Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Assault and Battery Defense Lawyer

Haverhill, Massachusetts Lawyer Who Defends Violent Crimes

One thing I noticed while reading this article is the reference to Rodriguez being a member of the Trinitario Gang. This gang originated as a New York City prison gang. It was created for Dominican prisoners who were drug dealers and who had been encountering problems with the Latin Kings during their incarceration. The gang was formed for their protection in the jails. The gang spread to the streets and although primarily in the New Jersey and New York areas they are spreading to Eastern Massachusetts. Their weapon of choice is the machete. This past December forty such gang members were arrested and charged with an assortment of Violent Crimes in New York including Gun Charges, Drug Charges and Conspiracy.

Cases like this one can be difficult for the district attorney to prove. If Rodriguez was involved in these crimes I imagine that there was either a gang related motive or a drug relative motive or both. Gang members and drug dealers are reluctant to come into court to testify. They fear their own exposure for the crimes that they committed. They also fear retaliation from the people and gangs against whom they testify. In major cities prosecuting these cases is often a nightmare. Corralling the witnesses and getting them to cooperate honestly often borders on impossible. And what about their credibility? Most of them come with heavy baggage and getting jurors to believe what they have to say is not easy. Defending these cases is always a challenge but often defense attorneys feel that they have the upper hand. Rarely do witnesses come into court with clean hands. There are seldom independent eyewitnesses to these types of crimes. The witnesses are typically drug dealers and rival gang members who are easy to impeach. The outcome to this case should be interesting.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Lawyers Who Defend Sex Crime Allegations in Middlesex County Massachusetts

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that Human Trafficking Cases in Massachusetts are being indicted at a rapid pace. What used to be known as pimping cases has evolved into this new crime called Human Trafficking. That is due in part to federal funding of local law enforcement agencies to fight this activity and a public outcry against the criminal exploitation of women. The crimes themselves have become much more of a global problem due to the facility with which these enterprises can be operated through the use of the Internet. The Human Trafficking Statute permits and in some instances mandates sentences much greater than the pimping statute. This makes your choice of a criminal lawyer more important now than ever before. An experience lawyer might try and win your case. But there are instances where it might be more beneficial to have the charges reduced to something more consistent with the act actually committed rather than the sometimes sensationalized accusation of Human Trafficking.

So how can someone like Keplin or Chen defend this case? Much of that depends on who will be testifying against them and how that person connected with law enforcement. Usually, one of the women working at the establishment gets arrested for an act of Prostitution. Then, for self-preservation purposes that person tells a story much more exaggerated than the real event. Their cooperation can result in charges not getting filed or pending charges being dismissed. Absent some significant corroboration from of this person's story what looked like a horrible Human Trafficking story becomes a simple prostitution case and the defendants no longer face lengthy prison sentences.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Indecent Assault and Battery Lawyers in Massachusetts

So just how big are Mullins' problems? Well, lets first look at the underlying crime. Indecent Assault and Battery in Massachusetts is a felony. It is punishable by up to five years on state prison. While I doubt that this case will be indicted Mullin is still facing a two and a half year jail sentence. He is also subject to incarceration for the Probation Violation. Moreover, he is probably looking at Community Parole Supervision for Life. This subjects Mullin to the jurisdiction of the parole board for life. This statute, M.G.L. c. 127 Section 133D treats the defendant as if he or she is on parole. The parole board establishes terms and conditions that the violator must adhere to. The parolee cannot file a petition to terminate for at least fifteen years. Then, termination can occur only with a vote of the majority of the parole board members. Termination proceedings require sex offender evaluations as well. Here is another aspect of the Massachusetts Lifetime Community Parole statute that can impact the offender. A violation of the conditions of parole require a thirty day jail sentence. a second violation results in a six month sentence and a third results in the parolee serving a year. If the violation is the result of another criminal offense then these sentence run from and after the sentence on the new criminal case.

Mullin has some significant criminal defense issues in front of him. Possible lifetime parole, an imminent jail sentence for his Probation Violation, the new case and answering to the warrants will keep his Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer busy for some time.

Sometimes in cases like this one enlisting an expert in the field of Sex Offenses can be helpful. Sex offender evaluations and sentencing recommendations often guide judges in ordering a sentence that addresses the offender's issues, protects society and mitigates the length and conditions of the sentence. I have found this quite helpful on many occasions. Judges and prosecutors can be influenced by thorough professional evaluations and recommendations.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Marijuana Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Crimes in Norfolk County Massachusetts, Quincy, Dedham

The first thing that catches my eye about this case is the actions of the police when they served the utility notice. While they may have smelled an overwhelming odor of Marijuana that in and of itself would not provide sufficient information for a magistrate or judge to issue a Search Warrant. I am sure what in fact prompted the issuance of the warrant was the observation of plants and grow lights. Yet how were the cops able to see these? Where is the basement door in relation to the front door? How big are the plants? The article also mentions that the officers felt heat when the door was opened. What was the heat bill this month compared to prior months?

Massachusetts case law makes clear that without a search warrant or exigent circumstances a search of someone's property is illegal. Similarly, an illegal entry that results in observations that serve as a basis for probable cause in a search warrant affidavit requires suppression. As to challenges to search warrants, Massachusetts Appellate Courts have stated that the information obtained as a result of an unlawful entry must be excised from the search warrant affidavit. If, absent that information there still exists probable cause for the issuance of the warrant the search will stand. If not, suppression is ordered. In this case, depending on the content of the search warrant affidavit I can see several potential challenges to this search. The officers' unlawful entry into the home, possibly dubious observations and uncorroborated suspicions might be applicable here.

The case was first brought to the attention of Methuen authorities by students at Methuen High School who saw the Facebook posts. Consequently the police were notified. The posts were characterized as "alarming". Most of the threats were general. They were not directed towards anybody in particular. Bail was set in the amount of one million dollars. The case is currently pending in the Lawrence District Court where Dambrosio faces a felony charge of Communicating a Terrorist Threat.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Violent Crime Criminal Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Felony Crimes in Essex County Massachusetts

I imagine the statute under which Dambrosio is being prosecuted is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 14. The law as currently written was enacted in 2002, largely in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The portion of the law applicable to this case is subsection (c) which states that anyone who communicates a threat that causes serious public alarm is guilty of a felony. The punishment for a conviction of this offense is a minimum three year in state prison or a minimum six months in the county house of correction. If the case is prosecuted in the Superior Court there can be a maximum twenty year sentence imposed. Although this law is over ten years old there is only one case in Massachusetts interpreting this law and that case, Commonwealth v. Kern, 449 Mass. 641 (2007) focuses on a limited aspect of the statute. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer one issue that may effect the direction of this case is the definition of the phrase "causing alarm" inherent in the statute. I find it somewhat amazing that with all the social media available to everybody today there is very little appellate litigation involving this statute.

What interests me most about this case is the blog comments posted beside the article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune. Some suggest a First Amendment defense to this case. That is always an interesting defense to criminal cases. Rarely do lawyers use this type of defense. There are cases however and this might just be one of them where the right to free speech might be used successfully before a jury.

So when if fact does Massachusetts require the informant's identity to be disclosed? Like most jurisdictions, Massachusetts recognizes the government's privilege not to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. The Massachusetts Courts endeavor to protect the safety of the informant by maintaining anonymity. The courts also acknowledge that the privilege helps the police in investigating criminal activity. The privilege however is not absolute. The standard for requiring disclosure in one of materiality particularly at the trial stage of the proceedings. Disclosure is often required where it bears on the issue of guilt or innocence. If the confidential informant participated in the crime charged disclosure will be ordered. Also, if the informant was a percipient witness to the crime alleged and is the only civilian witness disclosure will be ordered. In essence, a balancing test is done by the judge to see whether applying the privilege would result in an unfair trial for the defendant.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can certainly see why the defense would want this person's identity disclosed. Weeks and several other government witnesses in this case cut deals that resulted in reduced jail sentences in exchange for their testimony. Naturally, attacking their credibility is a major consideration to the defense. The lottery matter is not irrelevant in the context of this case. The crimes charged go back more than three decade. They include money laundering, which is precisely what the confidential informant said the lottery winnings were about.

Read Article:

Somerville, Massachusetts Drug Defense Law Firm

Drug Distribution Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 35 makes the following acts a crime: 1) knowingly Being Present where Heroin is Kept or Knowingly Being in the Company of Someone who is in Possession of Heroin. This crime is a misdemeanor and it carries a maximum one year jail sentence. While this crime is often prosecuted in Massachusetts district attorneys often agree to dismiss the charge upon payment of court costs if the accused has no criminal record, and in particular no prior drug offenses.

Distribution of Heroin on the other hand is a felony in Massachusetts. The law prohibiting the behavior is M.G.L. c. 94C Section 32. There is a potential ten year prison sentence associated with this crime. However, these cases are usually prosecuted in the district court where a judge can sentence to no more than two and one half years. If the accused has a conviction for a similar offense then he or she can be charged under subparagraph (b) of this law which has a mandatory three and one half year state prison sentence for anyone convicted. Often however, an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer can get the district attorney to agree to reduce the charges to something not requiring jail time.

So what are the possible defenses for the accused in this case? That depends on what the police claim to have seen. First, there may be a viable Motion to Suppress if the police conducted the stop, Search and Seizure in violation of the defendants' constitutional rights. What did they in fact see that in their mind permitted them to search the car? After the stop, what evidence exists to show that any of the occupants went to Somerville to distribute drugs? The article seems to indicate that the three defendants drove to Somerville to buy drugs, not to sell them. What evidence do the police have to prove that Kanode and Stefano knew that Peloquin had Heroin in her bra? This article suggests that there are countless defenses available to these three that might result a positive resolution to this case.

The alleged details of the crime are quite graphic. During the period of the investigation, these two defendants and another engaged in electronic communications planning the kidnapping, torture and murder of women. This third individual used the internet in an attempt to solicit people to kill, kidnap and rape his wife and others. This third individual ultimately led law enforcement to Meltz and Asch. Following up on this information, in an undercover capacity the feds met with Asch. On one occasion Asch produced a bag full of devices intended for use in torturing and drugging his ultimate targets. These meetings along with telephone intercepts detailed plans to kill a particular target who was in fact another undercover agent. The defendant's plan further included methods of disposing with the victim's body and ways to avoid detection.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Federal Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Kidnapping Defense Attorney in the Boston Area

The crime of Kidnapping is typically prosecuted by the state in which the crime is committed. Occasionally this crime is prosecuted in the Federal Courts primarily in those instances where the actual offense is the Conspiracy to Kidnap. One of the statutes proscribing this activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 956 authorizes a possible life sentence after a conviction. The Massachusetts Kidnapping law provides a maximum ten year prison sentence for anyone convicted of that offense. There are aggravated forms of the crime that permit a tougher sentence. For example, if a Firearm is used during the act the accused faces a ten year mandatory sentence. If serious bodily injury is inflicted during the commission of the crime the accused faces a twenty five year mandatory minimum sentence. The Massachusetts District Courts also have jurisdiction over kidnapping charges. If the case is prosecuted in that court there is a maximum two year house of correction sentence that can be imposed.

So how are Meltz and Asch going to defend against these allegations? A lot depends on the defendant's ability to recall the conversations they had with undercover law enforcement that were not recorded. This, along with the motive of the co-conspirator who initially led the feds to Meltz and Asch will be critical to the defense.

Read Article:

Newburyport, Massachusetts Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Violent Crimes Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

There is a process for the issuance of criminal complaints in Massachusetts that involve misdemeanors where the accused is not under arrest. The law establishing the procedure is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 218 Section 35A. That law states that the accused shall be given the opportunity to be heard and to oppose the issuance of the complaint. The exception is where there is an imminent threat of bodily injury, flight or the commission of another crime. The Clerk Magistrate conducting the hearing weighs the evidence and makes the determination as to whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed and that the accused is the person who committed the crime. Probable cause is the lowest standard in the criminal legal system in Massachusetts.

These proceedings, commonly known as Clerk's Hearings, are limited in scope and for a complaint to issue either the victim or a police officer simply needs to lay out the allegations. There is no right to cross-examine witnesses at these hearings. Once a criminal application is filed by a civilian in Massachusetts a Clerk Magistrate must act on it. The finding of probable cause does not mean however that the Clerk Magistrate must issue the complaint. The clerk can refuse to issue a complaint. The clerk can hold the issuance of the complaint and afford the parties the opportunity to resolve the case without criminal court action. The clerk can continue the matter for a period of time with the understanding that a complaint will not issue provided the accused stays out of trouble or makes restitution. The function of the Clerk Magistrate in these matters is not only to make probable cause determinations but to screen out nuisance or petty cases to help keep the criminal courts running smoothly. Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that the Clerk Magistrate Hearing is a wonderful opportunity to resolve a case without judicial intervention. This is where jobs, reputations and a person's liberty can be saved without excessive cost, litigation or embarrassment. Good, experienced clerks know the value of a case and will always work hard to promote justice at its earliest stage. As a matter of fact, a significant number of clerk magistrates in Massachusetts are in fact lawyers and have practiced for years before their appointment.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Law Firm

Worcester County Sex Crimes Lawyer, Rape, Child Abuse

Distribution of Child Pornography or Possession With the Intent to Distribute Child Pornography in Massachusetts is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29B(b). A conviction of this crime is a felony punishable by a minimum mandatory ten year prison sentence and as much as twenty years in jail.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I have represented several people charged with Distribution of Child Pornography. Not one of these people actively disseminated the illicit material. Upon their arrest, all of these people were stunned to find out that they were facing lengthy mandatory prison sentences. They were also shocked to learn that their actions satisfied the element of distribution. After all, the only thing they did was download and view the material. They never actively distributed what these images and videos. How then could they be charged with distribution? Perhaps the case of United States v. Richardson best outlines the dangers of file sharing and the rationale for why peer to peer file sharing constitutes the act of distribution.

In Richardson law enforcement entered a p2p network in an undercover capacity. They found Child Pornography in one of the user's accounts. The police downloaded the illicit material from this person's account. The user was identified as the defendant and a Search Warrant was executed at his home. The search confirmed p2p activity. Richardson was convicted after a jury waived trial. Affirming the conviction the court reasoned that the structure of the p2p programs encourages file sharing. Users get a rating based on their contribution to the network. A higher rating facilitates downloading additional materials. Richardson argued that distributing equates with delivering. He claimed that he never actually transferred the Child Pornography to anyone. Rather, he only permitted entry into his computer. The court rejected this argument and held "that downloading images and videos containing child pornography from a peer-to-peer computer network and storing them in a shared folder accessible to other users on the network amounts to distribution." This seems to be the consensus throughout the country.

Massachusetts Sex Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Child Sex Trafficking Cases in Massachusetts

The defendants in this case were probably charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1591; Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud or Coercion. The statute states that anyone who transports someone, or receives a financial benefit from, or threatens or forces the person who is under the age of eighteen to engage in sex is guilty of this crime. The crime is a felony. If the victim is over the age of fourteen and under the age of eighteen the accused must serve a sentence of at least fifteen years in prison.

Laws like this one have been implemented by states throughout the country. In 2011, Massachusetts enacted a similar act. In essence, the Massachusetts legislation created a crime for Human Trafficking for Sexual Servitude. The law prohibits transporting, enticing or harboring another with purpose that that person engage in sexually explicit acts. A conviction for this offense in Massachusetts mandates five years in jail. There is a maximum twenty year sentence that can be imposed and fines of up to twenty five thousand dollars. Human Trafficking for Sexual Servitude that involves someone under the age of eighteen permits a judge to impose a life sentence after a conviction. The law proscribing this activity is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 50. All states now have enacted some sort of Human Trafficking law that is modeled in large part after the federal law under which Minasian and Say are being prosecuted.

Successful defenses to these cases are difficult to establish. Even if the victim lies about his or her age the accused cannot use that as a defense. In cases where the internet was used to advertise services, the victim's image will serve as corroborative evidence for the prosecution, even if the victim chooses not to testify.

In Commonwealth v. Pacheco, a state trooper was on patrol at night in a park in Lynn, Massachusetts. A sign in the park indicated that the park closed at dusk. The officer saw a car parked in a handicapped spot. When he approached he detected an odor of burnt Marijuana coming from the car. Several occupants of car admitted to smoking Marijuana and one stated that a small amount was left. Everyone in the car was ordered out. They were searched for weapons. A bag of Marijuana containing less than one ounce was found on the floor mat in the rear of the vehicle. The officer then searched the trunk of the car. He found a backpack which he opened. Inside he found a gun. The defendant admitted that the gun was his.

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Search and Seizure was unlawful. In doing so it cited two other cases also decided today. In one case, Commonwealth v. Daniel, the Court stated that smelling freshly burnt marijuana coupled with Possession of less than one ounce of the drug by itself does not provide probable cause to believe that an amount of marijuana consistent with criminal activity is in the car. Daniel is an expansion of the Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Cruz holding that the smell of burnt marijuana alone does not give rise to probable cause to search a car. Additionally, the Court ruled today in Commonwealth v. Jackson that "social sharing of marijuana" does not satisfy the element of Distribution of Marijuana.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I imagine that these cases will result in the dismissal of many pending Massachusetts Drug Cases. Since G.L. 94C Section 32L was passed many lawyers warned their clients that sharing a joint with a friend might be considered a crime and that being caught engaging in that conduct would, at a minimum result in an arrest. The open and public use of marijuana has become significantly noticeable since the passage of this act. It is not uncommon to smell burnt marijuana or to see people smoking marijuana in Boston during work hours.

Read Article:

Brockton, Massachusetts Drug Defense Law Firm

Possession With Intent to Distribute Drug Lawyer in Massachusetts

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, based on this article it is clear to me that the charges against Costa are excessive and likely not provable. In order to convict someone for Possession With the Intent to Distribute Drugs in Massachusetts, the district attorney must show that the accused, in this case Costa, intended more than to just use the drugs. The only apparent evidence supporting that is the presence of baggies, packaging materials. Keep in mind that baggies are a household item and absent additional evidence of intended distribution it can be argued that the drugs that were being used by Costa came from those baggies. The syringe in this case was full. This is an indication that someone was about to use the heroin, not sell it.

Here is something else to consider. What is the evidence that Costa rather than someone else intended to use the Heroin? Rossier and several other people were present when the police raided the home. It is highly unlikely that the syringe or other drug ingestion materials will be fingerprinted. How then can the district attorney convince a jury that the drugs were Costa's and not somebody else's. They probably cannot make this argument successfully unless Costa made some incriminating statements or someone wants to testify against her. Hopefully she was smart enough not to make any statements to the police and contacted a lawyer right away. Certainly the people at the apartment are not in a position to testify as they have criminal exposure for Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept. Each of these people should have a lawyer to avoid being prosecuted along with Costa.

According to reports, police officers responded to the crash scene where they observed two vehicles overturned. The victim died at the accident scene. Allen was brought to the hospital and treated for some minor injuries. Her passenger was med-flighted to a Boston hospital with serious injuries. Reports state that while driving Allen dropped a cigarette. When she went to pick it up she lost control of the wheel. Her passenger tried to steer the vehicle into the correct lane and as the two struggled for control of the wheel the pickup truck hit the victim's car. Allen supposedly told the police that not long before the accident she injected herself with Heroin. She also admitted to drinking heavily. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Wareham District Court.

Read Article:

Wareham, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Motor Vehicle Homicide Cases in Plymouth County

Motor Vehicle Homicide in Massachusetts is a felony proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24G. The law states that anyone operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs who causes death to another can be punished by up to fifteen years in state prison. A conviction for this offense mandates a one year jail sentence. There is also a fifteen year loss of license for anyone convicted of this offense. Interestingly enough, the district attorney could have charged Allen with manslaughter based on the same conduct. A conviction for manslaughter would carry a possible twenty year state prison sentence. Massachusetts courts have stated that the Motor Vehicle Homicide statute was designed to find a middle ground between manslaughter and Operating to Endanger.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can see where Allen's case might be difficult to defend successfully. There are several hurdles she has to overcome, which in the circumstances of this case will be tough to jump. Allen will have to show that the accident was not her fault. The district attorney will likely have an accident reconstructionist engaged. If they determine Allen was at fault then she will have to overcome the factor of impairment. This involves first challenging the admissibility of her admissions to the police, then trying to exclude as evidence the breathalyzer or blood test. Allen's passenger's recollection of the events might help with her defense depending on the testimony that person can provide and his or her credibility. Allen has a tough fight ahead of her.

Read Article:

Braintree, Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Lawyer Who Defend Indecent Assault and Battery Cases in Massachusetts

In order for the district attorney to prove someone guilty of Indecent Assault and Battery in Massachusetts he must six elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The first element involves the victim's age. Massachusetts charges this crime in accordance with the victim's age. The threshold age is fourteen so depending on the crime alleged; i.e. Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person Under the Age of 14 or Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person Over the age of 14 this element must be established. The second element is that the accused committed an Assault and Battery. The third element involves the indecent aspect of the case. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant used force to commit the indecent touching which involves the following: if victim is male, the genital area, buttocks or pubic area. If the victim is female, the breasts, thighs, pubic area, genitals or buttocks. The term indecent is evaluated in the context of the case. It is fact specific. Fourth, the prosecutor must show intent on the part of the defendant. Fifth, the touching must be offensive or harmful and last, there can be no justification or excuse for the act.

For a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer the third element is fertile ground for absolving a client. Many of the cases involving these charges focus their defense on the actual nature of the act, not the fact that a touching occurred. People are touched in many ways every day. Some people are more affectionate than others. They are comfortable making physical contact with others or "touching" them. While the alleged victim might perceive the touching to be offensive the defendant may not have intended it that way. This is one factor that helps determine whether or not to go to trial on a case like this. In this case, much of the defense will hinge on what Carmichael told the police on Saturday. Hopefully he said nothing, or very little. As I have written and told my clients on countless occasions, keep your mouth shut. You cannot talk your way out of being charged criminally. You can only make matters worse for yourself.