Read Article:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child_rape_charge_rocks_tsa_logan_employee_pats_down_air_travelers_at_scan_stations/srvc=home&position=2

Statutory Rape Defense Attorneys in Massachusetts

The crime of Rape of a Child in Massachusetts is defined by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23. The law requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three things. First, that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim; second, that the victim was under the age of sixteen at the time of the crime and third that the sexual intercourse was unlawful. This third element requires the prosecutor to prove that the sexual intercourse occurred outside of a marital relationship. Given the charges in this case and the facts set out in the article it appears that the act was consensual. Shanahan supposedly asked his daughter how she would feel about him dating a girl her age. After confronting the victim after leaving Shanahan's room the daughter was told by her friend that she would have to deal with things.

The prosecution will try to prove its case by putting the victim, the defendant's daughter and his wife on the stand. It is unclear how much physical evidence exists in this case, if any however the testimony of the victim alone is often sufficient to secure a conviction. The daughter's testimony will be corroborative of the victim's and extremely damaging. The same holds for the wife's testimony assuming she does not invoke the marital privilege and withhold her testimony.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_068001139.html

Massachusetts Gun Case Defense Lawyer

The charge of Carrying a Firearm carries with it a mandatory minimum eighteen month house of correction sentence. However, the statute prohibiting that activity, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10(a) exempts such conduct where the activity occurs at home or at work. Here, the article states that Santos was at home at the time of the incident. I am also curious as to why the gun would be tested for fingerprints. The article states that the officer saw Santos place the gun underneath the seat cushion. Why then would it be necessary to have it printed or tested for DNA evidence. It is also suspect that Santos would offer entry to the officer. There was no search warrant. There was no probable cause to arrest. The officer had no legal right to enter the property. Why then would Santos open the door and let him in? This case is full of issues that bode well for the defense.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/man_arrested_in_12.html

Assault With Intent to Murder in Massachusetts

Witnesses have described the incident as a fight. Self-defense is commonly employed to counter allegations that a defendant was the aggressor in a fight. When a defendant utilizes a self-defense argument the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Defendants have the right to use self-defense when they reasonably believe that they are being attacked or immediately about to be attacked and that their physical safety is at immediate risk. They can use no more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances of the case to defend themselves. The defendant must also try to avoid combat before resorting to force. Depending on how the fight evolved Perez might be able to defend his case on this theory.

Read Article:

http://www.abc6.com/news/86389667.html

Identity Fraud and Identity Theft in Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 37E prohibits Identity Fraud and Identity Theft in Massachusetts. The law states that anyone who uses someone else's personal identifying information for the purpose of making a financial gain shall be punished by up to two and one half years in the house of correction. This is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. These crimes are becoming more prevalent in Massachusetts each day. It would not surprise me to see the potential punishment increased by the legislature in the near future, particularly in light of cases such as this one where someone is injured and without financial recourse due to the fraud.

Read Article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_14503995

Lowell Prostitution, Sex For a Fee Lawyer

Provided Zhang has no criminal record it is likely that she will get out of this mess without a criminal record. First offense prostitution cases are either dismissed or continued without a finding. Hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer in this area can help to secure such a result. The crime is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum one year jail sentence and no minimum sentence. The act does not have to occur for the prosecution to get a conviction. Zhang was released on her own recognizance suggesting that she has either no criminal record or a very insignificant history.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x699611902/Couple-charged-with-selling-drugs-in-South-Shore-Plaza-garage

Hand to Hand Sales of Drugs in Massachusetts

Drug sales to undercover police officers are rarely a cut and dry completely indefensible matter. Usually the officers get to the suspects through informants who provide information about the person's drug activities. Many times the information is inaccurate. Informants often get paid for their services. They might get cash. They might get some consideration for a pending case of their own. Their pending case might even get dismissed. Police who use informants are obligated to prove that the informant was reliable, the the information he provided was truthful and at times must be sufficiently corroborated. If these standards cannot be met then the undercover "controlled" purchase might be suppressed. I have no doubt that Search and Seizure issues will come into play in this case.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x49438535/Two-arrested-on-drug-charges-in-Framingham

Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyers, Possession With Intent, Cocaine, Framingham

From this article I can assume a couple of things. One, the quantity of cocaine is less than fourteen grams. Had the police located and seized fourteen or more grams the charge would have been Trafficking rather than Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine. Two, the apartment lies within one thousand feet of a school zone. There are often successful defenses to cases such as this. If the search warrant was not properly issued the defendants can mount a constitutional challenge to the search. If a judge agrees that their rights were violated the remedy is usually suppression of the illegally seized substances. The result will be a dismissal of the case. Sufficiency of the evidence is also a defense in many cases like this one. The district attorney must prove that both defendants not only knew that the drugs were in the home but that both shared the intent to distribute the substances. Absent corroborating statements from the defendants this can be a difficult burden to sustain as to both defendants.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_055003908.html

Lawrence Massachusetts Gun Cases

Carrying a Firearm in Massachusetts is a felony in Massachusetts proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10. A conviction of this offense carries a mandatory minimum eighteen months in the house of correction. Discharging a Firearm Within 500 Feet of a Building carries no minimum mandatory sentence. To prove the carrying charge the district attorney must show that Chea had possession of the gun. This begs the question: Did he put the gun in the car? If he did and he was not licensed to carry the firearm he faces the mandatory minimum sentence. The article states that the police did not actually see him place the weapon in the car. Rather, his actions suggested that he was secreting the weapon in the car to avoid detection. This makes no sense. When the police arrived they saw two men walking in opposite directions seemingly trying to avoid the police. One of them, supposedly Chea, opened the car and put the gun in the car under the seat. This takes time and seems unlikely for someone who is trying to escape from a crime scene. A more natural reaction would be to run and throw the gun somewhere. Whose car was this? People in that neighborhood do not usually keep their cars unlocked. If it was Chea's car why would he walk towards it and put the gun inside knowing the police were after him. As to the second charge, there is no indication that anyone actually saw him shoot the gun. This might be a defensible case.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/man_arrested_af_5.html

Massachusetts Carjacking Lawyers

The law on Carjacking in Massachusetts is set out in M.G.L. ch. 265 Secton 21A. It states that anyone who steals or tries to steal a motor vehicle by putting a person in fear or by assaulting the person is guilty of Carjacking, a felony. If the crime is committed with a firearm there is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence that must be served. Given his criminal history and the nature of this offense it is likely that the district attorney will be looking for Fitzpatrick to serve some serious state prison time. A possible defense or certainly a mitigating factor is the quantity of alcohol that the defendant had ingested at or near the time of the crime.

Read Article: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_14447660

Lowell Criminal Defense Lawyer Robbery Cases

Armed Robbery is a felony that carries with it a possible life sentence. Many times robbery cases are reduced to Larceny so that the case can be prosecuted in the district court. This occurs when the district attorney believes that there can be a fair resolution of the case can be reached without having to send the defendant to state prison. The gravity of the defendant's actions, the impact to the victim and mental health concerns are some factors that can prompt the prosecutor to reduce the charges. Here, the gun was not real, the victim was not physically injured and the defendants' irrational actions (i.e. robbing someone in front of his own home) suggest the possibility that this case might not be indicted.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed this rule in Commonwealth v. Cohen. Both the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court have suggested that there may be situtations where closure is necessary. In those instances however the trial court must find that the party looking to close the courtroom have an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be limited to that need and no more, the trial judge must consider reasonable alternatives and the trial court must make findings supporting the decision to close the courtroom.

Click here to read Presley v. Georgia.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/16/boston_firefighter_charged_in_braintree_road_rage_incident/

Quincy, Massachusetts OUI, Assault and Battery Lawyers

Cases like this are difficult for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers to defend successfully at trial. The district attorney would use Souza's behavior as his or her best evidence of the OUI charge. They would argue that alcohol either triggered his violent behavior or prevented him from maintaining his composure. Trying to evade the police and being aggressive upon apprehension are also factors that would support their position. Given Souza's rank it is unlikely that he has a criminal record. I would imagine that his lawyer will be successful in getting these charges continued without a finding. A consequence will probably include the 24D program and perhaps anger management counseling. I am willing to bet that this case does not go to trial.

Read Article: http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x814065553/Two-charged-with-robbing-Brockton-man-in-Quincy

Quincy, Massachusetts Armed Robbery Cases

Cases like this one are often defended successfully by Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts. There appears to be much more to this case than has been reported by the purported victim. If the Echevarrias had robbed this man and believed they were going to be apprehended they would do much more than get rid of the gun. They would have gotten rid of the money as well. There is no evidence other than the word of the victim that a crime occurred. Perhaps he regretted the deal he got himself into and this is how he intends to get his money back. This is a great case to defend and it would not surprise me to see the defendants get acquitted. This does not look like a true Massachusetts Armed Robbery Case.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Man Who Exposes Himself Several Times Charged In Hingham

Open and Gross Lewdness in Massachusetts

Open and Gross Lewdness in Massachusetts is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16. The law states that "[a] man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars." This is a felony and a conviction could result in consequences before the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). In order to convict someone for Open and Gross Lewdness the district attorney must prove that the accused intentionally exposed genitals, breasts, or buttocks, that he or she did so openly or with reckless disregard of public exposure in a manner so "as to produce alarm or shock"; and the action actually shocked one or more persons. Flashing in the manner described in this article can at times satisfy the elements of this offense.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Woman Facing Arson Charges In Essex County

Arson in Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 1 states that anyone who "wilfully and maliciously" sets fire to a home is guilty of Arson. The crime is a felony. It is punishable by up to twenty years on state prison and a fine of up to ten thousand dollars. This article suggests that Richburg's friend provided law enforcement with the information needed to secure an indictment. The article also suggests that Richburg had some form of motive for committing the crime, something that works to her detriment if this case goes to trial. The fact that this case indicted to the Superior Court rather than prosecuted in the district court gives a strong indication that the prosecution is looking for some sort of jail time for this defendant. This case seems like the type of case that a Massachusetts Arson Defense Lawyer might look to plea bargain. Where there is no minimum mandatory sentence the judge will have great discretion in imposing a sentence.