Massachusetts criminal defense Attorney Blog
Aggressive Defense of All Criminal Matters
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 →

Published on:

This past Friday morning police in Oak Bluffs police were called to a location on a report of a dead body. When they arrived they went to a bedroom where they observed the body of a fifty year old man. Based on the presence of Drug Paraphernalia including baggies and a syringe officer believed that the man may have died of a drug overdose. The deceased’s roommate, Mathew Hubert was at the scene. Police reported that Hubert would obtain five hundred bags of Heroin from a source in western Massachusetts and would sell them at the cape. Hubert was immediately arrested when officers found a Class B drug and some Heroin in Hubert’s room. The police then secured a Search Warrant. They executed the warrant at the home and found evidence sufficient to file a criminal complaint for Trafficking Heroin, a Class A substance.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Heroin Trafficking Defense Attorney

Cape Cod Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer

Here is something that immediately crosses my mind when reading this article. Absent a statement from the suspect, Mr. Hubert, how do the police know that he is in fact the person who was trafficking drugs as opposed to his deceased roommate? The simple answer is that the police do not. Both the decedent and Hubert used heroin. The police arrived at the home after receiving a call about a dead body. They were not at that time investigating heroin trafficking. It appears that the only evidence that the police have relative to Hubert and drugs is his admission that he had used heroin a couple of hours earlier and that there were drugs in his room at the time of his arrest. The quantity of those drugs led authorities to charge him with possession, not trafficking. Presumably, the trafficking charges stem from items located during the execution of the Search Warrant. These items can be attributed to Hubert’s roommate as easily as they can to him. I am curious to see whether or not these charges can survive a challenge on the basis of their sufficiency.

To prove Heroin Trafficking in Massachusetts the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hubert 1) possessed Heroin, 2) that he did so with the intent to distribute the substance and 3) that the weight of the Heroin satisfied the threshold required for Trafficking. Here, there is no indication that Hubert was the person who intended to sell the material, nor did the substance found appear to reach the necessary weight to charge Trafficking Heroin. The evidence against Hubert is equally applicable to the roommate under these circumstances. Both use heroin. With heroin use often comes heroin sales so that the user can support his habit. The informant’s information will not likely be admissible at trial unless that person can provide information corroborating the theory that what the police found belonged to Hubert and was to be sold. I can see many scenarios where this case does not get prosecuted for anything more than simple Possession of Heroin.

Continue reading →

Published on:

According to a recent report, Alexander Bradley, one of Aaron Hernandez’s friends has testified before a Bristol County grand jury. Bradley is the “friend” whom Hernandez allegedly shot in the face in Florida this past February. Bradley is also the friend who was driving drunk with Hernandez in the car this past January. There are no criminal charges pending against Hernandez stemming from the Florida shooting.

Read Article:

Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Fifth Amendment Issues

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Grand Jury Proceedings

This article made me thing about the grand jury process in Massachusetts and how it works. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I frequently challenge the integrity of the grand jury process hoping to get cases dismissed. Often however I ignore the mechanics of these proceedings, something worthy of discussion. For the most part, people are summonsed at random each month to serve on a grand jury. Out of the total called to court twenty-three people sit for a period of months. The number of months during which they serve varies from county to county. The grand jury does not meet every day. The impaneled jurors are given an oath. They then elect someone to act as the foreperson of the grand jury. The foreperson is empowered to administer oaths to the witnesses who are to testify before the grand jury. In Massachusetts witnesses who appear before a grand jury can have an attorney present with them.

Initially at least the grand jury process is done in secret. The grand jurors hear evidence presented by the district attorney through witnesses. The evidence must satisfy the elements of the crime and establish the identify of the accused. The standard of proof necessary to return an indictment is “probable cause”, the lowest standard of proof in the American legal system for criminal matters. The indictment once returned may be held until the arrest of the defendant. To secure an indictment there must be the agreement of at least twelve of the grand jurors. The grand jury can also “no bill” a case. This means that it has not secured the necessary twelve votes to indict. Anyone held in custody while waiting for a grand jury to hear the case will be released immediately upon the grand jury issuing a “no bill”. The deliberation process is done privately. The district attorney or prosecutor cannot be present while the grand jury votes.

There are ways to challenge indictments. One is to show that the district attorney failed to present enough evidence to show that a crime was committed and that the crime was committed by the defendant. Challenges like this are brought by motion to dismiss or what is known in Massachusetts as a McCarthy motion. Another way to try to get a case dismissed involves a challenge to the integrity of the grand jury process. Here, if the defense can establish that the grand jurors were misled by a lying prosecutor, police officer or other witness a judge might be persuaded to dismiss the case. Cases that are dismissed due to grand jury proceeding inadequacies are often re-indicted. This gives the district attorney another opportunity to charge the defendant with this crime. To avoid this, an experienced criminal lawyer might not move to dismiss prior to trial but leave this issue open to ensure success on appeal if necessary.

The grand jury process in Massachusetts is fertile ground for litigation that might result in success for the accused. This makes your choice of a criminal defense lawyer critical.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Kaitlyn Hunt is an eighteen year old high school student who had a consensual relationship with a fifteen year old basketball teammate. The younger girls’ parents found out about the relationship and pressed criminal charges. Now, Hunt faces Felony Sex Crime Charges. A plea deal that prosecutors offered for Hunt would have placed her on house arrest for two years. Of course, this felony conviction would result in Hunt having to register as a Sex Offender. The article states that Hunt would have plead guilty to misdemeanor sex crimes but not to the felonies. Hunt’s lawyer correctly pointed out that being a convicted felon would adversely impact her ability to enter college and to prevent her from holding certain professional positions. Unlike Massachusetts where the age of consent is sixteen the age of consent in Florida is seventeen.

The Hunt case has sparked some interesting debate. A state senator, Thad Altman, known for having conservative views believes that this case is “tragic” and that the laws should be changed. He is quoted as saying “You would like to think this wouldn’t happen in this country, two teenagers in a moment of passion do something consensual and suddenly one is facing fifteen years in prison”. Altman intends to sponsor legislation that would address the Florida age limit issue. Altman is not alone. Over three hundred people have petitioned the Florida legislature to abort this prosecution.

So you ask “does this happen in Massachusetts”. The simple answer is yes. It does. Massachusetts law is a bit more forgiving in one respect. The age of consent is sixteen, one year younger than it is in Florida. I have defended charges involving consensual sexual relationships between fifteen year olds and seventeen year olds. Perhaps most troubling is the nomenclature of the crime in Massachusetts. It is called Rape of a Child. That is what your criminal record will reflect if you are convicted of having consensual sex with your underage partner. Your board of probation printout will not distinguish between a consensual relationship or a forcible rape. It will simply read that you were convicted of Rape of a Child in Massachusetts. You will most likely have to register as a level two or three sex offender, something that will stay with you for years and possibly for life. Schools will not accept you. Your employment opportunities will be limited. Your neighbors will probably learn that you have been convicted of a sex crime. You will not be able to coach your kids youth sports teams. Your life will be ruined.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Moises Matos of Lawrence, Massachusetts is being held without bail in the Essex County Jail following his arraignment in Newburyport District Court for several Massachusetts Violent Crimes. Authorities allege that this past Sunday Matos and the victim were passengers in a car being driven by Matos forty five year old brother Henry. At some point the defendant, who was seated in the front seat, started to pull the woman’s hair. The woman was seated in the rear of the vehicle. Matos then punched the woman. He got into the back of the car and while it was moving threw her out onto the highway. The woman was treated at the scene and then taken to a Boston hospital by helicopter. She sustained two broken arms, a head injury and damage to her legs. At the hospital the victim provided detailed information to the police enabling them to arrest Matos who they located in Lawrence. Matos’ brother had been charged with OUI and Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle. Moises Matos is facing charges of Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Aggravated Assault and Battery and Assault With the Intent to Murder. The case is pending in the Newburyport but will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Newburyport, Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Law Firm

Aggravated Assault and Battery Defense Attorney in Massachusetts, Lawrence, Newburyport, Essex County

One of the charges that baffles me in the context of this case is the Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. The article states that the dangerous weapon used in the commission of the crime is the pavement. The crime of Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon is a felony. The applicable law is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A. There is a ten year maximum sentence associated with a conviction for this offense if the case is charged in the superior court.

Dangerous weapons in Massachusetts are classified into two categories. A “dangerous weapon per se” is something designed to inflict great bodily harm or death. Guns and knives fall into this category. They are designed for assault purposes. Other instrumentalities like razors, tools, pocket-knives are not per se dangerous weapons. However, these items can be viewed as dangerous weapons if used in a dangerous manner. Other examples of non per se dangerous weapons are broomsticks, phone cords, riding crops, walking sticks and cars. I have never heard of pavement in this context being considered a dangerous weapon. We recently succeeded in getting a charge of Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon dismissed where the victim after being struck by the defendant fell into a refrigerator. The refrigerator was deemed the dangerous weapon by the district attorney. The judge threw this out after we convinced him that something that someone falls into during the course of an Assault and Battery cannot be considered a dangerous weapon if not used in that manner. Similarly, I believe that this charge should fail as to Mr. Matos.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Today’s Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that evidence in the case against Lori Barron, defendant in the Lawrence, Massachusetts day spa Sex Trafficking Scandal is still being processed. In the meantime countless local businessmen and male professionals fears are mounting.

It was about one week ago that news of Barron’s arrest and a potential “client list” broke. Barron, a fifty-year old Salem woman supposedly recorded her employees engaging in unlawful sexual acts and threatened them with exposure if they quit or failed to accede to her demands. Authorities estimate that Barron had hundreds of customers some of whom she solicited through backpage.com and other internet advertising websites. Barron, who has a previous criminal record for Prostitution has been charged with Prostitution, Photographing Unsuspecting Persons in the Nude, Human Sex Trafficking, violating the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute, Extortion and Intimidation of a Witness. She posted thirty thousand dollars cash bail in the Lawrence District Court. The police learned of her operation when a former employee complained that Barron Assaulted her when she refused to give in to a client’s peculiar sexual demands.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Sex Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Sex Crimes in Essex County Massachusetts

So here is what clients now fear. The supposed “client list” is rumored to contain the names of lawyers, doctors, teachers, law enforcement officials, court employees firefighters, politicians and local professionals and businessmen. It is suggested that proof of that list exists through cell phone records and a computer hard drive, both of which are being examined through forensic experts. The most legitimate concern involves the publication of the names of the persons on the list. Try explaining this one to your wife, kids, friends and employer. Our office has received countless calls in the past week from potential clients and existing clients concerned about the dissemination of the list and their possible criminal exposure. I can tell you as a practical matter that the former is much more ominous than the latter. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am pretty confident that if criminal charges against clients issue the cases will be difficult to prove unless of course there is video evidence of unlawful acts or the person talks to the police. Absent video evidence and a confession the cases will be virtually non-provable.

This is not to say that the people on the “client list” will not be prosecuted. The standard for issuing criminal complaints is far lower than the standard for proving the crime alleged. Even if law enforcement knows that the case cannot be proved they might still issue complaints or publish the list. Why would they do this? It is usually done to serve as a deterrent. It sends a message to people who engage in this behavior or are inclined to do so. The message is simple. If you are going to frequent prostitution establishments be prepared for public exposure and humiliation even if the district attorney’s office cannot successfully prosecute you.

In the meantime clients have asked me what they can do right now. The simple answer is nothing. Why put your name out there? You might not be on the list. Can you see the client list? No. You can’t. Is there anything you can do to prevent the issuance of criminal charges? Yes. Hire a Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer. Your lawyer will make sure that you avoid incriminating yourself so that if you are a suspect or if you are charged you will not be in a position where your words help to convict you.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Over two weeks ago police in Norwood, Massachusetts executed a Search Warrant at an apartment complex. This followed an investigation into alleged Drug Dealing activities by Henry Samuels, a twenty-four year old Norwood resident. In August of 2012 Samuels was arrested for selling marijuana to minors. At that time he was charged with Distribution of Marijuana, a Second and Subsequent Offense. Authorities claim that Samuels was selling marijuana from his apartment and that the landlord was alerted to his activities. At the time it was suggested to the landlord that he evict Samuels from the property. Apparently he did not. Since that time, Samuels remained under investigation by local police for drug related matters. Then, on June 5, 2013, armed with what they believed was probable cause, the police obtained a Search Warrant. During the execution of the search they found several bags of marijuana with an estimated street value of five thousand dollars. Samuels was not home at the time but his mother, Lashauna Pettway was. She was arrested and charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana. Samuels faces the same criminal charges. The landlord, who is not named in the article, is being charged with misdemeanor charges of permitting someone “to remain a common nuisance by the sale of controlled substances” in his building. The cases are being prosecuted in the Dedham District Court.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Marijuana Distribution Defense Law Firm

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am most intrigued by the charge against the landlord. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 139 Section 20 makes it a crime for a landlord to permit tenants to engage in gambling, prosecution, the illegal sale of alcohol, the sale of drugs on their property. The statute requires the landlord, after proper notice, to take appropriate steps to evict the tenant. A failure to do so can result in a criminal prosecution and a sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of one thousand dollars. The statute is rarely implemented, which, from a law enforcement perspective makes no sense. There are only three criminal cases in Massachusetts addressing this issue, and none of them firmly address the crime.

Here is what the law requires relative to this case. Back in August, once the landlord learned that Samuels had been arrested for selling drugs, he was required to commence eviction proceedings. In other words, the law imposes on him an affirmative duty to spend money on lawyer and go to court to remove someone who might not have been convicted and enjoys the presumption of innocence. No wonder this law is rarely employed. It might not survive a challenge to its constitutionality. Laws like this one if properly attacked can result in a dismissal of the criminal charges.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Yesterday the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in the case of Commonwealth v. Chambers. Chambers was tried in the Suffolk Superior Court for the death of Edward Quiles. The district attorney proved that in the winter of 2008 Chambers lived with the victim and another (Ceurvels) in an apartment in Boston. All three were drug users abusing Cocaine and Heroin. Ceurvels witnessed the incident and testified at trial to the following: The night before the killing Chambers and Quiles were injecting Heroin. They fell asleep around 4:00 a.m. the next day. They woke up to Quiles yelling about a missing gram of heroin. They went back to sleep again. Later that afternoon Quiles woke the other two again complaining about some missing heroin. Chamber and Quiles looked around the apartment for the drugs. Ceurvels left for a while. Ten minutes later Ceurvels returned to find Chambers and Quiles in “an all-out brawl”. Ceurvels then saw blood on the floor and heard Quiles yell to Chambers that Chambers had stabbed him. Ceurvels left the apartment and through another notified the police. He never saw a weapon. The police entered the home and found Quiles dead. The medical examiner testified that Quiles died from a stab wound to the neck.

Chambers was arrested. At the police station he stated that Quiles was high on drugs and that he had accused Chambers of stealing his drugs. He stated that Quiles produced the knife, punched him in the head and called one of his friends to come over and kill Chambers. Chambers also said that Quiles had threatened to stab him and would not let him leave the apartment.

Before the trial started the defense requested and obtained evidence of specific acts of violence committed by Quiles. The district attorney tried to exclude this material at trial. The judge agreed to permit Chambers to admit this evidence, specifically that in 2006 Quiles and others Assaulted and Robbed another individual. The collateral evidence is known as “Adjutant evidence”. Relying on this ruling the defense attorney mentioned this in his opening statement. During the trial, the judge changed her mind on the admissibility of the Adjutant evidence. In doing so she ruled that since the identity of the first aggressor was not an issue at trial Adjutant did not apply. The Supreme Judicial Court held this to be error. It concluded that Adjutant applies “where there is a dispute at trial as to who threatened or struck the first blow or as to who initiated the threat or use of deadly force”. The improper restriction on the use of the Adjutant evidence coupled with the judge’s failure to remedy defense counsel’s reference to this in his opening statement warranted a reversal of Chambers’ conviction.

Continue reading →