimes After Search Reveals Oxycodone, Percocet" »

The principal of the Rockport, Massachusetts middle school last week reported that a student had come forward with information regarding a New Year's Eve incident at the Cape Ann Marina. Gloucester, Massachusetts police investigated and ultimately charged Justin Todd of Pleasant Street in Gloucester with Rape of a Child. It is alleged that Todd bought alcohol for some teenagers and had sex with one of them four times that night. The girl with whom Todd purportedly had sex was fourteen years old. He was arraigned in the Gloucester District Court and held on twenty thousand dollars cash bail. Four charges of Rape of a Child and one count of Providing Alcohol to a Minor is pending at this time. This case will probably be indicted and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Gloucester, Massachusetts Rape Defense Law Firm

Essex County Sex Crimes Lawyer, Rape, Statutory Rape, Indecent Assault and Battery

Massachusetts has a broad definition of the term Rape. It encompasses penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ with or without emission. It also includes anal intercourse, oral intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, digital penetration and penetration by objects other than body parts. The age of consent in Massachusetts is sixteen, meaning that regardless of the intent or will of the minor a Rape charge can be successfully prosecuted. The element of penetration can be satisfied by showing contact with the labia, vulva or vagina. Statutory Rape in Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23. A conviction for this offense is a felony. There is another Massachusetts Statutory Rape Statute that addresses aggravating factors that is not applicable to this case. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23A states that if there is a five year age difference between the defendant and the victim and the victim was under twelve at the time a conviction mandates a ten year state prison sentence. Consent is not a defense to Statutory Rape in Massachusetts. Nor is a mistaken belief in the victim's age a valid defense. This again shows why anyone being investigated for a crime should not talk. All too often people admit to having sex with someone because the act was "consensual" and they believed the person to be old enough to consent. However, when they admit to having sex with the underaged person they are essentially admitting to having committed Rape. In Massachusetts you will be prosecuted for Statutory Rape. There are defenses to these charges making it important for anyone accused of a Sex Crime in Massachusetts to contact an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer at once.

Continue reading "Gloucester Man, 21 Charged With Rape of a Child (Statutory Rape) For Having Sex With a Fourteen Year Old on New Year's Eve" »

Police in Weymouth, Massachusetts had been investigating Brandon Runge for several months. Complaints from neighbors led them to believe that the twenty year-old Runge had been involved in criminal activities. Late last week, armed with a Search Warrant police went to Runge's home on Oakdale Street. At the time of the entry of the police officers Runge leapt out of a window and fled. The search of the apartment continued. Officers located a significant quantity of Cocaine, Oxycodone, a Firearm, Ammunition, Bath Salts and a large amount of cash. Late Monday night Runge was located in Hull where he was apprehended. He now faces charges of Trafficking Cocaine, Trafficking Oxycodone, Possession With Intent to Distribute Bath Salts, Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of a Firearm and more. Runge had several outstanding warrants at the time of his arrest as well. Right now the cases are pending in the Quincy District Court but will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Drug Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Dedham Criminal Lawyer, Drug Trafficking, Gun Cases

Perhaps the most serious charge Runge is facing is being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. This statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G provides for much more severe penalties than the statute prohibiting Gun Possession in Massachusetts. The felon in Possession statute in essence states that anyone in possession of a gun and having a single conviction for either a crime of violence or a drug crime is to be punished by a minimum mandatory three-year state prison sentence. Two such prior convictions mandates a ten year prison sentence after a conviction for being a Felon in Possession. Thus, Runge may have some steep exposure for a conviction of this offense if his criminal record contains any of these predicate convictions.

So what are the defenses to an indictment charging this crime? Beyond the ordinary, i.e. invalid Search Warrant, affirmative defenses, attribution to another, Runge may want to try to get his prior convictions vacated. That can sometimes be done through a new trial motion attacking either the predicate convictions or pleas. Ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence or constitutionally infirm pleas serve as a basis for the collateral attack. This approach is often taken in cases where the concerns focus more on sentencing than with defending the underlying Felon in Possession Charge. Runge's Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will probably take a look at this issue. Vacating prior convictions will usually result in a lesser sentence no matter what the outcome is on the primary criminal charge.

Continue reading "Weymouth Massachusetts Man Arrested, Charged With Trafficking in Cocaine, Trafficking in Oxycodone, After Search Warrant Executed at His Home" »

Jose Davilla of Lawrence, Massachusetts was arrested yesterday at his home. He has been charged with Intimidation of a Witness. They are still looking for Rafael Rodriguez, also being charged with the same felony offense. It is alleged that the accused posted the photos of two witnesses to a murder case through the social media Instagram and attaching to their pictures the word "snitch". The pictures were posted on Rodriguez and Davilla's accounts. The defendants were friends of Jose Ruiz, the defendant in a murder case that concluded in the Essex County Superior Court yesterday. Right now this case is being handled in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm, Intimidation of a Witness Charges

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Violent Crimes, Felonies

The crime of Intimidation of a Witness is Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B. As you might expect, the law makes it a crime to in any way threaten a witness or someone who has information about a criminal case in Massachusetts. This crime is a felony. Anyone convicted of this offense can be punished by up to tow and one half years in the house of correction or up to ten years in state prison. A fine of up to five thousand dollars might also be imposed. These cases can be prosecuted in either the county where the defendant committed the act or in the county where the criminal proceeding is taking place.

These cases are getting prosecuted much more frequently these days than they had been in the past. This is largely due to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, texting and now Instagram. It is all too easy to trace the origin of threatening messages. In addition to being illegal, using the social media for such conduct is downright stupid. It is basically like sending a signed letter in your own handwriting. This is however often the best defense to cases like this one. An experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer might ask the jury to consider whether it was the defendant who posted the message or someone else. People often have access to other people's media devices. Desktop computers, laptops, smartphones and ipads all have the capability of transmitting this material. People share these devices regularly and absent some additional evidence the mere publishing of intimidating words or photos does not mean that the owner of the sending device is guilty. If the defendant in this case did not admit to this act then perhaps he has a viable defense to these charges. Regardless, the one lesson anyone should take from stories like this is "Don't put anything in writing". That action, like talking to the police, can only worsen the problems that you might be facing.

Continue reading "Lawrence, Massachusetts Police Make Arrest For Intimidation of a Witness at a Murder Trial" »

Just two days ago a Massachusetts State Trooper made a motor vehicle stop just before four in the morning. According to reports the car ran a stop sign and was speeding in Brighton. Some of the passengers were "ducking" in the car at the time the trooper started to approach the car. Brian Poitras of Lynn, Massachusetts was supposedly driving the car with a suspended driver's license. He was placed under arrest. The three passengers were then removed from the car. In an area not specified in the article officers found eleven grams of cocaine, seven grams of methamphetamine and some marijuana, the amount of which did not meet the threshold for a criminal complaint in Massachusetts. In addition to being charged with Operating with a Suspended Driver's License Poitras was charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine, Drug Conspiracy, and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana. The passengers, Kristen Hosman of Salem, Massachusetts, Victor Cordino of Boston, Massachusetts, and Cameron Linehan of Somerville, Massachusetts were all charged with the same Massachusetts Drug Offenses. The case will be prosecuted in the Brighton District Court.

Read Article:

Boston, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm

Boston Drug Defense Lawyer, Possession With Intent, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methamphetamine

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I truly enjoy defending cases like this one. Countless variables factor into defense strategies in this case. There will be defenses pertaining to some of the accused, one of the defendants, and all of the defendants depending on where the drugs were found, who said what and what the officers recorded in their report. There is no way that all four people in the car were Possessing Drugs either directly or constructively as is required for a conviction for these crimes. There is no way that all four of the accused conspired to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. Rather, they were all arrested because they were present where drugs were found and that is not enough to get a conviction in Massachusetts. In its simplest form, conspiracy in the context of this case requires an agreement to commit a designated drug offense. Four people in a car and the presence of drugs does not establish that element (the agreement) of the conspiracy charge. It will be even more difficult for the district attorney to prove that all of the defendants intended to distribute the substances. As I have mentioned several times in the past, being present where a crime is being committed is not proof that that person was involved in criminal activity. Absent more than is mentioned in this article the drug charges might not survive.

Continue reading "Drug Arrest in Boston, Massachusetts Results in Charges For Men From Lynn, Salem, Somerville, Bridgewater and Boston" »

The Brockton Enterprise reports that Mary Lukasik, a Massachusetts woman will be charged following an accident that resulted in a death just two days ago. The thirty four year old Lukasik was driving a car that struck a fifty one year old woman. The accident occurred around 7:00 in the morning. Lukasik will be charged with Motor Vehicle Homicide by way of Negligent Operation. The case will be prosecuted at least initially in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Homicide Defense Law Firm

Hingham, Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Defense Lawyer

In the opinion of this Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer perhaps the most unjust crime that is prosecuted in Massachusetts is Motor Vehicle Homicide by way of negligent operation. This Massachusetts law states that ordinary negligence, the same negligence that applies to tort cases can suffice to establish guilt of the accused. The law requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated a motor vehicle, that she did so in a public way and that she did so in a negligent manner such that the lives and safety of the public might be endangered. A finding of "ordinary negligence" establishes a violation of the statute. The penalty for a conviction under this statute is rather severe given the absence of a need to prove criminal intent. There is a minimum thirty day sentence and up to two and one half years under the misdemeanor version of this law and significantly more if the case is prosecuted as a felony. There is also a fifteen year loss of license for anyone convicted of this crime. While the article is silent as to whether this case will be charged as a misdemeanor or felony it appears that a misdemeanor complaint has issued.

To successfully defend a case like this it is necessary to show an absence of negligence on the part of the accused. Did the victim dart out in front of the car? Was there some sort of obstruction in the road or nearby area impacting the driver's ability to see the pedestrian? Was the accused acting appropriately and this simply an unfortunate accident? These are some of the questions that Ms. Lukasik's lawyer will investigate in preparing for her defense. Being accused of a crime does not mean that a person is guilty of having committed that crime. Unfortunately, when a death is involved prosecutors tend to try to hold someone accountable for the act. Their approach is often "let a judge or jury determine what happened and assign accountability". Good, experienced defense lawyers can convince a judge or a jury that there was no crime committed and perhaps all that occurred was an unfortunate accident.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Woman, 34, to be Charged With Motor Vehicle Homicide by way of Negligent Operation" »

An article in Wicked Local, Cambridge reports today that Toure Penn Poster of Cambridge, Massachusetts was arrested after police officers supposedly saw him engaged in a drug deal just after 9:30 a couple of weeks ago. The officer reported that he saw Poster on his bicycle circling and constantly looking back towards the officer's cruiser. A car approached. Poster was witnessed leaving his bicycle, getting into the car and getting out of the car a few blocks down the road. Officers confronted Poster, searched him and found in his possession three small baggies of marijuana, a Class D substance. Poster was arrested and charged with Distribution of Marijuana, a Class D Substance. He was also charged with Distribution of Marijuana in a School Zone given the incident occurred within three hundred feet of an elementary school. Officers further reported taking Poster's cell phone and taking calls made to the phone during which alleged Drug Deals were discussed.

Read Article:

Cambridge, Massachusetts Marijuana Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Cases in Cambridge, Massachusetts, School Zone Cases

The first thing a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will think when reading about this case is "why was Poster charged with Distribution?". There is no indication that any officer saw him distribute anything. The information that the police related is that they saw Poster get into a car, abandon his bicycle, exit the car a few blocks away where he was found in possession of an obviously small quantity of Marijuana. Interestingly enough the quantity of the drug is not even mentioned suggesting to me that it was far less than one ounce, thereby making Poster's activities non-criminal unless the district attorney can prove actual distribution or an intent to distribute. Well, the distribution suggestion seems purely speculative. Who is to say that Poster was selling as opposed to buying from the person in the car? Even more, who is to say that Poster and the unknown, unidentified person in the car had any Marijuana Dealings at all? Poster might well have had the Marijuana in his Possession prior to meeting up with the car. And think about this. Why would Poster get involved in a drug deal with a police cruiser right near him? Wouldn't he simply tell the driver of the car to come back another time? Wouldn't he call the person and say "Hey. The timing is bad. There is a police car right here?" Stories like this one always raise my suspicions. Drug dealers do not deal drugs in front of parked police cruisers particularly when they know that the police are watching them as Poster seemingly did here. It seems to me that either the facts set out in this article are very incomplete or Poster has some viable defenses to set out, or both.

Continue reading "Cambridge Man Charged With Distribution of Marijuana, Class D, in a School Zone" »

Today's Brockton Enterprise reports that Patrice Moorer, a Taunton, Massachusetts woman has been indicted on allegations that she lied to a Plymouth County Grand Jury in a Murder Case. The alleged misleading information provided by Moorer relates back to a November 2009 murder in Brockton. In the early morning hours four people were shot at a Hess Gas Station. One of the victims succumbed to his wounds. A day after the shooting Moorer was interviewed by the police and summonsed to testify before a grand jury. She provided testimony at that proceeding. Subsequently, in 2010, Moorer spoke with state police again. This past September she was again summonsed to testify before the grand jury. She did only this time her testimony changed. Authorities then charged Moorer with Perjury and Intimidation of a Witness. Her case is pending in the Brockton Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton, Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Law Firm

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Perjury, Intimidation of a Witness

The Massachusetts Witness Intimidation statute, M.G.L. c. 268 Section 13B includes what is commonly known as the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Among other things this statute makes it a crime for anyone to lie to a police officer who is investigating a case or to lie to a grand jury. This crime is a felony. It is punishable by up to ten years in state prison and a five thousand dollar fine. It is not clear from this article whether the basis for the charges against Moorer stem from allegations that she lied to the state police investigating the murder or lies to the grand jury or both. What is clear however is that she has some tremendous exposure.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I see cases like this one becoming more prevalent. District attorneys now indict this conduct more frequently. They do so for several reasons. They want to send a message to people that misleading an investigation, particularly one of this magnitude will not be tolerated. Perhaps more importantly these cases get filed to "squeeze" the witness into providing more accurate information regarding their knowledge of the crime. I would imagine that law enforcement believes that Moorer has some significant knowledge either of the events or people who might have been involved in the crime. The threat of ten years in jail looming over her might be incentive enough for her to cooperate in exchange for some sort of leniency in her pending case. This again however is a perfect example of how speaking to the police without hiring a lawyer can get you into big trouble. Always err on the side of caution and consult with a lawyer before talking to the police. Some basic advice can save you the problems that Moorer is facing.

Continue reading "Taunton Massachusetts Woman Charged With Perjury, Intimidation of a Witness After Lying to Brockton Grand Jury " »

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Dery Moeda of Brockton, Massachusetts has been indicted by a Plymouth County grand jury for Home Invasion and related Massachusetts Violent Crimes. It is alleged that Moeda broke into a home on October 11, 2012 around 7:30 in the morning. While in the home he placed a gun against a thirteen year old girl's head, telling her to remain silent while the apartment in which she lived was searched for nearly one hour. Apparently Moeda and his cohorts were looking for money they believed to be in the home. The girl identified Moeda through a photo array. In addition to Home Invasion, Moeda has been charged with Kidnapping and Larceny Over $250. The case is being prosecuted in the Brockton Superior Court.

Read Article:

Plymouth County Kidnapping Defense Law Firm

Brockton Criminal Defense Lawyer, Home Invasion, Larceny

Whenever a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defends a case like this one the photographic identification process gets scrutinized. I always want to know what the victim saw and how strong her identification of the suspect was prior to her being presented with the photographic array. The identification itself and the photographic array get introduced into evidence unless the defendant's lawyer is able to show that this aspect of the identification process was unnecessarily suggestive and that the identification itself was tainted because of it. The burden is on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that given the totality of the circumstances the identification process was so "suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification as to deny the defendant due process of law". While this task is difficult and arguably unconstitutional given its burden shifting application, recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court established an advisory protocol to help ensure against abuse. This would require law enforcement to make it clear to the witness that the person who committed the crime may or may not be in the array. The witness should also be advised that it is just as important to clear someone as it is to identify someone. Additionally, the witness should be told that the individuals depicted in the photographs might appear different than they did at the time of the crime and that regardless of whether or not an identification is made the investigation will continue. The procedure shall also ask the person making the identification to state the degree of certainty he has in selecting the photo.

When this procedure is not used in accordance with the Supreme Judicial Court's recommendation I usually ask the trial judge to incorporate in the jury instructions language that reflects law enforcement's failure. I view a significant percentage of out of court photographic identifications as unreliable and suggestive. This is certainly something worth litigating in Massachusetts Criminal Cases.

Continue reading "Brockton Man Indicted for Home Invasion, Kidnapping Identified by 13 Year Old Victim" »

According to a report in the Metrowest Daily News, Donald Williams, a fifty six year old Massachusetts man is being charged with Attempted Murder. It is alleged that late last week police were called to a Worcester County address where they encountered Williams in the garage. Williams told the officers that the "victim" had attacked him with a baseball bat. In response, Williams stabbed the man. The home to which the police responded belonged to neither of the combatants. Williams was initially charged with Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, the same charged alleging the additional element of serious bodily injury and Assault. The charges were amended to add Attempted Murder. The case will likely be prosecuted in the Worcester Superior Court. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars. The "victim", a man named John Cortez is also being charged with a Violent Crime, specifically Assault and Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon.

Read Article:

Worcester County Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Crimes in Worcester Courts

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer two things dart out at me when reading this article. One is the defense of self-defense. The other is the issue of the mutual invocation of Fifth Amendment privileges.

Self-Defense

Here are some things to consider when evaluating self-defense as a means of defending charges like these. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams did not act in self-defense. To do this the district attorney must show that the defendant did not reasonably believe that he was being attacked or was about to be attacked and that and that he was in danger of great bodily harm or death. The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams did everything reasonable to avoid the fight. Finally the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force Williams used was not reasonably necessary. This might be a difficult obstacle for the prosecutor to overcome. Williams was attacked by Cortez. The article suggests that he was permissibly at the location where the fight occurred. It is unclear whether Cortez was there with the homeowner's consent. Cortez also used a baseball bat to strike Williams. Williams may not have been able to avoid defending himself and perhaps the only way he could do so was with a weapon. Also keep in mind that Williams never fled the crimes scene. This is evidence that works in his favor. Similarly, if Williams called the police the suggestion that he was the victim rather than the aggressor might prevail. The question is what would a reasonable person sitting in Williams' shoes do? Massachusetts law states that retaliation is not a defense so the timing of the stabbing vis a vis the attack with the baseball bat becomes important here.

Fifth Amendment Privileges

Anytime someone does something that can be construed as being criminal he has the right to invoke his Fifth Amendment Privilege and refuse to testify. Oftentimes fights never get prosecuted as a result of this right. People who get charged with committing a crime either hire a lawyer or get a lawyer appointed for them. In situations like this one, where both combatants are charged with crimes of violence both will have a lawyer. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will probably tell his client to invoke the privilege and remain silent. In other words, the person will not testify against the person against whom he fought. Absent an independent witnsess' the case will likely get dismissed.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man Facing Attempted Murder Charges in Westborough District Court May Have Been Acting in Self-Defense" »

According to a report in the Quincy Patriot Ledger a Quincy, Massachusetts police officer saw what he determined to be "suspicious behavior" at 2:30 in the afternoon in a residential neighborhood. The newspaper report says that the officer believed that two men sitting in a parked car were "acting suspicious". The men were identified as Raul Fontana of Lawrence, Massachusetts and Harrich Garcia of Haverhill, Massachusetts. The officer also observed that the address where the car was parked, 10 Earnest Avenue, appeared to have been broken into. The belief was that there might be a break-in in progress and that perhaps these two men were involved. The officer searched both men. Fontana was found in possession of an unspecified quantify of Oxycontin. A third individual, Ely Thevenot exited the home with a shoebox. Police searched him and the box and found about ten thousand dollars cash. Another man, Jose Rosario was found hiding in a car nearby. Officers searched the home and found more Oxycontin. Two other people who were in the house at the time were not charged with any crimes. All four men have been charged with Trafficking Oxycontin, a Class A substance, Drug Conspiracy and Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Counterfeit Substance. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court but will probably be prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Oxycontin Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Drug Trafficking Attorney in Quincy, Massachusetts

Accepting for now that the article is accurate the starting for a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defending this case is to evaluate the constitutionality of the stop and frisk of the individuals in the car and then the determine whether the search of Thevenot and the house were lawful. To justify the seizure of Fontana and Garcia the police must show that they had reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupants of the car had committed or were about to commit or were in the process of committing a crime. The district attorney in this case is going to argue that the broken window at 10 Earnest Street gave rise to this suspicion and permitted the search of the car occupants and Thevenot. A hunch does not meet the standard of reasonableness. In this case there appears to be an absence of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the actions of Fontana and Garcia were consistent with criminal activity. Simply sitting in a car at 2:30 in the afternoon in a residential neighborhood does not support the officer's actions. So what did the officer in fact see when he approached the car? Did he see some sort of object consistent with being used to break windows? Did he see cuts on the hands of either Fontana or Garcia consistent with them having suffered injury while breaking into the home? Were the officers notified about the possibility of a break-in at 10 Earnest Avenue? Or were Fontana and Garcia simply sitting in their car outside of the home? Did the officers know who lived in the home? Was the home associated with drug activity in the past? Here, it looks like the police officer was acting on a hunch. This should not survive a constitutional challenge.

Continue reading "Four Men Charged With Trafficking Oxycontin In Quincy Massachusetts After Being Searched on Suspicion of Breaking and Entering " »

Just after 5:30 p.m. yesterday, Methuen, Massachusetts resident John Sullivan was driving on Pelham Street when he heard a noise. He thought he hit a deer. Not too long thereafter Sullivan noticed damage appearing to be more extensive than he first thought. He became concerned that he might have hit a person so in less than one half hour he went to the Methuen Police Station where he learned that he had in fact struck a seventy-year old woman who was in critical condition. The woman was wearing dark clothing. Several witnesses saw her being thrown into the air. Another witness though that a trash bag was being thrown out of the window of a car in front of her. There is no indication that anyone was able to identify Sullivan or his car as being involved in the accident. Sullivan has been released on personal recognizance notwithstanding a request from the assistant district attorney for a ten thousand dollar bail. Charges of Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injury are pending in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crime Defense Law Firm

Leaving the Scene of an Accident Lawyer in Massachusetts

Not every accident resulting in an injury constitutes a crime. That is the message that Sullivan's Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer needs to convey to the district attorney's office or, if necessary to a jury. Keep in mind a few things. The woman who was hit by Sullivan's car was wearing dark clothing. According to the newspaper report the victim's late husband was hit by a car in that area about six years ago. So what does that tell you? This is a dangerous intersection. Or, the lighting in this area is poor. What did Sullivan do wrong? Nothing according to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune article. None of the witnesses' statements referenced any wrongdoing on his part. There is no reference to excessive speed or to a red light violation. There is no indication that he was inattentive. As a matter of fact, Sullivan did the right thing. When he became concerned that he might not have hit a deer he immediately went to the police station. When he learned that someone had been hit he voluntarily gave a statement. The timing of his actions are critical. Less than one half hour after the accident he reports to the police station. This immediately eliminates any suggestion that he was operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His lawyer made clear that he has not texting capabilities so we can rule that out as well.

Continue reading "Methuen, Massachusetts Man Facing Charges of Leaving the Scene of an Accident With Personal Injury After Striking 70 Year Old Woman With His Car" »

David Anderson of Salisbury, Massachusetts has been charged with Possession of Child Pornography and Unlawfully Videotaping Persons in the nude. According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Anderson's former wife found nude video pictures of unsuspecting young female relatives. The girls were between the ages of ten and thirteen. She contacted police in Newtown, Connecticut, a town where Anderson also resides. The police in Connecticut contacted the Salisbury, Massachusetts police who in turn applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. According to authorities, computer hard drives were seized and analyzed. On them are thousands of images of young women. The women came into contact with Anderson through internet advertisements offering money in exchange for internal examinations. The examinations consisted of digital intrusions that were photographed. Anderson's activities might have occurred over the course of several years. The case in now pending in the Newburyport District Court but will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Anderson has a pending Child Pornography case pending in another state.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Law Firm

Child Pornography Possession Attorney in Massachusetts

So how would a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defend a case like this one? The answer is pretty simple. Get the search declared unconstitutional and it is unlikely that the prosecution will be able to go forward with its case. How likely is that? Well, that all depends on how well the affidavit in support of the Search Warrant was written. In cases like this one the credibility of the person providing law enforcement the initial incriminating evidence is at issue. In this case that person is Anderson's former wife. Since she is not identified as a "confidential informant" the standard for determining her credibility is somewhat relaxed. She receives an enhanced status when her credibility is being evaluated. One Massachusetts case stated that someone who witnesses a crime should be deemed reliable without needing to show prior reliability. In this case there should be a caveat to that. One can reasonably conclude that a former spouse's credibility might be in doubt where the relationship is shown to be hostile. Thus, there would need to be independent corroboration to the allegations made by Anderson's wife in this case.

This article suggests that Anderson might have additional problems developing in the near future. The police are trying to identify the women whose images were taken during the "examinations". As they come forward I would expect the charges to mount along with the strength of the district attorney's case. Defending this case is not going to be an easy task and the consequences of a conviction will likely implicate a jail sentence.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man Arraigned in Newburyport on Charges of Possession of Child Pornography, Unlawfully Videotaping People in the Nude" »

Last week an animal control officer in Lawrence, Massachusetts responded to a call reporting that a kitten was dying at a local rooming house. The officer learned from another tenant that the accused, Edwin Hernandez might have thrown the animal at a wall after it supposedly scratched him. The witness also reported seeing Hernandez hit the kitten several times in the head. The animal control officer reported that the kitten's face was swollen and that it was bleeding from the mouth area. Hernandez denied striking the animal. A local animal hospital examined the kitten and confirmed that hit had a suffered a broken jaw and blunt force trauma to its head. Hernandez will be summonsed for a Clerk's Hearing.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Essex County Massachusetts

There are two primary animal cruelty laws in Massachusetts. The first is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 112 which makes it a felony to "willfully and maliciously" kill, disfigure or maim an animal. This crime is a felony. A conviction for this offense can result in up to five years on prison. The other law is more commonly used when charging Animal Cruelty Cases in Massachusetts. This law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 77 makes it a felony to torture or beat an animal. This law also permits a state prison sentence for up to five years. Animal cruelty cases in Massachusetts are taken quite seriously by prosecutors and judges. People do get sentenced to jail when convicted of these charges. This makes your decision of which Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to hire an important one.

So what is going to happen to Mr. Hernandez? This depends on how the magistrate handles the allegations at the Clerk's Hearing. If the tenant who witnessed Hernandez hit the kitten on the head appears and offers testimony against him then a complaint will most probably issue. Even if this person does not appear at the hearing, the animal control officer will provide this information to the magistrate making the likelihood of the issuance of a criminal complaint strong. Hernandez has to keep in mind that anything he might say at the Clerk's Hearing can be used against him if the complaint issues. Not all Clerk's Hearings are recorded however I have seen police officers take notes and prepare supplemental reports based on representations made during these proceedings. Prosecutors will use this material to help prove their case. Appearing at a Clerk's Hearing without a lawyer is never a good idea. Too many times complaints issue in cases where had the defendant hired a lawyer no probable cause would have been established.

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Man, 30, Facing Clerks' Hearing For Animal Cruelty Charges" »