This process used to be so easy. Simply draft a subpoena identifying the materials you wanted and have it served on the keeper of the records for the entity in possession of the materials. Some lawyers had summons direct delivery to their law office. Others had it delivered to the clerk’s office where the case was pending. Sometimes the criminal defense lawyer would get a call from one of the assistant clerks telling him that the documents were delivered and available for photocopying. Some clerks might tell the lawyer that the material was too voluminous for the clerk’s office to keep so the lawyer was instructed by the clerk to keep it himself. If the material was not delivered the defense lawyer would ask for the judge to order compliance with the subpoena. The keeper of the records would then have to produce the material or appear, usually with counsel, and state why the records could not be produced.
Until 2006 the criminal law discovery process in Massachusetts created, at least in some cases, a level playing field. The prosecution was obligated, with limited exception, to surrender all of its evidence to the defense. This duty required disclosure of all known witnesses, their statements, evidence of which the district attorney had knowledge, all exculpatory evidence and more. The defense on the other hand was required to do no more than provide the district attorney with a list of witnesses it would call at trial along with their addresses and dates of birth. The only exception to this involved the use of expert witnesses whose opinions and the basis therefore had to be disclosed in a manner that gave the prosecution adequate notice of their anticipated testimony.
One of the crimes most frequently defended by Massachusetts criminal lawyers is the case of domestic assault and battery. The statute prohibiting the conduct is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 13A. Not many people are aware that the crime of assault and battery in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to two and one half years in the house of correction and a one thousand dollar fine. The term “domestic” does not change the actual criminal charge. Rather, it is a description commonly used by lawyers and lay people alike in reference to someone in a relationship causing physical harm to the other person in that relationship. Massachusetts judges and district attorneys for some reason seem to view assault and battery cases of this nature as being more serious than other assaultive conduct; i.e. a fist fight. For this very reason anyone charged with hitting or threatening a domestic partner should not go into court without a lawyer.
Why Are These Cases Taken So Seriously in Massachusetts?
The answer to this question is simple. The risk of harm to the victim coupled with the consequences facing the accused trigger great scrutiny of these cases. As to the victim, the prosecution and judges want to make sure that they are safe. Domestic issues are emotional issues and rationality often takes a backseat to reason and logic when emotions are tested. Ensuring that the complainant is safe from further attack is the first order of business. On the other hand, someone needs to protect the accused to make sure that his or her rights are protected as well. Domestic assault and battery allegations prompt the issuance of restraining orders. A violation of a restraining order can in some instances be a felony. For instance, an assault and battery in violation of a restraining order is a felony that can result in a five-year prison sentence. This again is reason enough for anyone charged with this crime to be represented by a lawyer.
What if I Didn’t Do Anything and the Complainant is Lying?
The sensitivity and volatility of domestic assault and battery cases usually leads judges, at least initially, to side with the complainant. No judge wants to see his or her name in the paper with an accusation that they did nothing to protect a “victim” in a domestic case. So, absent effective representation they will render harsh judgments against the accused in the form of restraining orders, pretrial detention and stiff sentences. An experienced criminal defense lawyer, properly prepared, will be able to demonstrate to the judge in appropriate circumstances that the accusations are lies. This can be done by getting witnesses to appear in court to refute the charges, show a pattern of lies in restraining order affidavits, reveal illicit motives for the duplicitous complaints and more. There is always a reason for making a false complaint of domestic abuse and a skilled defense lawyer will demonstrate this to the judge or jury. Aggressive defenses in these matters are often necessary and a quick start on your defense can save you the trouble of trying to vacate restrictions on your life at a later time.
Why Do People Lie In Domestic Abuse Cases?
There are many reasons people lie in domestic assault and battery cases. Sometimes people want to control their partner. If the complainant fears that the accused is planning to leave them a restraining order or complaint of domestic abuse gives them control during the pendency of the case. They can lie and tell the judge that the defendant violated the restraining order if the defendant does not do as they demand. Sometimes people wrongly believe that an accusation of domestic abuse will give them the upper hand in a divorce or child custody proceeding. Other times, abusing the courts with false claims of abuse is a way of “getting even” with a cheating spouse. Other times it is done out of pure evil. A good criminal defense lawyer will work with you to expose the “victim’s” illicit motives and get you a proper result in court.
In late November of this year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Humberto H. The issue on appeal was 1) whether there existed sufficient evidence to sustain the complaint and 2) whether the judge had to arraign the defendant prior to dismissing the complaint.
Here is a brief history of the proceedings. The defendant was charged with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. Prior to arraignment he moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there was an absence of probable cause sufficient to sustain the charges. The judge agreed with the defense that the case should be dismissed. However, he believed that the defendant needed to be arraigned for him to do so. The defendant was thus arraigned after which the case was dismissed. The government appealed the judge’s ruling.
The court found as facts the following:
In January of 2011 the defendant entered his high school late. Upon his entry authorities smelled a strong odor of marijuana on him. The defendant was then confronted and subsequently searched. Found in his possession were five bags of marijuana that the police believed he possessed for the purpose of distribution. The initial arraignment was continued in order to give the defense the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss prior to arraignment. The motion was filed and allowed but only after the accused was arraigned.
In its opinion the court found dismissal of the complaint proper. The mere presence of five bags of marijuana without more fails to support probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed the intent to distribute. The weight of the drug was minimal. Its street value was nominal at best. There were no drug distribution paraphernalia in the possession of the accused and he made no admissions supporting the issuance of the complaint. This aspect of the Humberto H. opinion was not novel. Rather, it was corroborative of established case law requiring the prosecution to show more than the presence of multiple packages of drugs to support a complaint alleging the intent to distribute.
The next issue decided by the Court made new law in Massachusetts. Now, at least in the juvenile courts judges can dismiss cases prior to arraignment. The rationale for the decision is interesting. The Court voiced concern that once arraigned the juvenile will have a court record showing involvement with the system. This is a permanent record that can be accessed by certain designated authorities. At subsequent proceedings, particularly bail hearings, prosecutors often argue that the defendant has “multiple entries” on his record regardless of how those matters were disposed. In conferring this new right to juvenile defendants the Court further held that this issue has been addressed in other cases without having been definitively decided and the time is now ripe for settling this issue. Finally, this issue was believed to be one of public importance that required a resolution.
Here is what remains unresolved. Is this opinion going to be made applicable to adult cases? I believe it will. Right now, some judges will dismiss complaints in the adult court on motions prior to arraignment. Others will not. I imagine we will now see a trend where these motions are allowed prior to arraignment. I also expect this matter to be litigated in the appellate courts shortly as well.
Late last week Julie Manganis of the Salem News reported that Joseph Ferrante, a retired Peabody, Massachusetts police officer has been charged with Possession of Child Pornography and Distribution of Child Pornography. Both charges are felonies in Massachusetts.
In September of the year a Massachusetts State Trooper got onto a file-sharing website and obtained information that a Comcast customer was viewing child pornography. The officer subpoenaed the Comcast information and learned that the IP address was registered to Ferrante. With that a search warrant was secured and served on Ferrante’s home last Monday. Ferrante was questioned during the execution of the warrant and admitted that he had viewed the illicit material but denied storing it on his computer. A preliminary search revealed the existence of evidence of the crime on the computer. A more thorough search of the computer will be conducted over the next several months.
Essex County Sex Crimes Lawyer
Being a criminal defense lawyer I have concerns about the representations that Ferrante actually admitted to having committed these very serious crimes. As a former cop he has to know that anything he says will be used to prosecute him. He also has to know that proving these cases is extremely difficult, unless of course the suspect confesses to the crime. Computers in private residences are rarely secured. Family members, guests, friends, etc. regularly go onto a household computer. Thus, proving that the subscriber is the guilty party is difficult. A successful prosecution becomes even more difficult if the IP address is not secured. Anyone within the range of the wireless mechanism can access the Internet if it is not secured. This makes it appear that the subscriber is using the Internet when in fact it is somebody else. This happens more than you may think, particularly in restraining order violation cases where the defendant is being set up by the “victim”. Assuming Ferrante knew any of this you have to wonder why he would admit guilt to the police. Or did he?
I have defended many Child Pornography cases in Massachusetts and on only one occasion did the prosecution attempt to proceed without a confession. In all of these cases the link to the defendant that made the case provable was the defendant’s confession. Again, this shows that nothing good can come from talking to the police. You have a constitutional right to remain silent. It was given to you for a reason. Use it. If you have any doubt call a criminal lawyer. I can assure that the advice will be the same. Keep your mouth shut.
Just yesterday Taunton, Massachusetts police were investigating “a potential parole violator” on Crossman Street. Around 5:30 p.m. they went to a home at that address due to their belief that Jason DaGraca was in violation of his parole. When the police arrived they searched a car in the driveway. In it they found a quantity of marijuana consistent with drug possession, possibly enough to satisfy the elements of possession with the intent to distribute. The officers then entered the home where they found some paraphernalia consistent with drug usage. The officers continued their search of the home. They observed some ceiling tiles that suggested to them that something might have been secreted in the ceiling. They continued their search and found enough heroin and cocaine to bring charges of trafficking class A and trafficking class B. DaGraca has been charged with Trafficking Cocaine, Trafficking Heroin, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana and more. His girlfriend who was also present was charged with the same crimes. Police also found a hypodermic needle, cash and a digital scale during their search. Reis’ parents and two children were in the house at this time as well.
Lawyers Who Defend Drug Cases in Taunton, Massachusetts
If this article is accurate and complete then there are countless defenses to these charges that could succeed prior to trial and after trial. Here are some initial thoughts: 1) what were the police doing searching a car in the driveway? 2) did they have a search warrant? 3) who’s car is it that they searched? 4) where in the car were the drugs located? 5) how did they get into the house to search? 6) was there a search warrant or did they have “consent” to enter? 7) what if anything justified the search of the home once they were inside? 8) what did the ceiling tiles look like prior to the officers entering the home? 9) in what part of the home were the suspicious ceiling tiles located? 10) how are the police able to attribute criminal activity to DaGraca and Reis as opposed to anyone else in the home or with access to the home? 11) were any statements made by either of the defendants?
Cases like this one are often replete with facts that warrant a challenge to the permissibility of the evidence at trial or the sufficiency of the evidence as to the individual defendants. I can see where motions to dismiss or motions to suppress might be dispositive here. I can also see where, recognizing flaws in its case the prosecution might look to resolve the matter favorable to either of the defendants or both. This appears to be the kind of case that criminal attorney dream about defending.
Prosecutors in the Wrentham District Court claim that Moses Acloque dragged a women who worked at a Route 1 motel for three miles underneath his vehicle causing her death. According to a report in the Patch Acloque was at a party in a motel room watching Monday Night Football. The prosecution claims that Acloque had not paid for the room nor was he permitted to be in the room. His defense lawyer stated that he was a visitor in the room. Apparently, motel staff members demanded payment from Acloque. The defense has alleged that Acloque was then assaulted. His injuries warranted hospital treatment. The prosecution contends that Acloque ran over the victim while trying to leave the property without providing payment for the room.
The Patch article further suggests that at least one person, not present at the motel saw the body being dragged by Acloque’s vehicle. That person alerted the state police who in turn located Acloque, his truck and the victim’s body. An arrest was immediately made.
Acloque has been charged with leaving the scene of an accident, motor vehicle homicide and other motor vehicle crimes. A modest bail was set and at least for now the case will be prosecuted in the district court.
The facts reported in this article leave much to the imagination relative to potential defenses to these charges. Key to the case will likely be what the witness who alerted the state police actually saw. The article suggests that he saw Acloque’s vehicle hit the victim. If that is true then his observations tend to undermine the prosecutor’s representations that the victim was struck by Acloque while blocking his truck in an effort to secure payment for the room. There is also the suggestion that the accused was leaving the motel to escape from an assault. This conduct in some cases provides a viable affirmative defense to criminal accusations.
Here is something else to think about. Acloque’s defense lawyer stated that he had no idea that someone was being dragged by the car. This might very well be true depending on where the body was in relation to the car. For instance, if the somehow the victim or her clothing got stuck on a portion of the rear of the truck while she was running after the vehicle this suggestion becomes plausible. On the other hand, if the truck struck her from the front and she was dragged underneath then Acloque might have some bigger problems. One thing is for sure. Acloque hired an excellent Massachusetts criminal lawyer with years of experience. Getting the judge to set reasonable bail was in and of itself an initial victory for Acloque.
While reading posts on my Google+ account today I noticed defendants in various parts of the country facing stiff sentences for computer related crimes. Take for instance the case of Jared James Abrahams, a nineteen year old California man and college student who recently pleaded guilty to a computer based extortion scheme. Abrahams was accused of taking over webcams by infecting computers with malware, then capturing the victims disrobing and extorting them for more photos under the threat of publishing the photos. It was also alleged that Abrahams demanded victims get onto Skype and do as he requested, again under the threat of exposing the illicitly accessed images. Abrahams is looking at thirty-three months in federal prison for the commission of these crimes. Victims identified on Abrahams computer equipment, one of whom was a minor, were from all over the world.
In another case, known computer hacker Jeremy Hammond could end up with a ten year sentence for hacking into computers and stealing tens of thousands of credit card numbers. The financial losses calculated by the government directly attributable to Hammond’s actions could be reach two and one half million dollars. Hammond’s lawyers claim that his efforts were part of his social activism, not for personal gain and not initiated maliciously. Rather, it was part of a nonviolent protest that should be punished as such. The government is seeking a sentence of ten years for Hammond, significantly more than the twenty months being requested by his legal team.
So what does this tell you about the state of computer crimes right now? Well obviously they are being taken very seriously by prosecutors. Both of these unrelated cases are being prosecuted by the federal government. The sentences being requested are staggering regardless of the motive or sensitivities of the defendants. Abrahams suffers from a documented case of autism for which he has been treated for over ten years. Hammond is motivated by social forces and has not profited from his actions. Nevertheless, prosecutors want blood. They want lengthy sentences. This trend is consistent not only in federal courts but in state courts including Massachusetts. The message district attorneys want to send is clear; virtual trespassing, no matter what the motive will not be tolerated and deserves sever punishment.
So how are these cases defended? Usually by challenging the validity of the search warrant the permits the police access to your electronic/computer equipment. Fight to show an absence of probable cause and improper issuance of the search warrant. Additionally, you might be able to defend these cases by showing that the government has failed to establish that you are in fact the person who committed the acts, regardless of what is on the computer.
A Lowell, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer defending a man accused of a couple of drug felonies might get the charges dismissed. Just two days ago the lawyer complained that the prosecution was in violation of an order to produce potentially exculpatory evidence. According to reports the prosecution was given until Monday to produce information confirming that the informants used in this case were not the same informants previously publicly deemed unreliable. The prosecution did not produce the affidavits. Instead, the district attorney’s office passed blame to the police claiming that they never produced the requested and necessary affidavits. The judge extended the time for compliance until Thursday. If the documents ordered are not ready by that time then all evidence attributable to the informant’s efforts will be excluded at trial.
The underlying case here stemmed from a search warrant executed at a Lowell apartment. The affidavit in support of the warrant was predicated in part on information learned from two confidential informants. During the search officers located Oxycodone, and cocaine, a class B substance the quantity of which justified charges of possession with the intent to distribute, a felony in Massachusetts. The district attorney also charged with defendants with conspiracy. Drug paraphernalia was also found during the search. The informants in question were believed to have fabricated evidence in other instances that ultimately resulted in the dismissal of seventeen cases.
This case demonstrates the value of having a persistent criminal defense lawyer. Here, the lawyer understood that cases in Lowell using dirty informants had been revealed. He also learned that several cases where those individuals were used had been dismissed. In this case, I am assuming that the fact of the case did not require the disclosure of the informant’s identity. So, the defense attorney kept fighting. He moved for confirmation that the bad informants were not used in this case. It is no wonder why the judge has threatened what will ultimately be a dismissal of this case. If the prosecution is unable to put together written confirmation under oath that these people were not involved in this investigation there is a strong suggestion that they were in fact somehow connected to this prosecution thereby warranting sanctions.
This case also shows how judges might hold the prosecution to a high standard of integrity. Compelling them to produce sworn statements showing that there is nothing illicit about this investigation promotes confidence in the system. And if these arrests came about as a result of tainted information the cases simply should be dismissed. The district attorney in this case should really be relieved by the judge’s order if he or she has any doubt about the credibility of these informants. Presenting dirty evidence creates the possibility of sanctions against the prosecutor, something that is entirely avoidable in this case.
Today’s Somerville Patch reports that a woman had been advertising her services over the Internet. Specifically, she offered sex for a fee. Her advertisement listed the Washington Street Holiday Inn in Somerville as her place of business. An undercover detective responded to the listing and met up with the woman in her hotel room. She requested one hundred twenty five dollars for one half hour of sexual services and two hundred dollars for a full hour. The woman, a sixty year old from Randolph, Massachusetts then took off her clothes, provided the undercover with a condom and laid out some rules for the encounter. She was then arrested and charged with sexual conduct for a fee, also known as prostitution.
I get calls on cases like this one from perspective clients on a regular basis. Several of them ask me the same question: “Isn’t this entrapment?” The answer is no. People think that police officers conducting covert operations that result in an arrest is entrapment. It is not. Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges that focuses on the predisposition of the accused. It is not entrapment for police officers to entice a prostitute or drug dealer into performing or attempting to perform their services. If the person is predisposed towards the commission of a crime and the police simply facilitate their efforts entrapment has not occurred. Entrapment is a viable defense where the government or its agents overcome the will of a person and in some way coerce them to commit a crime.
On several occasions I successfully represented people accused of trafficking cocaine with an entrapment defense. On one occasion I represented a recent college graduate (Jim) who enjoyed smoking marijuana and sometimes snorting lines of cocaine. One of his “friends” would share with him a small amount of cocaine. Unbeknownst to Jim the “friend” was actually an informant, trying to work off a pending drug case. The informant had convinced his handler, a state trooper, that Jim was a major drug dealer. In order to work off his case the informant had to produce, or, in this case introduce the trooper to a drug dealer and to actually access drugs.
So one day the informant brought the trooper over to meet Jim. The trooper was introduced as a cocaine supplier. During the meeting the trooper pulled out a small quantity of cocaine, similar to the amount that the informant would share with Jim. Jim and the informant snorted a few lines. The next day the informant called my client and told him that the individual he had just met wanted a large amount of cocaine and that he wanted Jim to get it for him. Jim was confused and wanted to know why this person would think he could get him a large quantity of cocaine. Jim said that he had no interest in this proposition. Over the course of the next several months the informant badgered and threatened Jim. He convinced Jim that the person who had given him some cocaine, the trooper, was dangerous and that Jim owed him. A record of hundreds of telephone calls was produced from the informant to Jim. The calls were made at all hours of the night. The informant incessantly harassed Jim and had him fearing for his life. Consequently, Jim gave in and agreed to produce a large quantity of cocaine. The informant introduced Jim to a major drug dealer and a deal with the undercover was ultimately consummated. Jim was arrested and charged. We were able to show that the government’s harassment of Jim overcame his will and forced him into the drug deal. Jim was acquitted before a Suffolk County jury.