Massachusetts criminal defense Attorney Blog
Aggressive Defense of All Criminal Matters
Published on:

According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune charges of Disorderly Person, Trespassing and Assault and Battery have been filed against a Westford, Massachusetts man. The defendant, Adonis Carrasco was reportedly in a Merrimack College dorm room without an invitation. Sometime after midnight Carrasco allegedly put his arm around one of the women and sat in another woman’s lap. Carrasco also supposedly touched one of the girls’ legs and made some unwanted sexual suggestions towards her. One of the girls told the defendant that she had a knife. He responded that he sometimes carried a knife as well. Other students intervened on behalf of the women and called the police. Carrasco was arrested and now faces Criminal Charges in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Assault and Battery Defense Lawyer

As a criminal defense lawyer I am always cynical when I read articles discussing arrests and pending criminal cases. I recognize that the truth is rarely what is initially read in court or disclosed in the newspapers. It is fairly uncommon for the accused to disclose their defenses at arraignment and this case is no exception to that rule.

So what do I ask when I read an article like this one? Well from one, how did Carrasco get into the dorm? From there how did he get into a room with these women? How long was he there for? Who else “witnessed” what was going on there? Did he go to the college alone or with friends? Once these questions and more like them are answered I get a pretty good sense of what happened. From there I know how to defend the case and often times, particularly in cases like this one if the defendant does not have a criminal record he will continue not to have one if he is properly represented.

Here is something else to think about. All dorms now have secure access meaning that in order to get in you need a code, key or someone to let you in. All dorms also now have video surveillance and security systems so determining how Carrasco got into the dorm can easily be determined. His lawyer simply has to get the judge to order the district attorney to have the footage preserved and produced or get a court order compelling the college to produce the material. I imagine that much will be learned from viewing this recording.

Continue reading →

Published on:

An Andover, Massachusetts police officer now has a November 22nd date for a Clerk’s Hearing in the Lowell District Court. The charges being considered at the hearing are Leaving the Scene of an Accident Causing Property Damage and Operating Under the Influence of Liquor, commonly referred to in Massachusetts as OUI.

It is alleged that on March 11th of this year Officer Evan Robitaille of the Andover Police Department got into an accident around 9:30 in the morning and then fled the scene. A Clerk’s Hearing was scheduled for last Friday but with the agreement of Robitaille’s lawyer and the district attorney the case was continued.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Clerk Magistrate Hearing Lawyer

In Massachusetts, people charged with misdemeanors not committed in the presence of police officers have the right to a Clerk’s Hearing. This is a civil proceeding conducted in front of a Clerk Magistrate. The moving party will introduce evidence at the hearing. The Massachusetts Rules of Evidence do not apply to these proceedings, so essentially, the moving party gets to tell his or her story. The accused has the right to present evidence in his or her behalf but is under no obligation to do so. The clerk magistrate then weighs the evidence and makes the determination as to whether 1) there exists probable cause to issue a criminal complaint and 2) whether there exists probable cause to determine whether the accused is the person who committed that crime. If the answer to both is “yes” then a complaint often issues.

The Clerk Magistrate does however have the power not to issue the complaint. He can continue the matter and advise the accused that if he remains out of trouble for a period of time no complaint will issue. The Clerk Magistrate can also work with the parities towards a resolution of the issues without the need for judicial intervention. In essence he acts as a “gatekeeper” to the court, weeding out the cases that can be resolved without the issuance of a criminal complaint.

It is advisable for anyone who has one of these hearings to engage a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. Good lawyers can prevent complaints from issuing and the cost of a lawyer at a Clerk’s Hearing is often less than that at a criminal proceeding.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Over the past twenty-six years I have represented thousands of people who have been charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanor Motor Vehicle Crimes, like OUI to major felonies such Murder, Rape and Distribution of Child Pornography. The source of my clients has varied. Family and friends have sent me business. Years ago, just like all other professionals I was listed in the phone book and just by luck someone would call me. For a short period of time I had paid listings in local yellow page books. When I was younger I was on various lists for state agencies that would appoint lawyers paid by the state, counties or the federal government. Lawyers in Massachusetts, particularly those who do not practice criminal defense law might refer a case to me. Lawyers from out of state with whom I had cases either in Massachusetts or their jurisdiction often sent me business. Finally, in 2003 I started marketing through the Internet. Yet no matter what the source of this business potential clients had an abundance of questions and many of these questions were asked by a majority of prospective clients. These people had certain expectations of their lawyers, some realistic, others not so realistic. I realized that the decision to hire me would at least in part stem from my responses to these questions. Rather than hustle the business I simply answered the questions as honestly as I could and let the person then make his or her decision of who to hire. Reflecting on this I think it is valuable to share a few of these questions and what I believe are proper responses so that anyone reading this post can make a more informed decision about what to look for when seeking a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.

1. If I pay you more money will I be more likely to get a better result?

The answer is absolutely not. Criminal Defense Attorneys in Massachusetts have different fee schedules. Most charge some sort of flat fee that varies depending on the lawyer and the crime. No matter what you are charged you should expect your lawyer to give your case his best effort and maximum attention. Steer clear of any lawyer telling you that paying more will get you a better result.

The proper response is that “my fee is my fee and no matter what I get paid I will give your case my best effort”.

2. Can you guarantee me that you can win my case?

Never. No lawyer can predict what a jury or a judge is going to do in a particular case. Experienced lawyers can tell you what usually happens in certain cases but they cannot predict or guarantee a result. Stay away from any lawyer who guarantees a win.

A proper answer to this question is that no one can make guarantees in this business but in situations similar to yours here is what typically happens.

3. Does knowing the district attorney or judge help?

There is no doubt that relationships in life can have value in certain instances. Any yes, some lawyers can get a better result in front of some judges than others or with some assistant district attorneys than others. But you shouldn’t be deceived by this. The judges in Massachusetts are often rotated from court to court or from session to session within a particular court. The same is true for assistant district attorneys. There is no guarantee that that judge or district attorney will be at all involved in your case. Moreover, ethically, the trend has been for judges to recuse themselves from cases where they feel too attached or “friendly” with one of the lawyers. Assistant district attorneys often need to adhere to certain office policies that prohibit them from treating friends with more favor. Moreover, any lawyer who tells you that he is “friends with the judge” or “friends with the district attorney” should not be trusted. Think about it. What kind of person would risk jeopardizing a relationship for a client? Obviously this is not someone who you can trust.

It is not improper for the lawyer to let you know his or her experience in certain courts or to give you opinions about the judge’s proclivities relative to cases like yours. The same applies for the assistant district attorney.

Continue reading →

Published on:

I was browsing the web earlier today and saw a CBS News article about the “thrill kill” that happened last week. The article mentioned that one of the accused tweeted about killing someone, three days before he supposedly committed this crime. He tweeted under a handle @Jamesakabug. This particular defendant also tweeted about being a thug and about Firearms. Even though the tweets were not addressed towards any individual victim you can be sure the district attorney will fight to have them admitted as evidence. In Massachusetts there is no doubt in my mind that most judges would permit the prosecution to introduce this as evidence. Massachusetts Appellate Courts have ruled that in cases involving Firearms, a person’s statement about guns, can in many contexts be admissible to show that this person had familiarity with Firearms. While the statement will likely be admitted with a limiting instruction the damage is still done.

This is not an isolated case in which a criminal defendant published something on social media. On August 9th of this year the Bradenton Herald published an article about a Miami man who posted details about killing his wife on Facebook. Just two days ago police in Long Island were able to charge a man for Statutory Rape after seizing Facebook posts between the twenty five year old man and his thirteen year old girlfriend. Some Ohio high school football players got themselves in some hot water after posting a video and pictures of a girl who, while passed out had been the victim of a Sexual Assault and possibly a Rape on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. A man from Hawaii had a drinking and driving posted showing him having a beer while driving and talking to a camera for five minutes.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I see more and more evidence being used against my clients that stemmed from their ill-advised posts. There is however much more to this rising trend. I have some clients who have been framed by social media posts. How does this happen? Well in this case the damaging posts were created with my client’s cell phone. Most people now carry smart phones, especially young people. They all have Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google+ apps. They leave these apps in a “signed in” mode. Anyone who accesses one of these phones can go right to the app and post as if it were the person who owned the social media page making the comment. In several of these cases witnesses were located and provided the defense with evidence of sabotaging the social media pages. Here is how else social media confessions can help the defense. There are people other than the accused who take credit for the commission of the crime. Their admission is admissible evidence at trial and if there exists some corroboration of the statement a jury might believe that confession credible evidence favoring the defense. Also, witnesses sometimes boast about their value to one side or another through social media outlets. The bottom line is this; social media now plays a significant role in Massachusetts Criminal Defense strategy, a role that should be embraced by the defense.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Any Criminal Lawyer in Massachusetts will tell you that you don’t want your case to be prosecuted in the Federal Court. There is a litany of reasons why. Federal prosecutors have a limited ability to negotiate pleas. They have numerous channels they must go through to get approval to “amicably” resolve cases. In some cases they need authority from Washington, D.C. The laws in many state are often more pro-defendant in state courts than they are in the federal courts. In Massachusetts for example Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides greater protections than its counterpart, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Article 12 is viewed more favorably by the defense than the Fifth Amendment. More time is permitted in state court for trial preparation than in federal court. And, for the most part, sentencing schemes in the federal court system are much more rigid and severe than in state courts. Judges in federal courts lack the discretion vested in state court judges to impose sentences that they deem fair and the result is often a huge sentence drastically disproportionate to the crime charged. Here is a look at that sentiment in the context of a Federal Child Pornography Distribution Case.

Lets assume that the client, John Doe is caught in Possession of Child Pornography using peer to peer file sharing. Lets further assume that John has no criminal record. John will be charged with Distribution of Child Pornography. In federal court that charge carries a minimum mandatory five-year sentence. Now in Massachusetts the same crime carries a ten-year minimum mandatory sentence but the prosecutors have discretion to reduce that to a possession charge, which they often do. I have never seen a district attorney ask for the ten-year sentence for a first time offender with no criminal record. Rarely will state prosecutors even ask for a five-year sentence on the possession whereas the federal prosecutors will not go below the five-year minimum mandatory. So, difference number one is the ability to negotiate a better result for your client and to get below the dreaded minimum mandatory required by federal law. Difference number two involves the federal sentencing guidelines. Still using John Doe and these facts as our example, lets look at factors that will likely result in John getting much more than five years if prosecuted in federal court. John’s base offense level is a 22. Assuming a criminal history category I he is looking at a guideline range of 41-51 months. But this is just the beginning. If the minor(s) in the images are under the age of twelve or prepubescent than two levels are added giving a guideline range of 51-63 months. If a computer was used to view the material then add two more levels making the sentence 63-78 months. If there were at least ten images add another two levels making the sentence 78-97 months. This is just the beginning. If sadistic conduct is involved, add four more levels. If there are six hundred or more images add another three levels to these calculations. Keep in mind, most of these images are accessed in large volumes. Six hundred plus images is more the norm than the exception. So now what are we up to? A level 35 which requires a sentence of 168-210 months, or fourteen years to seventeen and one half years. So while John Doe actually may not actually get the 168-210 month sentence you can be sure that the prosecutor will be pushing a sentence much greater than that which a state district attorney would be looking for. This is why it is critical that when hiring a lawyer you make sure that your lawyer has experience in the system where the case is being prosecuted. There are things that can be done to convince judges to impose a just sentence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

It is now 2013. Just about every American has access of some sort to the Internet. Information flows freely and quickly. Whatever you want to know about is at the tip of your fingers. If you want sports news, just Google it. If you want to know how to fix your car you can Google it. If you need a recipe you can Google it. If you have an ailment you can Google it to try to find out what it is. And of course, if you want legal news just Google it. Even if you are not searching for information it appears on every page of the Internet through advertisements or pop up adds. You can’t escape the overload of information being thrown at you each day. And everyday more and more Criminal Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts and throughout the country are launching websites. And on every criminal law website, somewhere in bold print you will see a message telling you not to talk to the cops. Yet for some reason people choose to ignore this warning. They talk to the police and then get charged with a crime.

Here is what I am talking about. About two years ago a perspective client came into my office with a police report and grand jury minutes. He was charged with Rape. He denied the allegations. The police report said that Jane Doe, a pseudonym showed up at a local police station claiming that she had been raped by this man. It was about 4:00 in the afternoon when she made the report. She told the sexual assault officer that she had a date with the man the night before. She said that the two went out to dinner and then back to her apartment for a drink. Her roommate was awake watching television in an adjoining room. They started to kiss. She then claimed that the man became aggressive and digitally penetrated her. She never told her roommate. The roommate heard nothing. The complainant never went to the hospital. There were no texts between her and the defendant. Just her report to the police. So what happened next? The police went out to visit with the man. He confirmed everything that the woman told the police…except for one thing. He denied that the digital penetration was done without her consent. What? That’s right. He actually admitted to committing a sexual act that if proven to be nonconsensual would leave him with a Felony Sex Crimes Conviction. Had the man not opened his mouth he probably would not have been charged with anything at all. But now, simply because he opened his mouth he faced a Rape Charge.

So how do you handle a situation like this one. The answer is simple. Just shut your mouth. I have never had a client who was able to talk his way out of being charged with a crime. To the contrary, a large percentage of my clients charged with crimes are being charged because they did talk to the police. Keep this in mind. Your silence can never be used against you in court. You have an absolute right to remain silent and no district attorney or other prosecution witness can comment on that silence to a jury. If the police tell you that it is in your best interests to talk and cooperate with them they are lying to you. It is not in your best interests. So please keep your mouth shut.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A few weeks ago I was reading an article in the Vineyard Gazette reporting the death of a fifty-year old man presumable from a Heroin overdose. According to the report, at 9:00 a.m. the police were called to a home in Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. There, they a man they believed to have died from a Heroin overdose. A syringe was nearby along with some other Heroin related use paraphernalia. Apparently an informant provided information to the police that the man’s roommate would sell over five hundred bags of heroin per week. The police encountered the roommate that morning and learned that he had just used Heroin and a Class B drug. He was charged with Possession of Heroin, a Class A Substance in Massachusetts. While in the home officers saw additional drug related materials sufficient for them to apply for and obtain a Search Warrant. The execution of the Search Warrant disclosed enough drugs in the home to charge the roommate with Trafficking Heroin. I wondered just how long the man had been dead and what the roommate did after seeing him overdose.

Then today, I read an article about a proposed Minnesota law designed to encourage people to immediately report drug overdoses in exchange for immunity. The bill is being sponsored by a state senator whose daughter died of a drug overdose in 2007. The young woman overdosed on Heroin. Her companion at that time spent about one half hour cleaning up all evidence of Heroin Possession and use. Then he called 911 and reported that he had no idea why she was unconscious. The senator has maintained that if the other person present at the time of the overdose had no fear of consequences he might have reported the overdose in time for the woman to be saved.

Laws such as the one being proposed in Minnesota are known as Good Samaritan laws. They give immunity in some form to people who help people who overdose in their presence. Several states now have Good Samaritan laws. Massachusetts does not have one of this nature. Studies suggest that Good Samaritan laws can save lives. Drug overdose survival depends on who quickly medical assistance is provided. If someone had a heart attack everyone in the room would call 911 in hopes that the person’s life would be saved. Not so with drug overdoses. Drug users who overdose when not along are typically with other drug users or sellers. These people are not quick to call for help. Rather, like the man in Oak Bluffs, or the Minnesota senator’s daughter’s friend, they first try to conceal evidence of their involvement in criminal activity. Some simply walk away from the situation entirely. These laws would encourage people to act immediately and try to save a life rather than first trying to save their own criminal exposure.

The current Good Samaritan laws protect people from prosecution for Possession of Drugs, Possession With the Intent to Distribute small quantities of drugs and low level Distribution of Drugs. They do not protect people engaged in Drug Trafficking activity. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who has represented hundreds of clients charged with Massachusetts Drug Crimes I would like to see one of these laws passed in Massachusetts.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Massachusetts lawmakers are close on a bill that, if passed as law will treat seventeen year olds as juveniles. The proposal has passed in the Massachusetts House and Senate and now awaits reconciliation through a conference committee. The governor has drafted a similar law and there is optimism that the bill will be on his desk for approval by the end of the month. As of now, seventeen year olds in Massachusetts are treated as adults when it comes to being charged with committing crimes. It doesn’t matter how severe the offense is nor are the circumstances of the crime considered prior to bringing criminal charges. The current law is simply terrible. Massachusetts is one of only eleven states in the country currently treating seventeen year olds as adults. The federal government treats seventeen year olds as juveniles.

The proposed Massachusetts law would not override the youthful offender law. That statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 119 Section 52 et seq. provides for special treatment for people being prosecuted between the ages of fourteen and seventeen…in certain circumstances. Typically the youthful offender law pertains to crimes committed involving serious bodily harm. Thus, the proposed legislation would have no effect on Massachusetts Violent Crimes or Massachusetts Sex Crimes committed by seventeen year olds.

So as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer here is what I see as being wrong with the current law. Seventeen year olds are still kids. They are primarily in high school. They make mistakes. They experiment with alcohol and drugs. They may drink and drive. They will express their curiosity through activities deemed criminal. In addition to being prosecuted by the courts schools have a way of punishing kids for committing these crimes now. They get suspended. They get kicked out of extra-curricular activities or off of their sports teams. Even worse, they get their names and sometimes pictures in the local papers for doing something wrong.

Here is something else. There are over 2900 seventeen year olds prosecuted each year in Massachusetts. These kids might end up criminal records as a result of a single criminal incident. They will have difficulty getting into some colleges. Their applications will be flagged. They will have trouble getting certain jobs. Countless times each year parents of seventeen year olds that I represent express concerns about how certain methods of resolving the case will be viewed by schools or employers. The answer to those questions is not easy. Massachusetts CORI laws permit perspective employers access to criminal histories depending on the nature of the business. For instance, people working with children or in health care are more vulnerable to perspective employer CORI access. And how many seventeen year olds know what they “want to do when they grow up”?

I have more thoughts on the current law. Juvenile detention facilities treat inmates much different from adult facilities. Adult facilities punish and isolate. They do not rehabilitate. They aren’t funded for rehabilitation right now…at least not enough. Juvenile correctional centers educate. They provide counseling services. They offer mental health treatment. They emphasize getting back into society in a productive manner.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Yesterday I read Douglas Moser’s column in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune about the rise in Heroin use in Massachusetts. The article touched on many aspects of the problem associated with the drug. It talked about overdoses, deaths from Heroin abuse, changes in the demographics of Heroin users and ultimately an increase in Heroin related arrests. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who has defended hundreds of Heroin cases the timing of this article came as no surprise to me. I have seen a tremendous increase in my business as a result of this problem. It seems like more people than ever are being charged with Heroin Possession, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin, Distribution of Heroin, Trafficking Heroin and Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept.

As Moser states, people are driving down to Lawrence, Massachusetts from Main and New Hampshire to buy Heroin. Most of the cases I see have resulted from arrests made in Lawrence and Methuen. The people from out of state who get arrested are primarily being charged with Possession of Heroin. The police witness what they presume to be drug transactions. They stake out areas known to them to be associated with drug distribution. The pattern is all too common. A car bearing New Hampshire plates drives around a neighborhood for a few minutes. Some of these areas are in the more desirable parts of the city. The driver and passenger(s) appear to be looking for someone. Then, a car being driven by someone with Massachusetts, usually from Lawrence approaches. The officers observe what they believe to be a drug transaction. They watch the parties part ways and, believing the car with the New Hampshire plates contains the “buyers” a stop is made. Sure enough the cops find the occupant(s) in possession of Heroin and charges are brought. Other times, the amount of Heroin purchased is sufficient to charge Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A substance. Sometimes the officers actually watch the “users” pull over and shoot up. I can’t even count the number of cases I have had where someone was supposedly caught injecting, snorting or smoking Heroin. The “non-users” get charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept.

The Massachusetts Heroin Trafficking arrests stemming from this scenario pale in comparison to the possession arrests. The reason is simple. Dealers typically do not bring large quantities to street deals. So what sometimes happens is this: the cops cut a deal with the buyers. Usually those who buy quantities over that considered for personal use only. These people work with the police and set up larger transactions where the amount of heroin sought and ultimately seized reaches the trafficking threshold.

Here is what else criminal defense lawyers see as a result of the increase of heroin in Massachusetts. Sex Crimes. It is not unusual for people to Prostitute themselves in order to get drugs. We have also represented people caught in various sex acts, Open and Gross Lewdness or Lewd and Lascivious Conduct, being performed for drugs.

Why the current increase in Heroin related drug crimes? Moser suggest one reason is the increase in OxyContin use. OxyContin is expensive at the street level. So, once a person’s prescription runs out getting the drug can be a financial hardship. Heroin is a cheap alternative that seems to satisfy the addict’s urge.

Continue reading →

Published on:

There are thousands of articles written each day about the Trayvon Martin case. Most of these pertain to Florida’s self-defense law. The general consensus among criminal defense lawyers is that the evidence supported a self-defense instruction and that the jury’s application of the law was fair. At least this is how I read these articles and blog posts. While many people are criticizing the Florida “stand your ground” law I saw a post from a Rhode Island criminal lawyer suggesting that in that state Mr. Zimmerman likely would have been acquitted. I will not opine on what would have happened in Massachusetts had the case been tried here. However I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss the Massachusetts self-defense law from the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Self-defense is permitted is Massachusetts. The defendant does not have to prove that he acted in self-defense. Rather, the district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defense. The application of this law depends on whether the defendant used deadly force or non-deadly force. Since we are discussing the law in the context of the Trayvon Martin case let’s look at the use of deadly force. For that defense to work the accused must “reasonable and actually believe” that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. He must also do everything he can to avoid combat before he uses such force. Finally, one can only use as much force as is necessary under the circumstances.

So here is what I think the jury may have focused on had this case been tried in Massachusetts. 1) Were Trayvon Martin’s actions enough to permit a person in George Zimmerman’s position to reasonably believe that Zimmerman was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm? 2) Was George Zimmerman able to escape safely without using deadly force? Could he have walked away? Could he have held Trayvon Martin at bay? Could he have called for help without exposing himself to further danger? 3) Did George Zimmerman use more force than was necessary under the circumstances? Factors to consider here are the size differences between the parties, the location of the event, the presence of weapons and who had what weapon.

Here are some other factors that may come into play in Massachusetts self-defense cases. The victim’s prior acts or crimes of violence may be admissible if there exists a dispute as to who was the first aggressor. There is no need for the defendant to know about the victim’s reputation for violence to avail oneself of this defense. That knowledge, if present however can be used as evidence at trial.

Even though Massachusetts does not characterize its self-defense law as a “stand your ground” law its application in the circumstances of particular cases might not differ much or even at all. From what I know about the Trayvon Martin case George Zimmerman would have secured a self-defense instruction in Massachusetts. The jury’s decision would have been driven by facts identical to those adduced in Florida at the very least. There is no reason to believe that the verdict here would have been different from the verdict in Florida. That being said, each jury is unique. It is impossible to predict a verdict. As I tell my clients, anything can happen at trial.

Continue reading →