Arrests for serious crimes are likely to trigger requests for bail. This is true not just in Massachusetts but in every state. Bail orders are set in various situations. Bail orders depend on the severity of the crime charged and other things more fully discussed below in this post. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58 sets out the procedure for most bail matters. Initial orders of bail that are set in court are matters that should be handled by an experienced criminal defense lawyer. If not handled properly there is a chance that you can be held in jail. This post looks at the time and manner when bail is usually addressed.
As a rule, bail in Massachusetts is set by a clerk, an assistant clerk or a judge. Clerk’s and assistant clerk’s set bail after a person is arrested and held either at a police station or jail and prior to the person being arraigned on the pending criminal charge. Judges set bail after arraignment usually at the request of the assistant district attorney but sometimes on their own volition. The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant’s appearance at future court appearances. Several factors are considered prior to imposing bail. Roots in the community, the nature of the case, the criminal history of the accused, prior defaults, risk of flight and the safety of the community constitute the majority of issues taken into consideration when setting bail. Courts also look to see if the defendant has any pending cases at the time of the commission of the crime.
The range of terms for an order of bail varies significantly. I have had judges impose a bail of fifty dollars on my clients. I have also had clients held without bail. This is most often for extremely violent crimes. For crimes that have considerable mandatory minimum sentences judges might hold the defendant without bail particularly if the accused is not a citizen of the United States. Orders of bail that cannot be paid by the defendant are often appealed to the superior court as a matter of right. There do exist further appellate rights for bails that people want to challenge, i.e. to the Appeals Court, however this right is rarely exercised and even less frequently successful.
Sometimes judges set bail orders with attached conditions that are absurd but not likely to get reversed. I recently represented a motorcycle gang member who was released over the objection of the prosecutor to bail conditions that bordered on ridiculous. The client was ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device. He could not leave his home. He could not go to work. He could not use a cell phone. Notwithstanding a recent back surgery he could not take his prescription medications without the express permission of the probation department and the judge who set the conditions of bail. Nevertheless the client opted to accept these conditions rather than await trial in jail.
Perhaps the most onerous of all bail orders pertain to sex offenses. Almost everyone who is charged with a sex crime and is able to post bail is forced to wear a GPS device. The defendant is often not permitted to go within a specified distance from schools, parks, playgrounds or children. This distance ranges but five hundred feet is not uncommon. While this might not present a large burden to someone who resides in a rural area it is nearly impossible to honor for people who live in cities such as Boston or Lawrence. In these cases, once the defendant is out of custody we try to get the judge to modify the conditions to permit the defendant to work and live in areas that otherwise would constitute a violation of the bail conditions.
According to the Salem News, last week a Beverly, Massachusetts man went into a Tedeschi convenience store wearing a mask and a hoodie. The store clerk was arranging items in the store. He heard someone come into the store. He then saw a man carrying a large semiautomatic weapon demanding money. He complied with the demand and gave the robber between one hundred fifty and two hundred dollars. When he realized exactly how much money he got the defendant expressed disappointment and fled. No arrest was made that day. By the way, the store clerk never saw the face of the man. A few days later the clerk believed that he saw the person who had committed the Armed Robbery just outside of the store. The reason he thought this was the culprit: the man was wearing the same pants and had the same gait. The police obtained an arrest warrant and on Saturday the defendant was arrested. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Salem District Court. Bail was set in the amount of ten thousand dollars.
A central issue to many criminal cases in Massachusetts is the identification of the accused as the person who committed the crime alleged. In Massachusetts it is the obligation of the district attorney to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt. Mistaken identifications are not uncommon making your choice of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer one of paramount importance. Since the arrival of DNA testing there are many people who have been freed from jails and had convictions reversed. Many of these convictions were based on eyewitness identifications that were made in error. I sometimes wonder whether some of these convictions could have been avoided with a better attack on the identification testimony.
Jurors in Massachusetts are instructed on the issue of identification if it becomes a live issue at the time of trial. Judges tell jurors that the witness must have had an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant. Jurors can consider a lapse of time from the time of the commission of the crime until the identification was made. Similarities between the person identified and other people who might have been near the crime scene or had the motive to commit the crime can also be a factor that impacts jury deliberations. An initial failure to make an identification is a factor to scrutinize when deciding guilt or innocence in a case such as this one.
The defendant referenced in this article has a lot work with in terms of presenting his defense. His lawyer did an excellent job arguing mistaken identification issues. I am surprised that the bail was set so high in this case given the suggested weakness of the identification. It would not surprise me to see the bail lowered in this case. I have had cases like this one and tried them to an acquittal. Mistaken identification cases require the services of an Experienced Massachusetts Lawyer.
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.
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.
Law enforcement officials at the state, federal and local levels arrested twenty eight people in the Brockton area yesterday following an investigation targeting low to mid-level drug dealers selling Cocaine and Crack Cocaine. The ages of the defendants ranges from nineteen to forty nine years old and includes women, men and homeless people. Most of the defendants are from Brockton, with a few from Bridgewater and Raynham. The charges leveled at the defendants vary. Some are charged with Cocaine Distribution, Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws, Distribution of Crack Cocaine, School Zone Violations, Heroin Distribution and Distribution of Cocaine Second and Subsequent Offense. Bail ranged from personal to thirty thousand dollars cash. The investigation was named Operation Street Sweeper II. This operation follows two other successful large scale investigations in the Brockton area in the last year. The cases are pending in the Brockton District Court. According to newspaper reports one courtroom was set aside to handle all of the arraignments in this case.
Brockton Cocaine Distribution Defense Lawyer
All throughout Massachusetts and the entire country police have been implementing various tactics aimed at disrupting street-level drug dealing activities. Among these strategies are controlled buys, raids and large scale crackdowns. The latter method deploys large numbers of undercover officers who typically target Heroin, Crack and Cocaine dealers. There is a belief that the effectiveness of these operations is limited to the short term. Once the arrests are made and law enforcement vacates the area drug dealers come to the area quickly and establish or reestablish their presence. This can be defeated if there is a follow up plan that prevents the reinstatement of the unlawful activities. It is however generally agreed that drug sweeps do result in a diminution of drug dealing activities at least initially and that getting these people off the streets is a good start towards fighting drug dealing efforts.
There is often difficulty in effectively prosecuting these kinds of cases. People arrested in drug sweeps are done so an extended time after the commission of the alleged activity. For instance, if the police are engaged in one of these large scale operations they will often make the controlled buy and not effectuate the arrest until a future date. This makes the job of the Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney somewhat easier. Doubt is often raised in these cases simply because jurors cannot understand why the police would wait to make an arrest. People simply do not believe that a police officer would fail to make an arrest immediately after witnessing a crime. It is counterintuitive to the lay person. Evidence of the overall operation might be excluded at trial particularly in cases where there in no link between the various people arrested and charged with drug dealing.
The Salem News reported today that Christian Clemons of Salem, Massachusetts has been charged with Indecent Assault and Battery in the Salem District Court. The report alleges that Clemons was at a friends’ home watching a movie. With the exception of Clemons everyone at the apartment are girls. The girls fell asleep. One of them awakened to find Clemons fondling her. Clemons has been charged with three counts of Indecent Assault and Battery to which he has pleaded not guilty. The defendant was previously charged with a theft related crime from a pet store. As a result, the bail on that case has been revoked and Clemons is going to be held for at least sixty days.
Revocation of Bail in Massachusetts
Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 §58 if a person is admitted to bail for a particular offense he receives a warning that his bail can be revoked if he is charged with another crime during the pendency of his release. This is known as a bail warning and it is indicated on the docket sheets of the case on which bail is imposed. If a person does in fact get charged with another offense while on bail and a judge finds probable cause to believe that he has committed the offense charged then the judge has to make a determination of whether or not to release that person. Many factors play into that decision including the person’s prior record, the nature of the offenses with which he has been charged, drug usage, mental health considerations and more. If the judge finds necessary, he or she can then revoke the existing order of bail for up to sixty days. This is what happened to Clemons in this case. The judge decided, based on factors most of which likely were not mentioned in this article, that Clemons posed a danger to the community and that a revocation of his existing bail was in order.
Indecent Assault and Battery, Salem, Massachusetts
Here is what makes no sense about the new charge. Someone complained that Clemons somehow committed an indecent assault and battery on her. This was done while she was sleeping. The other girls were sleeping as well. There is not report of any screaming when the girl awakened to the assault nor is there any indication that someone witnessed the account. There is no suggestion that the police were called at three in the morning when the alleged assault occurred. There is an awful lot missing that could shed some light on the significance of these allegations. A Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would want to know the following. Who saw what? What time were the police called? When did the alleged incident occur? What evidence other than the complainant’s words support this allegation?
Saugus police officers and other law enforcement officials received a tip from an informant complaining that a man was selling Percocets from his home on Perullo Lane. Following up on the tip the police arranged for a controlled buy utilizing the informant. Last Friday this person went to the home of Christopher Albert Troisi, the defendant. At that time he purchased several pills. Five days later a similar arrangement was made. Detectives then went to Troisi’s home. Troisi attempted to flee. The defendant’s car and home were searched. Inside officers located more percocet pills, cocaine, drug paraphernalia and cash marked for the controlled buy. Troisi is facing charges of Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B substance, Possession of a Class B substance and a School Zone Violation. Bail was set at twenty five thousand dollars. The case is pending in the Lynn District Court.
If this article is accurate some of the charges against Troisi might not stand unless the informant agrees to testify. Law enforcement officials including the district attorneys office try to protect informants identities and orchestrate their prosecutions in ways the do not necessitate the informant’s disclosure or testimony. When this effort fails the charges against the accused often get reduced to encourage a plea bargain. Sometimes prosecutors even agree to dismiss the charges. It is important for Troisi to seek and hire a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who understands informant issues and is skilled at Suppression Issues.
Duane Collins of Lynn, Massachusetts was arrested and convicted for Cocaine Trafficking in 2008. He was sentenced to five and one half to seven years. His conviction was reversed in 2009 following a landmark United States Supreme Court case that requires the district attorney to call chemists to prove that a substance is in fact a controlled substance. Prior to that case the prosecution could simply present a certificate of analysis to show that a substance was an illegal drug. Following that ruling Collins’ lawyer was able to negotiate a deal where he would serve three years only and get credit for time served. That deal may no longer be available however since Collins was just arrested for another cocaine charge. Apparently, after a Motor Vehicle stop police found over an ounce of cocaine in a cooler in Collins’ car. His bail has been revoked.
Lynn Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58B gives a judge the authority to hold someone without bail, who, while released on bail gets arrested for another crime. The statute gives the accused the right to a hearing to argue bail. The statute also permits a judge to have the individual held for up to ninety days. It becomes critical that the Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer arguing for bail under these circumstances is familiar with this statute. Collins’ lawyer is excellent and experienced and according to the article made a strong request for bail. His lawyer also did a great job negotiating a reduction in his sentence.
According to reports in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune DEA agents working our of New Bedford had been investigating a Heroin Trafficking ring involving individuals from Lawrence. One of the members was arrested with eighty five grams of heroin. As a result a Search Warrant issued for an apartment on Union Street in Lawrence. An informant told the police that he had purchased at that apartment. This individual reported that he would arrive at the apartment and one the occupants would go out and return shortly with the heroin. During the search an individual questioned by the police indicated that he lived in another apartment down the hall. He apparently consented to a search of that unit. During the search officers found over five kilograms of heroin. The estimated street value of the substance is over three million dollars. In all the police located and arrested six individuals. All were charged with Trafficking Over 200 Grams of Heroin. The case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Bail for each was set at five hundred thousand dollars. The defendants have been identified as Victor Guerrero Santana, Francisco Rivera, Jose Pizarro, Oveido Lopez, Luis Gonzalez and Elvin Ruiz.
Charging everyone present at the scene of a large drug bust is a common yet flawed law enforcement tactic. The article suggests that some of the defendants were at best “present only”. In the past I have blogged on this issue. Presence alone is not enough to sustain a prosecution for drug offenses. There must be some criminal activity in which the accused is involved and there must be an intent on that person’s part to engage in or assist with the criminal act. When looking at this article it is difficult to ascertain who is responsible for what, if anything. An Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer will attack the arrests and charges and perhaps in some cases obtain a dismissal for one or more of these defendants.
According to the Newburyport News Cody Harkness of Amesbury, Massachusetts is being charged with Unarmed Burglary, Home Invasion, Malicious Destruction to Property Valued at More Than $250 and Breaking and Entering. The victim is a downstairs neighbor who was sleeping when Harkness broke into her home. Apparently the defendant opened a door in a common area of the home that led to the victim’s closet. From there he entered her room and touched her body. The victim woke up and yelled. Harkness left. Harkness, who had not been identified by the victim at that point asked her what had happened. She in turn told the police that he might have information about the intruder. The police contacted Harkness and noticed that he had in his possession that the victim said the suspect was wearing. Other evidence suggested to the officers that Harkness had in fact committed the crime. He eventually admitted involvement. The charges are now pending in the Newburyport District Court. Bail was set at two thousand five hundred dollars.
This article is somewhat confusing as to what the actual charges are that Harkness is facing. The headline states Home Invasion. Home Invasion in Massachusetts is criminalized under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18(c). It is a felony and a conviction carries with it a mandatory twenty year state prison sentence with a maximum life possibility. The Newburyport District Court does not have jurisdiction of this crime and I would imagine that the district attorney’s office will use its discretion and reduced the charges to something within the district court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, if the article is correct it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove a couple of necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove that Harkness was armed with a dangerous weapon. There is no indication that he was. Also, the prosecution must prove use of force or the threat of the imminent use of force. None of that seems to be present her. The body of the article, as opposed to the headline states that unarmed burglary is the charge here. The statute addressing that crime is G.L. c. 266 Section 15. There is a requirement that the district attorney prove however that in addition to the breaking and entering, that Harkness intended to commit a felony while inside the victim’s home. There is no evidence supporting that element. This crime also must be prosecuted in the Superior Court so again I believe that there will be a modification of charges so that the district court can keep jurisdiction of the case.