Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x23930857/Framingham-man-pleads-not-guilty-to-gun-charges

Based on this article the strength of the district attorney's case will rest on a few pieces of evidence. The eyewitness testimony will be critical. Can this person or people identify Taylor as the person who held the gun. What forensic evidence links Taylor to the gun. Is there DNA or fingerprint evidence on the weapon. What did the other individual who was spotted with Taylor see or what information does he have relative to the crime. Taylor's Massachusetts Firearms Possession Defense Lawyer will be looking for these answers and anything else that will cast doubt on the prosecution's case. There appears to be much material from which Taylor can mount a defense.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1037670271/Man-accused-of-assault-after-he-loses-card-game

According to the article Konstadt intends to bring a complaint against one of the others himself. This is known as taking a cross-complaint. It is a way to try to get the other party to assert his or her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to testify against the person initially charged. Sometimes this works and the case gets dismissed. However, in this case that might not be so easy. At least two other people were involved in the card game and saw the scuffle. The district attorney will call them to testify and they probably do not have a privilege. Now, if Konstadt has no criminal record this case might get continued without a finding. The interesting question is who will get the money.

The victim and the defendant married in 1994. He was sixty. She was forty nine. They lived in West Springfield and Florida during the winter months. The couple had some marital problems centering on finances. In 2004 these problems escalated. There were discussions about divorce and it became evident that that would materialize. On July 28, 2004 the defendant called her son and told him that there was a problem. He arrived at the home and immediately called the police. The police arrived to find the defendant upset and complaining that the victim had hit her. The victim, her husband was found in the dining room dead. He had been stabbed thirty four times in the chest, neck, head and back. It was suggested to responding officers that the defendant had ingested twenty five Klonopins and that she was suicidal. The defendant's home was Searched. Officers found blood in the master bedroom, on the sheets, bed and pillows. The case was defended on a theory of lack of criminal responsibility. The Commonwealth rebutted with its own expert.

On appeal the defendant argued prejudice due to certain pre-trial discovery orders. A lower court judge ordered the defendant surrender its expert's reports, correspondence relating to the defendant, tests and evaluations and the materials supporting their results to the Commonwealth's expert. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that these discovery orders were violative of the defendants' constitutional rights and granted a new trial. All the a court can order in these situations is that the defendant submit to a court ordered psychiatric examination, not the production of materials protected by the work product privilege, attorney-client privilege or protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.

Read Case:

Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, July 19, 2010

This case shows the importance of fighting reciprocal discovery orders. Since Commonwealth v. Durham was decided in 2006 prosecutors have pressed judges to order the defense to provide them with any conceivable piece of evidence that might be offered at trial. The Durham case was decided narrowly, 4-3. Thus, challenges to discovery orders, as done here, may create viable appellate issues and the exceptions to Durham will grow. Defense and appellate counsel did a great job in this case.

Read Article:

http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/copsandcourts/x999356885/Grand-jury-indicts-two-men-charged-with-trafficking-cocaine

Middlesex County Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

As I have mentioned in several previous blog posts it is likely that the defense in this case will center on the legality of the Search and Seizure. Based on the facts in this article this one seems tough. Our Courts have held that "[i]f policemen are to serve any purpose of detecting and preventing crime by being out on the streets at all, they must be able to take a closer look at challenging situations as they encounter them...Like many other courts, we have held that HN3the use of a flashlight to look into the interior of a car in such situations does not amount to a search at all." Here, once the flashlight illuminated the car the officer decided to question the occupants. Their responses prompted more concern and ultimately the search of the vehicle.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1884755467/Man-charged-with-exposing-self-in-Danvers

Beverly, Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony in Massachusetts. The crime is set out in G.L. ch. 272 Section 16. The law states that anyone guilty of this crime faces up to three years in state prison. Massachusetts case law suggests that Open and Gross Lewdness and lascivious behavior," is closely similar to common-law offense of indecent exposure. To satisfy the statute the conduct one engages in must produce shock or alarm. Masturbating in public constitutes a violation of the statute as does engaging in a sexual act in public. For Freddura the act the police reported likely fits within the definition of the crime. However, if the defendant has no criminal record a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer should be able to get this case continued without a finding.

The defendant was in a bar coming on to the victim. By her account the victim rejected his advances. She was drunk and had an unusually strong reaction to the alcohol. Her testimony suggested that perhaps she had been drugged although there was no evidence of that being the case. She woke up in the back of the defendant's girlfriends' car. She objected to the defendant and his girlfriend taking her to either of their homes. She next remembered waking up naked and covered in her vomit. She believed that she had been raped. She was bruised. She then saw the defendant's girlfriend who brought her into the bathroom. She observed a sink full of sexual aids. She showered. The prosecution called the bartender of the bar where the victim was that evening. He testified that that night she was flirtatious, that being her normal behavior. He testified that she made advances towards him and others in the past. She would always ask him to go in the back room with her. She offered him sexual favors. The prosecutor then realized that that evidence should have been excluded. The prosecutor then requested that the defense not mention the evidence further in the trial. Relying on the Rape Shield Statute the judge agreed and the defense was prohibited from mentioning the evidence further.

The Appeals Court agreed with the trial judge finding that in these circumstances the judge may intervene. Even if the judge failed to intervene the order crafted in this case, i.e. the preclusion of further discussion about this testimony was proper.

Read Case:

Commonwealth v. Mendez.pdf

Here is the problem with this decision. The evidence came in without objection. As a matter of fact, to some extent the questions of the prosecutor elicited this information from the witness. The evidence was before the jury. It was never stricken. It follows that the attorneys should have been able to argue all relevant inferences that could be drawn from the evidence during summation. Perhaps the Supreme Judicial Court will accept further appellate review of this case and take another view.

Read Article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_15503960?source=rss_viewed

Lowell, Massachusetts Stabbing Defense Lawyer

The crime of Assault With Intent to Murder in Massachusetts is identified by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18. The law states that anyone armed with a dangerous weapon who assaults another with the intent to murder that person faces a state prison sentence of up to twenty years if convicted. I have written before that these cases are difficult to prove in that the prosecution must show the person's intent at the time the act was committed. The element of intent in crimes of passion often becomes the major point of contention and juries rarely convict people accused of committing this crime. They are much more likely to convict on the Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon indictment that usually gets charged in connection with Assault With the Intent to Murder. I would imagine that Shields' sentence in this case will be impacted by the desires of the victim. With excellent representation she might be able to avoid prison time.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x104356070/Framingham-men-charged-with-cocaine-trafficking

Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney

Many cases are successfully won by Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Lawyers by filing Motions to Suppress and challenging the legality of a search. Police need probable cause to get a search warrant. The threshold for obtaining a warrant is high. The fact that a warrant was issued by a magistrate does not ensure that the search was lawful. Usually, when lawyers win motions to suppress the drugs that were seized by the police officers are excluded from evidence at trial. For all practical purposes this ends the prosecutions' case.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1907084331/Police-Man-hid-in-house-after-selling-drugs-to-officer

Lawrence, Massachusetts Cocaine Distribution Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32A states that anyone convicted of distributing cocaine after having been previously convicted of the same offense shall be punished by a minimum mandatory three year sentence. This is a felony in Massachusetts. The district court does not have jurisdiction over this crime so unless the district attorney agrees to reduce the charges Suarez is going to be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Hand to hand sales to undercover officers are very difficult to defend. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers who try cases like this one often employ an entrapment defense. This requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to committing this crime and that his will was not overborne by aggressive police officers.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1907082991/48-year-old-man-charged-with-possessing-child-porn

Salem, Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

Possession of Child Pornography and Dissemination of Child Pornography are both felonies in Massachusetts. The former is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29C. A conviction for that offense carries a maximum five year state prison sentence. The latter crime is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29B. A conviction for that crime carries a minimum ten year sentence and up to twenty years in state prison. Prosecutors in Massachusetts take the position that file sharing constitutes distribution even if the defendant downloaded the material only and never actually sent the material to someone else. This is a major point of litigation in these cases right now. Anyone charged with one of these crimes in Massachusetts should immediately hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who has defended Child Pornography cases. McConnell will likely have defenses to these charges and pursuing these defenses should start now.

Read Opinion: Commonwealth v. Rivas, 09-P-136, July 6, 2010.

Commonwealth v. Rivas

This result shows the value in hiring a good Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who has experience defending Cocaine Trafficking Cases. The trial lawyer made a timely objection to the admission of the certificates of analysis even before Melendez-Diaz was decided. This preserved the defendant's right to argue the issue on appeal. His excellent Massachusetts Criminal Appeals Lawyer was able to get him the appropriate relief.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x383291223/Secretary-indicted-in-200K-theft

Salem, Massachusetts Larceny By Single Scheme Defense Lawyer

Larceny by a Single Scheme in Massachusetts can be a felony or a misdemeanor. Where the amount stolen exceeds two hundred fifty dollars the crime is a felony. It is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Massachusetts law defines Larceny by Single Scheme as successive takings that are actuated by a single, continuing criminal impulse or intent or are pursuant to the execution of a general larcenous scheme, regardless of the extent of the time which may have elapsed between each taking. Usually the Massachusetts Attorney General's office thoroughly investigates these cases prior to indictment. The prosecution of these cases is supported by corroborative paperwork such as checks, ledgers, payment vouchers and various items associated with bookkeeping. Defending these cases usually involves substantial plea negotiations with the prosecution and at times a judge. Trial is always an option provided there is a viable defense to the allegations such as mistake or coercion. The defendant in this case should quickly engage a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to start preparing her defense.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x657349518/Man-arrested-after-alleged-pot-transaction

Salem, Massachusetts Marijuana Distribution Defense Lawyer

These cases often present difficult challenges for the prosecution. The sixteen year old boy (buyer) will probably be charged with Possession of Marijuana thereby making him unavailable as a witness to the prosecution. Even if he is not charged it is unlikely that he will testify against Done in that he has a privilege against self-incrimination. Most lawyers would tell him to say nothing and to invoke his privilege if called by the district attorney to testify. Done will challenge the legality of the stop, Search and Seizure. He will argue that the police officers' observations did not give them the right to stop him and search him. The strength of this challenge changes if the boy told the officers that Done sold him drugs. Still however Done may be able to prevail at trial. The accuracy of the officer's testimony can usually be challenged. It is difficult to see what if anything was passed between people unless the observer is right on top of the activity. Viewing someone passing an object from a distance does not mean that the observer can identify the object passed. During trials lawyers often hold up objects from a distance closer than what they reported at the time of arrest and ask the testifying officers to identify what they are holding. When they cannot identify the object it shows the jury that they probably were unable to see what the defendant passed to the buyer.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1703942868/Police-find-drugs-guns-and-gold-in-moms-motel-room

Salem, Massachusetts Firearms Violations Defense Lawyer

Often times people from other states carry or possess firearms in Massachusetts believing in good faith that they are not breaking the law. This most often occurs when the person has the legal right to own, possess or carry a firearm in his or her state and they are traveling to or through Massachusetts. The problem with this is that the Massachusetts gun laws apply to anyone Carrying a Firearm in Massachusetts. If not properly represented the defendant faces a mandatory minimum eighteen months in jail. In cases like this our office typically takes a couple of approaches to defending the accused. One is to fight the case. By this I mean file Motions to Suppress, Motions to Dismiss or even try the case to a judge or a jury. Another way is to try to get the prosecution to appreciate that the accused had no intention to violate the Massachusetts Gun Laws but rather was acting in accordance with what he or she believed was lawful conduct. Many times the district attorney will recognize the mistake and afford the defendant the opportunity to resolve the case in a way that will not require jail time or not even leave him or her with a criminal record.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x2071995372/Framingham-man-charged-with-having-boy-help-him-sell-crack

Framingham Cocaine Distribution Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32K states that anyone who induces a minor (someone under the age of eighteen) to distribute drugs shall be punished by a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence. The district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the person was under the age of eighteen, that the defendant agreed with the minor to assist with the distribution of the drug and that the minor dispensed the substance. It appears from this article that the district attorney will need the minor to testify to prove his or her case. Prosecutors try to avoid having young people testify whenever possible. If that is the situation here then perhaps that charge will be dismissed, particularly where Ford faces at least five years on the other charges.