Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Paul Teves was an eleventh grade school teacher working at the West Bridgewater High School. He also coached track. Now the thirty five year old stands charged with Distribution of Child Pornography in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Teves used a screen name and described himself as a mother willing to pimp out her eleven year old daughter. Chats were either monitored or seized wherein Teves communicated with someone from Albuquerque who, once arrested cooperated and led officials to Teves. Teves was interviewed by investigating FBI agents. He admitted exchanging videos and stills of Child Pornography with others. It appears that Teves is not currently in custody.
The statute under which Teves is being prosecuted is likely 18 U.S.C. §2252. That law states that anyone who receives or distributes material that involves this use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and that depicts such conduct is guilty of a felony. A conviction of this offense is punishable by a minimum mandatory five year prison sentence.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

Investigating these cases is often difficult and frustrating for law enforcement. People who engage in this type of conduct often do so from their homes. The mere fact that several people can live in one home and share the same IP address makes identifying the actual perpetrator difficult. Even if a person lives alone law enforcement officials know that unsecured IP addresses can be accessed by neighbors. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers can exploit this fact when filing Motions to Suppress unlawful Searches and Seizures. While identifying the source or origin of the illicit activity may be easy, putting a suspect's fingerprints on the keyboard is a much more difficult task. More often than not law enforcement agencies solidify their cases when they contact the suspect and get him or her to talk. The accused usually panics talk to the authorities. They think they can minimize the damage by admitting to wrongdoing and being cooperative. They are wrong. I have been practicing criminal law for over twenty four years and never once have I had a client who "talked his way out" of a criminal problem. The police are skilled at asking questions. The questions are designed to elicit certain answers. Once they get those answers their case strengthens. Also, rarely does a client come into my office, look at a police report and tell me "that is exactly what I said to them". The response is almost always "that is not what I said". This is why I always advise clients to say nothing and hire a lawyer. Lawyers are paid to protect you and to make sure that you do not jeopardize your legal rights by acting foolishly or on impulse.

Continue reading "West Bridgewater Massachusetts Teacher, Coach Charged With Distribution Of Child Pornography In Federal Court, Faces Minimum Mandatory Sentence" »

Two nights ago Guarionex Pratts of North Andover, Massachusetts was arrested at his apartment by North Andover Police and DEA agents. Apparently a call to the DEA Tipline alerted authorities to the existence of Drug Dealing Activities at the apartment. The tip stemmed from neighbors concerns about an odor suggestive of drug activities in the building. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune is reporting that Pratts consented to a search of his apartment. During the Search officers found hundreds of Oxycodone pills, a significant sum of cash and over two pounds of Heroin. Packaging products or Drug Paraphernalia was also found and seized during the search. The smell that alarmed the neighbors was determined to come from cutting agents used to dilute the drugs being that were being packaged for street level sales. The heroin was valued at around one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Pratts has been charged with Trafficking Heroin and Trafficking Oxycodone. There is a mandatory minimum fifteen year sentence for a conviction of the Heroin Trafficking Offense. Pratts, who is thirty two years old, is believed to be supplying Drug Dealers in Lawrence, Massachusetts. If the Massachusetts state courts retain jurisdiction of the case it will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1517687098/Accused-heroin-dealer-arrested-at-Royal-Crest-apartments

As a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney who has handled hundreds of drug cases in Essex County something immediately hits me when I read this article. Did Pratts really consent to the search of his apartment? The sheer quantity of drugs found suggests that whoever was responsible for these substances was not a novice. He or she had extensive experience in the Massachusetts drug underworld. Anyone with this level of familiarity with the drug trade would not simply consent to the search of his apartment. They would say no to the request to search. Massachusetts laws require a valid search warrant to justify a search of someone's property. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. Consent is one of those exceptions. Large scale drugs dealers however never consent. This leads me to conclude that there was no consent or the consent was coerced. In either case a Motion to Suppress the search will likely be filed to try to get the searched declared unconstitutional. If there truly was consent to the search this fact will have some significance for Pratts as well. It will be argued that no one is likely to consent to a search under these circumstances unless he or she had absolutely no involvement with the underlying Drug Distribution Activities. Pratts legal road is a long one. This makes his decision to hire the right lawyer to defend him one of the most important of his life. He must start an aggressive defense right away.

Continue reading "Man Accused Of Supplying Lawrence Massachusetts Drug Dealers With Class A And Class B Substances Arrested At Local Apartment Complex" »

After four days of deliberations a Northern California jury rendered its verdict in the Barry Bonds perjury/obstruction of justice case. The three perjury charges stemmed from allegations that Bonds made false statements while under oath before a federal grand jury in 2003. The jury was unable to return verdicts on those counts and a mistrial was declared. On two of these three counts the jury was leaning heavily towards acquittal. However the jury did convict Bonds of obstruction of justice, a crime permitting incarceration for up to ten years. The factual basis for this conviction originated from Bonds' response to the question : "Did Greg [Anderson, Bonds personal trainer] ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?" Bonds' response centered on his friendship with Anderson and his celebrity status. Prosecutors claim that he never answered the question. Understandably, defense attorneys are seeking to have the judge vacate this conviction.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1890540711/Bonds-guilty-of-obstruction-of-justice

Massachusetts Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

18 U.S.C. §1503 lays out the law for a Federal Obstruction of Justice Charge. In essence, anyone who "endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished". This statute was designed to target any corrupt conduct endeavoring to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice. The Barry Bonds jury was asked to determine if his evasive answer to one question satisfies the elements of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. Legally the word "corrupt" implies an evil or wicked purpose. The prosecution must also prove a beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's specific intent to impede the administration of justice. I can fully appreciate Bonds' lawyers' efforts to have this conviction vacated. While his arguably rambling response to the question before the grand jury was non-responsive an intent to impede the administration of justice seems to be a reach, notwithstanding the jury's verdict. This issue will be argued again on May 20th, this time to the trial judge alone. Perhaps the conviction will be vacated.

Continue reading "Barry Bonds Convicted Of Obstruction Of Justice" »

Just under a month ago police from Lawrence and Methuen Massachusetts along with the FBI started an investigation after an FBI informant made a significant disclosure to authorities. Supposedly, Tony Diaz was offering free drugs to the informant. In return Diaz expected the man to kill someone who had been skimming drugs. With this information meetings with this informant and another were held with Diaz and under police monitoring. It is alleged that during these meetings Diaz gave the informants Cocaine and Heroin. Diaz told the informants that the target had stolen over one hundred grams. It is further alleged that during the final meeting Diaz gave the informant a loaded .38 caliber revolver with instructions to shoot the target in the face. Diaz denied the allegations during a post-arrest interrogation. He has been charged in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x740871448/FBI-arrests-Lawrence-man-in-murder-for-hire-scheme#

Massachusetts Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer

The crime of murder-for-hire in federal court is codified under 18 U.S.C. §1958. The law states that anyone who uses interstate facilities with the intent to commit a murder for money or other compensation shall be punished. The prosecution must prove that the defendant used or caused someone else to use the interstate facility (here the use of cell phones) with the intent that the murder be committed. In a case like this the informants will have to testify unless the conversations were recorded. It would be interesting to hear exactly is on those recordings particularly where Diaz denied the murder-for-hire charge but admitted to Drug Distribution and Possession of the Firearm.

Continue reading "Feds Foil Drug Related Murder For Hire Plot, Lawrence Massachusetts Drug Dealer Charged" »

Ryan Caverly is thirty one years old. He currently lives in Lynnfield, Massachusetts. He and twenty five year old Vincent Migliore of Everett were arrested on Monday. Both were charged with Trafficking Oxycodone Over 14 Grams, Trafficking Oxycodone Over 28 Grams and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. Adriana D'Alleva was also arrested on drug charges and charged with Trafficking Oxycontins. The district attorney is alleging that the defendants sold eight hundred oxycodone pills and one hundred ecstasy pills over the past few months to undercover police officers. Caverly is being held on five hundred thousand dollars cash bail, Migliore on two hundred fifty thousand dollars and D'Alleva on ten thousand dollars. It appears that the investigation might have started when Migliore was found in possession of eighty five thousand dollars at an Amtrak station in Chicago. During Caverly's arrest police found thirty two thousand dollars cash, some drugs and drug paraphernalia. Migliore was found in possession of three hundred ninety nine oxycodone tablets at the time of his arrest. Right now the cases are pendint in the Peabody District Court however it is expected that the prosecution will take place in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Three From Massachusetts Charged With Trafficking Oxycontins

The facts of this article suggest that at least in Caverly and Migliore's cases a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will be looking closely at Search and Seizure issues. What prompted the investigation in the first place? Was it the seizure from Migliore in Chicago and if so, why did law enforcement seek him out? Was this a coincidental stop or did they have information suggesting that he was involved in illicit drug trafficking activity? The next question is how did that lead them to Caverly? Was he an active conspirator? And what is D'Alleva's role in all of this? If the police investigation was questionable at any level motions to suppress will be filed. If successful these can result is exclusion of drug evidence at trial and possibly a dismissal of the case. It also seems strange that this case is being prosecuted in state court rather than in Federal Court particularly given what appears to be an active role of federal law enforcement in this investigation. Cases that have weaknesses from the prosecution's viewpoint are rarely prosecuted in the Federal Courts. Perhaps this is good news for Caverly, Migliore and D'Alleva.

Continue reading "Two Massachusetts Men Charged With Trafficking Oxycontins In Peabody Court" »

Five people have been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Conspiracy to Traffic Marijuana Charges. It is reported that Dmitriy Goldinshteyn of Framingham, Massachusetts along with Myooran Nakeswaran and Mark Belenkii, both from Newton, Massachusetts as well as Mary Roberts and Vadim Khait are named in the indictments. Goldinshteyn was arrested at his home in Framingham at six o'clock in the morning. He has been released on a twenty five thousand dollar personal appearance bond. It is alleged that the conspiracy started in early 2004 and that involved over one thousand kilograms of marijuana.

Read Article:

Marijuana Trafficking Conspiracy Cases Pending For Five From Massachusetts

Conspiracy to traffic one thousand kilograms or more of marijuana in Federal Court is punishable by a minimum mandatory ten years in federal prison according to the relevant statutes. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines suggest the following in cases such as this one. First, the quantity itself makes this a level 32 offense. If the defendant's criminal history is a category 1 the guidelines suggest a sentence of 121 months to 151 months be imposed. The defendant's level can be decreased by at least two levels depending on his role in the conspiracy. The defendant's level of participation can also be a factor that leads to a reduction in the base offense level. There can also be a reduction in base offense level if the defendant accepts responsibility for his actions. Finally, the defendant may be eligible for a "safety valve" that permits the judge to sentence him under the minimum mandatory sentence. This article is vague as to what each defendant's role in this operation was. As of today there was no press release providing additional information on this case.

Much can be done to defend people accused of this offense. Over the past ten years Federal Case Law has evolved favorably to the defense. It is becoming more common for a minor participant in a drug conspiracy to be punished for his or her actual role in the offense than rather than for the entire quantity of drugs alleged in the indictment. Thus, in a case where it is alleged that multiple defendants trafficked over one thousand kilos of marijuana there can be great disparity among the sentences for each participant.

Continue reading "Five Indicted On Marijuana Conspiracy Charges In Massachusetts Federal Court, One From Framingham, Two From Newton" »

Jose Dellosantos was arraigned in the Haverhill District Court on charges of trafficking cocaine, distribution of cocaine and conspiracy. He is being held on $100,000 bail. Dellosantos, a barbershop owner from Haverhill was arrested at the shop on a warrant. Ironically, or perhaps not, Dellosantos' brother Ramon was convicted yesterday in Federal Court in Maine for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. Police also arrested another barbershop owner from Haverhill in connection with these cases. Jonathan Perez was charged with trafficking cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and conspiracy to violate drug laws. He is being held on $50,000 cash bail.

Massachusetts Man Arrested On Drug Charges, Brother Convicted Same Day

Trafficking Cocaine in Massachusetts is a felony. While the charges are extremely serious and prosecuted only in Superior Court the sentence that must be imposed depends entirely on the amount of the drug and whether or not the actions took place within one thousand feet of a school zone. This article makes no mention of quantity nor is it suggested that the events took place in a school zone. Also missing from this report is reference to any drugs obtained or seized by the police. Similarly, the account is silent on the presence of drug trafficking paraphernalia.

Continue reading "Haverhill Massachusetts Man Arrested, Charged With Trafficking, Distribution Of Cocaine, Conspiracy" »

Several weeks ago DEA and Andover, Massachusetts police received information from a source that Jay Keough and Ryan Emmet were cooking up methamphetamine at Keough's parents' home on Lowell Street in Andover. Apparently Keough and Emmett had been buying cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine from drug stores in the Merrimack Valley towns of Andover, Methuen, North Andover, Lawrence and Haverhill. Various "cooking" techniques break the medicine down into ephedrine which in turn is used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine or "crystal meth". According to reports Keough manufactured the substance every 4-5 days in a first floor room that was locked, chained and guarded by a Rottweiller. Both Keough and Emmet were charged in federal court with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Both men are being detained pending a hearing.

Read Article: Massachusetts Men Caught In Their Andover Meth Lab Charged In Federal Court

Both defendants have been charged with a violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 846 and 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1). 21 U.S.C. 846 makes it a crime to conspire to violate any of the laws of the drug abuse prevention and control act. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) makes it a crime to manufacture, distribute or possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. Methamphetamine is a controlled substance in accordance with Schedule II of the act. If convicted on these charges, Keough and Emmet each face up to 20 years imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release and a $ 1,000,000 fine.

Continue reading "Feds Break Up Meth Lab In Andover, Arrest Two" »

From December 2007 through May 2008 several banks were robbed in the towns of Natick, Newton, Watertown, Quincy, Belmont, Boston and Arlington.  Each time the robber wore a disguise and passed a note demanding 50's and 100's.  In that six month period the robber stole more than $48,000.00.  Law enforcement got a break in these cases when they received an anonymous note that Christopher Politis might be their man.  Following up on the tip the FBI placed a GPS device on Politis' car.  That led them to a bank robbery at the Village Bank in Newton.  Politis' accomplice during the last bank robbery was Donald Gillis who was also charged and convicted.  Both men pleaded guilty in federal court and face up to twenty years in federal prison.  In total, Politis pleaded guilty for his role in fourteen bank robberies. 

Read Article:  Two Plead Guilty To Bank Robbery In Boston Federal Court

Politis was most likely charged with violating 18 United States Code Section 2113(a).  This law states that anyone who forcibly or violently or by intimidation steals from a bank, credit union or any savings and loan faces up to 20 years in federal prison, or a fine or both.  Going into banks disguised and making demands for money satisfies the elements of this offense.  As with most cases in federal court the facts in this case were overwhelmingly favorable to the prosecution.  In cases such as this plea bargaining is the best way to minimize the defendants' sentence, particularly where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines assign credit to anyone who accepts responsibility for his actions. 

Continue reading "Waltham, Massachusetts Men Convicted Of Bank Robbery In Federal Court" »

In January of 2008 Christopher Cook sold 200 OxyContin pills to a cooperating witness.  Then, less than two months later FBI agents caught Cook trying to steal "what he believed to be OxyContin pills for a drug source".  In November of 2008 Cook pleaded guilty to possession, distribution and attempted possession with intent to distribute OxyContin pills. Cook, a 29 year old Pembroke man who had applied to become a Boston Police Officer will now spend the next eighty seven months in federal prison. 

Read Article:  OxyContin Dealer Gets Seven Years in Federal Prison

OxyContin is a Schedule II drug pursuant to 21 United States Code Section 812.  That section defines Schedule II drugs as substances that have a high potential for abuse, have a currently accepted medical purpose and abuse of which might may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.  According to federal law it is a crime to possess oxycontins with the intent to distribute the drug.  It is also a crime to attempt to possess oxycontins with the intent to distribute the substance. 

Sentences for convictions of drug offenses are in some cases mandated by statute.  Where there is no mandatory sentence to impose judges regularly refer to the federal sentencing guidelines for guidance on how to sentence someone.  The federal sentencing guidelines give a range of sentencing options that vary depending on the crime and the person who was convicted.  Things such as prior criminal record, the quantity of the drugs and whether or not weapons were used are considered by these guidelines. 

Continue reading "Boston Police Applicant/Oxycontin Dealer Sentenced To 87 Months In Federal Prison" »

This past Wednesday, Ricardo Calvo of Worcester was sentenced to fifteen years in federal prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  The defense was looking for a seventy seven month prison sentence based on his lawyer's representation that Calvo had a history of substance abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse since he was a child.  According to defense counsel Victoria Bonilla, Calvo was introduced to drugs by his father at the age of 12.  The prosecution argued that the defendant's lengthy criminal history was reason enough not to depart from the 15 year mandatory minimum sentence. 

The defendant was arrested in December of 2005 along with sixty other people as part of a federal crime sweep.  When he was apprehended police found him in possession of a .22 caliber pistol, magazine and ammunition.  

Read Entire Article:  http://www.telegram.com/article/20090205/NEWS/902050969/1008/NEWS02

Calvo was most likely charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g) making it a crime for anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm.  The sentence associated with a conviction of this crime is a maximum of 10 years in federal prison.  So, for Calvo to have been sentenced to 15 years there must have been an armed career criminal enhancement.  To be enhanced the defendant in this case must have been convicted of three prior felonies for serious drugs or violence. 

Victoria Bonilla is an excellent experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who unquestionably did a great job for her client.  The federal courts are a tough place to defend people accused of committing crimes.  The defense victories are difficult to come by and success in this forum is a relative term.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man Convicted Of Being Felon In Possession Of Firearm" »

Assistant United States Attorney Suzanne Sullivan's reputation took a severe blow last week when Jonathan Saltzman from the Boston Globe reported that Chief District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf threatened sanctions for Sullivan's failure to provide exculpatory evidence to defense counsel.  According to the article, the veteran prosecutor failed to disclose that a Boston Police officer offered testimony in court that was contradicted by what he told Sullivan beforehand.  In a lengthy memorandum Wolf wrote that "The court assumes that her failure to disclose material, exculpatory information was not intentional, in part because Sullivan produced her notes for the court's in camera inspection," Wolf wrote. "Nevertheless, the violations were clear and inexcusable. If the error by an experienced prosecutor was inadvertent, it seems only to be explained by ignorance of, or utter indifference to, the constitutional duty she repeatedly claimed to have understood and obeyed."  In another part of the memorandum Sullivan's actions were referred to as an "egregious failure" to disclose materially exculpatory evidence. 

This notwithstanding, the arrest and evidence obtained against the defendant was found to be made in a constitutional manner.  The defendant is charged with firearms related activity. 

Read Entire Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/27/judge_chastises_federal_attorney/?page=full

About two to three years ago I had a case against Suzanne Sullivan.  At that time she was an assistant district attorney in the Plymouth County District Attorney's office.  The case involved multiple counts of sexual abuse of several children.  I was the second defense lawyer on the case.  Ms. Sullivan had inherited the case from another prosecutor who had just left the district attorney's office to join the United States Attorney's Office.  I personally found Ms. Sullivan to be extremely professional.  She promptly provided me with all discovery materials.  She even went so far as to invite me down to her office to view her file.  I accepted her invitation.  She gave me a couple of large boxes full of police reports, grand jury minutes, witness statements, exhibits and more.  She even left her notes of interviews with witnesses in the box for me to review and photocopy.  I was permitted to view this material in a private room, unsupervised.  Ms. Sullivan gave me access to a copy machine and made sure that I was able to obtain copies of all materials I wanted.  We later tried the case.  Suzanne Sullivan's hospitality and professional congeniality continued in the same manner.  She never personalized the case, prosecuted with a passion and conducted herself in a dignified manner.  That case was and remains my only contact with this prosecutor.  Her ethics and professionalism are, in my opinion unparalleled.   

The rule in federal courts is similar to that In Massachusetts state courts as they relate to prosecutorial misconduct.  Dismissal with prejudice "is a draconian sanction that must be reserved for cases manifesting egregious prosecutorial misconduct or a serious threat of prejudice to the defendant."  Even dismissals without prejudice are rare and not used absent "some demonstrable prejudice to the defendant."  Our courts prefer alternative sanctions such as a fine or a report to the Board of Bar Overseers.  On appeal there are times when prosecutorial misconduct results in a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. 

Continue reading "Judge Suggests Misconduct On Part Of Massachusetts Federal Prosecutor" »

Three Springfield, Massachusetts men were charged in Federal Court with a civil rights violation stemming from an arson purportedly committed on November 5, 2008.  Authorities stated the men poured gasoline inside and outside the church and set fire to the structure "because it was a black church".  The act took place hours after the presidential election.  The men were detained pending a hearing and on January 21, 2009 all were released subject to specified conditions.  The fire caused an estimated two million dollars to the church. 

The investigation into this crime took just over two months to complete.  It was conducted by Massachusetts State Police, the Springfield Police, the FBI, the ATF, the United States Attorney's office, the state fire marshal and the Hampden County District Attorney's office.  According to reports one of the defendants boasted about having committed the crime and in doing so attributed the actions of the three to hate. Arson was not charged as one of the crimes.  It was reported that on November 9, 2008 police received information from an informant who stated that two of the perpetrators bragged about having set the fire.  In January of this year an undercover officer solicited one of the defendants to set a fire for insurance money.  In the course of discussions one of the defendants boasted about having burned down the church as well as several arsons that he supposedly committed. 

Read Full Article, Boston Globe, January 17, 2009

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/17/church_arson_tied_to_racism/

See also United States Attorney Press Release, January 16, 2009

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20Press%20Release%20Files/Jan2009/ComplaintPR.html

It appears that right now all defendants are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 241 which states that "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same" that person can be punished by up to 10 years in prison. 

For some reason not explained in the new reports the defendants were not charged with arson.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 2 makes the burning of a church a crime.  The law states in part that anyone who willfully and maliciously burns a church can be sentenced to 10 years in prison if convicted.  There is a federal arson statute that may not have had applicability to this case.  See 18 U.S.C. Section 81. 

Continue reading "Three Massachusetts Men Charged With Federal Hate Crimes" »

According to Lee Hammel of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette a federal grand jury has indicted a Massachusetts man on charges of falsifying records in a federal investigation, altering and falsifying records in a federal investigation, wire fraud, making false statements, and the theft of honest services from the National Guard and DEA.  It is alleged that the 40 year old man, Earl Hoffman from Lowell used federal resources to harass a former girlfriend.  Hoffman was employed by the Massachusetts National Guard's counter-drug program.  His subsequent assignment to a DEA related task force had him analyzing and collecting data for the task force in drug related criminal investigations.  The assignment provided Hoffman access to a computer database containing sensitive information. 

According to the article the prosecution is alleging the following facts:

1.  On May 25, 2007 Hoffman used a DEA computer in Worcester to obtain driver's license records of a woman with whom he had an intimate relationship.  The relationship had ended badly years earlier.

2.  Hoffman got the woman's driver's license information, photograph and criminal records.

3.  Purporting to be the woman's new boyfriend, Hoffman emailed the woman's license picture along with an insult to the woman's teenage son.  He also sent the son a pornographic photograph. 

4.  Hoffman faxed a DEA subpoena to a telephone company to get the woman's phone records from when they were together.

Once the investigation began Hoffman told the DEA supervisor that he had requested the woman's information because her telephone number had been linked to a pending investigation.  He further stated that a supervisor asked him to subpoena the telephone records.  Hoffman stated that the information was requested for official purposes. 

The prosecution has charged Hoffman with violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  This is the first known criminal charge under this act.   

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act is codified in 18 U.S.C. Section 2721.  The law prohibits anyone with lawful access to personal information from motor vehicle records from disclosing that material to anyone else.  The law also makes it illegal to obtain this information without a lawfully designated purpose or to make a false representation to obtain this data.  18 U.S.C. Section 2723 states that a conviction of this crime carries a fine.  The other crimes with which Hoffman has been charged carry significantly more severe penalties.  This law was enacted in 1994 in response to the murder of actor Rebecca Shaeffer who was killed by someone who obtained her information from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. 

Continue reading "Former DEA Analyst Indicted In Massachusetts By Federal Grand Jury" »

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported Friday that a 27 year old Florida man was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for convincing a 15 year girl to run away from home to be with him.  The defendant, Daniel Lenz met the girl through an internet video game.  The defense tried to get sentencing continued so that Lenz could get a psychiatric evaluation to aid in his sentencing.  Sentencing documents claimed that Lenz suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, that he has experienced suicidal tendencies and that he had a troubled relationship with his father.  The judge refused to continue sentencing after prosecutors claimed that Lenz was still having phone sex with the girl while incarcerated.  The prosecution further stated that Lenz poses a danger to the girl and refuses to admit that he committed a crime.  Apparently the girl would visit Lenz in prison and during at least one visit exposed herself by flashing him. 

On August 30, 2007 a federal jury convicted Lenz of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2423.  That statute makes criminal transporting anyone under the age of 18 for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct.  The statute requires a mandatory 10 year prison sentence.  There is also a maximum of life in prison for a conviction of this offense.  While Lenz received the minimum sentence he will also be on supervised release for life after his release from prison. 

This is an extremely strict statute when compared to some state laws.  For example, in Massachusetts the age for consent is 16.  Arguably the federal statute would make criminal a consensual act that involved for example a 19 year old boy and an 17 year old girl.  Hopefully law enforcement would use discretion in such a case and not choose to prosecute that type of act and limit its use of this statute to those situations that result in the exploitation of young vulnerable victims. 

Federal crimes are the most difficult to defend.  The prosecutors typically indict only their strongest cases.  The witnesses who investigate these cases are FBI agents, DEA agents, ATF agents, and members of various other federal law enforcement entities.  Most of these people have extensive educational backgrounds such as law degrees, masters degrees or doctorates.  They are well prepared for trial and their investigations are usually the most thorough.  In federal criminal cases it is of the greatest importance that you hire a lawyer experienced with the federal criminal system.  The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman has been representing defendants in federal criminal cases for over 20 years. 

Related Web Resources:

The Mann Act

Boston Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers

Federal Sentencing Guidelines