Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

This past weekend Lowell, Massachusetts police were running a "downtown disorder detail". Between the hours of midnight and 2:00 a.m. they arrested five local men, four of whom are accused of urinating in public. The fifth is alleged to have been walking on a downtown street with his genitals exposed. Here is what has been reported. The first man was seen urinating in a doorway on Merrimack Street just before 1:00 a.m. The second man was caught peeing near Merrimack and John Streets. This was at about 1:20 a.m. The third man was seen urinating on the door of a local shrine less than one half hour later. The last man, a Dracut resident was found relieving himself in a downtown parking lot. All five men have been charged with Indecent Exposure. The cases are being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Lawyer Who Defend Sex Offenses and Crimes in Massachusetts

Indecent Exposure in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor. The law provides a maximum sentence of six months in the jail or a two hundred dollar fine. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53 states verbatim that "[c]ommon night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment.". Massachusetts case law has held that to be convicted of Indecent Exposure the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an intentional act of lewd exposure and that the act was offensive to one or more persons. An essential element of Indecent Exposure in Massachusetts is the exposure of genitalia. Exposure of pubic hair ironically does not satisfy the statute. Exposure of one's buttocks does fit within the definition of Indecent Exposure in Massachusetts.

Usually cases like this one get resolved by way of dismissal with court costs. In some cases pre-trial probation will be ordered. That means that the accused will be on some sort of probation, usually something informal that included community service or fees. Once the probationary term ends the case will be dismissed in its entirety provided that the defendant has complied with the conditions of probation. If he or she fails to honor the imposed obligations then the district attorney has the right to prosecute the case. If the defendants in this case do not have criminal records I imagine that one of these two forms of disposition will result. This is a situation where it is important that your Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer have the experience necessary to get you the best result possible.

Continue reading "Five Men Arrested in Lowell Massachusetts and Charged With Indecent Exposure After Getting Caught Urinating in Public" »

According to reports, a forty year old southeastern Massachusetts man has been charged with Video Recording or Surveilling a Person in the State of Partial Nudity. The defendant, Marco Silva is being accused of putting a hidden camera in the bathroom of his catering supply company and secretly watching women who worked for him going to the bathroom. He was arrested yesterday morning. Here is how Silva was caught. One of his employees noticed that anytime one of the female employees went to the bathroom the defendant would go into his office and close the door. When the woman was in Silva's office she saw the bathroom captured on a computer monitor. Police officers, armed with a Search Warrant located the monitor, a VCR and a camera hidden inside of the bathroom. The case is pending in the Fall River District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Attorney

Silva is being charged with a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 105. The law states that anyone who intentionally videotapes someone who is naked or partially naked and does so secretly when the other person is in a place where he or she enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that person's knowledge or consent is guilty of this crime. The crime itself is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two and one half years in the house of correction. There is also a fine of up to five thousand dollars than can be imposed.

We are seeing these charges in Massachusetts more frequently today than in the past. This is due to relatively inexpensive recording and transmitting devices that are common to most personal computers on the market today. The act itself typically begins as a prank. The defendants are usually college and high school students who think this is clever or funny. Trouble usually comes their way once one of their victims learns of the act. Prosecutions can be difficult to sustain in many of these cases since there is not actual recording of the act, rather, the defendant watches contemporaneously. Thus, without a witness there is no evidence for the police to find. Here is where the suspect usually makes a critical mistake. The police arrive with a Search Warrant as they did here. They find the camera and monitor. This corroborates the witness or victim's complaint. Then the officers talk to the suspect who admits having committed the crime. Had the defendant not confessed when questioned, then in many cases there would be no sustainable prosecution. This once takes me back to my regular admonition. Never talk to the police without first consulting with a lawyer. Nothing good can come from it. No one talks his or her way out of a criminal prosecution. An extremely large number of prosecutions and indeed convictions rely on the defendant's admission of guilt. It makes no sense to make the district attorney's case for him. Simply say nothing and hire a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to defend you. If Silva did not speak to the police his chances of successfully defending his case improve significantly. If he did speak then suppressing the search and his statements become more important to his defense.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man, 40, Charged With Videotaping Person in a State of Nudity " »

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I am often perplexed by certain "office policies" that overlook justice for the sake of appeasing the public. Yesterday for instance I was in a Massachusetts district court on a case where my client was charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender. My client is twenty four years old. When he was sixteen years old an aunt made a complaint that four years earlier he had inappropriately touched her daughter, the defendant's biological cousin. The touching, if true amounted to an Indecent Assault and Battery. The allegation was that the defendant grabbed his cousin's buttocks. The victim's mother and the defendant's mother are sisters.

By "coincidence" these allegations came to light after the two sisters became embroiled in a lawsuit over a piece of property that the two inherited. The dispute became bitter. The sisters still do not speak with one another. Now stupidly the defendant pleaded guilty to the Indecent Assault and Battery charge as a juvenile. He was placed on probation for two years. At the time of his guilty plea he was made aware of the Sex Offender Registry consequences. This admonition was conveyed by the judge, not the defense lawyer. The lawyer never told him about this prior to the hearing on his change of plea. However, once this obligation was conveyed to him he immediately complied with the laws.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Laws have stringent registration requirements. Correctional institutions have the obligation to report the convicted offender to the registry. Parole and probation departments have the same obligation. Sentences of less than ninety days for a conviction of a sex offense require the judge to advise the accused of his duty to register in accordance with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry laws. Sex offenders who move into Massachusetts must register within two days. The registration must include the Sex Offender's address, work address and the school he or she is attending. Sex Offenders who move around within Massachusetts must provide their new home, work or school addresses. Sex Offenders who want to move out of Massachusetts must notify the Registry. There is a special provision for work addresses as well; that being an offender must notify the board ten days prior to starting work in that establishment.

The client about whom I am speaking works as a chef. He has moved among jobs and homes about eleven times over the past several years. He has always complied with the registration requirements. He took a new job this past summer. He believed that he had once again registered in accordance with his obligations as he had on eleven prior occasions. He was wrong. He made a mistake. He forgot to do so. Now keep in mind that his residence remained the same. That notwithstanding, over the Labor Day Weekend he was stopped for a Motor Vehicle infraction. The officer learned that he had not registered and he was properly arrested. He was held until his arraignment on that Tuesday and he registered upon his release. I provided this information to the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case. As is her office policy, she called the Sexual Assault supervisor. The recommendation came back: guilty with two year probation. The supervisor never took the time to look at the facts of this case, rather, she held to the rigid policy of her office, refusing to even look at this client's history of registering and the substance of the crime that occurred twelve years ago to which he pleaded guilty eight years ago. What is even more troubling is that this same district attorney's office, second earlier, recommended pre-trial probation for a man accused of driving one hundred ten miles per hour on the highway.

Continue reading "When A Massachusetts District Attorney's Office Puts Form Over Substance As A Matter Of Policy The Public Is Not Being Well Served" »

Michael Rubino of Braintree, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn last Friday. It is alleged that the Massachusetts court officer had sexual contact with a couple of female prisoners while he was on duty. The alleged acts took place last year and early this year at the Boston Municipal Court on New Chardon Street in Boston. An article in the Quincy Patriot Ledger states that on two occasions Rubino engaged in sexual misconduct with a woman when she was shackled and handcuffed. In another matter authorities allege that the defendant gave a female detainee cigarettes and money in exchange for sexual acts at the courthouse.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer, Sexual Assault

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am interested in knowing exactly what acts are alleged against Rubino and what evidence exists to support these allegations. The reason for my curiousity is simple. There is no law prohibiting consensual sex between court officers and inmates. This is not the case for correctional officers. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A makes it a crime for any correctional employee to engage in sexual relations with an inmate during the course of his or her employment. A conviction for this offense is punishable by up to five years in state prison. The crime is a felony. There is no defense of consent for correctional officers whereas there is for court officers. The full text of the law reads as follows:

"An officer or other person who is employed by or contracts with any penal or correctional institution in the commonwealth, and who, in the course of such employment or contract or as a result thereof, engages in sexual relations with an inmate confined therein, within or outside of such institution, or an inmate who is otherwise under the direct custodial supervision and control of such officer or other person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in a state prison or by a fine of $10,000 or both. In a prosecution commenced under this section, an inmate shall be deemed incapable of consent to sexual relations with such person. For purposes of this section, sexual relations shall include intentional, inappropriate contact of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to conduct prohibited by section 22 or 24 of chapter 265 or section 2, 3, 35 or 53A of chapter 272."

There is very little case law in Massachusetts. This is understandable in that this is one of the few laws in Massaschusetts that does not have any gray area. Either the act happened or it did not.

One of the things I wonder about in this case is the extent of the evidence against Rubino. The lockups at the courthouses are monitored with video cameras. There are several of these cameras mounted throughout the lockup area providing surveillance at numerous angles and in all cells and areas used for transporting detainees. These monitors are installed for continuous viewing of prisoners to ensure their safety and the safety of the court officers moving them in and out of the courtrooms. The video monitors are also used to ensure the safety of the correctional officers transporting the prisoners from correctional facilities and jails to and from court. Anyone such as Rubino, working the lockup is aware of these devices and what they are constantly revealing. If the basis for these allegations is simply the word of the accuser then Rubino's defense might depend on the cameras, other inmates present at the time of the alleged incidents and the testimonies of his co-workers.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Court Officer Arraigned In Middlesex Superior Court On Charges That He Has Sexual Contact With Prisoners While On Duty" »

Actress Brooke Mueller was in a bar known as the Belly Up nightclub this past weekend. There, it is alleged that she struck another woman. The police were called to investigate the incident. They spoke to the victim and looked for Mueller. The actress was later located at another nightclub. When confronted by the police Mueller poked an officer in the chest. Mueller was arrested and in her possession police found between four and five grams of cocaine. Mueller admitted to having the drug to share with her friends. Mueller, the ex-wife of actor Charlie Sheen is being arraigned this morning for charges of Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor and Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, a felony.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

If this case were being prosecuted in Massachusetts an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would probably get the charge of Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B reduced to Possession of Class B. The case would also be continued without a finding assuming the defendant had no criminal record or a minimal criminal record. The Assault and Battery charge would also probably continued without a finding on the condition that restitution, if any, be paid to the victim.

This case should also serve as a lesson to my readers. Never speak to the police. I repeat this admonition consistently. I have never had a client "talk his or her way out of" a criminal charge. It never happens. Had Mueller just shut her mouth she would not be facing a felony charge. Rather, she would have been charged only with Possession of Cocaine. Her admission that she intended to "share" the drug with friends makes this case a felony. My office is currently representing several people who have made similar statements to the police relative to Marijuana Possession. They client gets caught with less than an ounce of marijuana. This is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. But when the police ask what they are doing with it they cavalierly say that they are only smoking it with their friends. Now, the non-crime becomes a crime and they get charged with a felony. In essence, this law has given young people a false sense of security about what they can do with marijuana. This past weekend we had a similar experience. We had a client who was arrested for a Massachusetts Sex Crime. The police told him that if he wanted to get bailed out over the weekend he needed to cooperate with them. He called us from the police station and we told him not to talk to the police. He listened to us and was bailed out anyway. Again, the lesson is this: shut your mouth. Do not talk to the police. There is absolutely no upside to this if you are a suspect or defendant in a criminal case.

Continue reading "Brooke Mueller Charged With Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine, Assault And Battery Following Altercation In A Bar" »

Just two days ago Lawrence, Massachusetts Police responded to a call at a rooming house on South Union Street. They arrived to find a thirty three year old woman they knew to be a prostitute complaining that she had been strangled and harassed by a man. The man, Richard Croteau was still at the scene when the police arrived. Croteau told the police that the woman had stolen money from him. The police interviewed some witnesses. One claimed to have heard Croteau threaten to "bash" the woman's head in. Another witness supposedly saw Croteau grab the woman by the neck. Croteau was charged with Assault with the Intent to Commit Murder and Threatening to Commit a Crime. The case is being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Prostitution, Violent Crimes

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that stories like this one are common in the Massachusetts district courts, especially those courts in cities such as Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn and Brockton. It is true and unfortunate that prostitutes get robbed and beaten. However, it is also true that they frequently do the robbing. They then preempt any retributive efforts by making false claims about being robbed and beaten. This permits these women to retain the fruits of their crimes. I cannot count the number of times I have had clients complain to me that they were robbed by the prostitute they were engaged with and ended up arrested and in court to defend a dubious accusation. There is usually good news for the men who stand in Mr. Croteau's shoes. These women have no interest in appearing in court and cooperating with law enforcement personnel. After all, why would they? They got what they wanted. Money. Oftentimes they are able to do this without performing their marketed sexual services. In twenty four years of practice I cannot remember a time when a prostitute appeared in court to testify for the prosecution on a case like this one.

These stories can stimulate conversation about the pros and cons of legalizing prostitution in the United States. Currently, only one state permits Prostitution, Nevada. There, prostitution is legal in eight counties, not the entire state. It is illegal in Las Vegas notwithstanding the prevalence of sexual attractions and stimulations in that city. Rhode Island permitted prostitution until 2009. In Louisiana convicted prostitutes must register as sex offenders. The prostitution industry nationwide is estimated to generate fourteen billion dollars annually. Proponent of legalized prostitution argue among other things that regulating this trade will provide tax revenue to municipalities and states, control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and prevent crimes such as the ones for which Croteau is being charged in this case.

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Man Charged With Assault With Intent To Commit Murder, Threatening To Commit A Crime After Prostitute Claims She Was Strangled" »

Hector Ortiz of Framingham, Massachusetts had been dating a woman who lived on Edgell Road until a few weeks ago when she broke up with him. She quickly became involved with someone else. Jealous and scorned, Ortiz concocted a plan to exact his revenge. This past Friday Ortiz followed the woman and her new boyfriend to a local restaurant. He then followed the two to the woman's home and tried to force his way inside. The woman then went to the police station to make a report. While at the station, based on a tip from Ortiz the police found cocaine tucked into the woman's gas cap. Both she and her boyfriend were arrested and charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine.

The woman then told the police a story that gave them concern. She claimed that a couple of weeks back, after she and Ortiz broke up, Ortiz went to her apartment and spent the night. The next day she woke up to find Ortiz on top of her attempting to rape her. The woman yelled. Ortiz ran off, supposedly with her cell phone. She never reported the incident until after the drug arrest.

The Framingham Police interviewed Ortiz. He admitted to placing the drugs in the gas cap. He stated that he wanted to get the new boyfriend in trouble but that his plan failed when the woman was also arrested. Ortiz has been charged with several crimes in the Framingham District Court; specifically, Civil Rights Violation, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, a Class B Substance, Indecent Assault and Battery, Intimidation of a Witness, Stalking, Assault With the Intent to Commit Rape, Filing a False Police Report and Threatening to Commit a Crime. Charges against the woman and her new boyfriend were dropped however the boyfriend was held on in ICE detainer.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

While the drug case seems to be an easy one for the district attorney the Attempted Rape matter might be more difficult to prove. Here is why. Jurors are going to question why this woman would allow her ex-boyfriend to spend the night in her home particularly where she had just become involved with another man. Jurors will also question the delayed disclosure of the alleged incident. The timing of the disclosure of the Sexual Assault is also suspect. It comes after the woman was charged with violating the controlled substances act. This suggests to jurors a motive for the woman to fabricate this story. Or perhaps her new boyfriend found out that Ortiz spent the night with her and she felt compelled to come up with this story to preserve her relationship.

Jurors are always charged with an instruction on the credibility of witnesses. Jurors are told that they can believe all, some or none of what a witness says in court. Jurors are instructed to use their common sense in evaluating the credibility of a witness. Jurors are to consider whether there exists a motive for testifying in a certain way or whether the witness might have hostility towards the defendant. In this case, one of the things Ortiz's Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will focus on is the woman's credibility in view of her late disclosure of the Sex Crime and her motive for making that revelation when she did.

Continue reading "Framingham Massachusetts Man, 34, Charged With Attempted Rape, Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine" »

Michael Brundige is fifty seven years old. The Quincy resident is facing twenty counts of Rape of a Child in Norfolk County and Plymouth County dating back as far as 1990. The Plymouth County case is being prosecuted in Brockton, Massachusetts. The alleged victim in that case was between the ages of six and eight when what has been charged as one count of abuse occurred. About one year ago Brundige was charged with three counts of Indecent Assault and Battery and three counts of Child Rape in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham. Just last week Brundige was charged with sixteen counts of Child Rape, all of which are currently pending in the Quincy District Court. The prosecution contends that those acts occurred over an eight year period.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Rape Defense Attorney

Our office represents many people charged with Rape of a Child in Massachusetts. Oftentimes the accused is facing accusations that occurred several years earlier. I am always asked whether the statute of limitations expired and whether or not the district can go forward with the case. The answer is complicated. Massachusetts legislature and courts have expanded the statute of limitations for this crime on several occasions. Prior to 1985 the statute of limitations was six years. Then, in 1985 the statute of limitations was extended to ten years. A Massachusetts Appeals Court decision interpreted the amendment to include those cases that preceded the amendment date. Thus for instance, an alleged act that occurred in 1977 would no longer be barred by the statute of limitations after the passage of the amendment. In 2006 the statute of limitations was again extended. This time the legislature wrote that the crime of Rape of a Child could be prosecuted anytime after the commission of the crime. In other words, there is really no statute of limitations for this crime anymore in Massachusetts. There is one caveat however. The law states that "any indictment or complaint found and filed more than 27 years after the date of commission of such offense shall be supported by independent evidence that corroborates the victim's allegation. Such independent evidence shall be admissible during trial and shall not consist exclusively of the opinions of mental health professionals." As a practical matter, if the district attorney wants to prosecute one of these cases he or she can do so at virtually any time.

In matters like this one the defendant needs to hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. A successful defense to old Child Abuse cases requires a thorough investigation. It requires tenacious advocacy. Anyone defending these cases needs to explore the motivation of the accuser for the delayed disclosure. There is also a need to get a judge to order the prosecutor to disclose details of the event such as a particular date, time and location rather then permitting the accuser to simply say that the event happened when he or she was six or eight years old.

Continue reading "Quincy Massachusetts Man Charged With Child Rape In Quincy, Brockton For Incidents Dating Back To 1990, 2001" »

Last night a woman reported seeing a man exposing himself and making obscene
gestures towards her as she drove by him in her car. Shortly before 10:30 Lowell police arrested the man. He was identified by the woman shortly after the incident. The defendant, Michael Sullivan was arrested at the same location just about one week ago after police received information that Sullivan had been exposing himself. When the police arrived to investigate the first incident Sullivan's pants were down. That arrest resulted in an Indecent Exposure charge, a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. The new charges are Open and Gross Lewdness, a felony in Massachusetts. The cases are being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Lowell Massachusetts Sex Offense Defense Attorney

Open and Gross Lewdness in Massachusetts is a felony. The crime is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16 which states: "A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars." The proscribed conduct if conducted secretly does not amount to a violation of this statute. The crime is very close to the other crime Sullivan is charged with, Indecent Exposure however the consequences of a conviction for each differ significantly. Open and Gross is distinguished by the element of producing alarm or shock, an element necessary to sustain a conviction. The district attorney likely views Sullivan's obscene gestures as satisfying this element of the felony offense. Indecent Exposure is a crime under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53. The maximum sentence that can be imposed for a conviction of that crime is six months in jail, making the crime a misdemeanor.

Massachusetts case law specifically states that masturbating in public constitutes a violation of the Open and Gross law. Also, there is no requirement that the body part be genitalia. Exposing one's buttocks if coupled with the other elements can result in a felony conviction. Walking in on a person performing oral sex on another person in a public place is in certain circumstances Open and Gross Lewdness. Case law has made clear that urinating in public can result in a valid conviction for this offense. The factual underpinnings of these are important details for your Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. If properly represented these cases can be pled down to a lesser offense, dismissed or tried to an acquittal. The line between the felony charge and the misdemeanor charge is thin, thus requiring proper, experience representation. Even getting the felony continued without a finding might not be the best result in some contexts. Consult with a Sex Crimes Lawyer in Massachusetts any time you are facing charges like Mr. Sullivan.

Continue reading "Lowell Massachusetts Man Caught With Pants Down Charged With Open And Gross Lewdness" »

According to an article in today's Lowell Sun, Thomas Hutchinson has been indicted by a Middlesex County Grand Jury on multiple Massachusetts Sex Crimes. The former Billerica, Massachusetts man was arrested this past July and initially charged in the Somerville District Court. It is alleged that Hutchinson pretended to work in the modeling field and that he would contact females through the internet. One girl sent him photographs and videotapes of herself in the nude. Hutchinson then threatened to post the nude images and videos live if the girl did not have sex with him. Hutchinson's home and car were searched by police from Tewksbury and Medford. The Search revealed Child Pornography images, chats with apparently underage girls and additional evidence of sex crimes. Now Hutchinson is facing charges of Rape of a Child, Indecent Assault and Battery, Attempted Extortion, Child Enticement, Assault with the Intent to Rape and Possession of Child Pornography. The case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court in Woburn, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Child Enticement in Massachusetts is a felony. The law proscribing this behavior is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 26C. The law states that anyone who entices someone under the age of sixteen to enter or leave a building or vehicle with the intent to commit one of several enumerated crimes is guilty of Child Enticement. A violation of this law and a conviction for that violation subjects the defendant to five years in state prison. The word entice can mean lure, solicit, invite, persuade, coax or induce. There is an interesting aspect to this law. There is no requirement that the person enticed be a real person. Thus, there is no defense of factual impossibility. The clear intent of this law is to catch and prosecute people who victimize children and to deter this type of behavior.

Attempted Extortion in Massachusetts is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 25. That law makes it a crime to threaten to accuse someone of a crime or to use power or authority to extort money or a monetary advantage from someone. This crime is also a felony and is punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison.

The two crimes discussed above might just be the least of Hutchinson's worries. The Rape of a Child and the Possession of Child Pornography cases are perhaps the most serious allegations in this case. While the Rape allegation is not detailed in the Lowell Sun article I surmise from the context of this indictment that the girl "agreed" to having sex with Hutchinson to avoid the publishing of the nude photos and videos. In a legal sense this constitutes "force". What just might save Hutchinson from an extremely lengthy sentence would be his age. He is nineteen, not much older than the victim.

Continue reading "Tewksbury Massachusetts Man Charged With Child Pornography, Rape Of A Child, Other Sex Crimes After Caught In Modeling Scam" »

Shortly after midnight two men from Lawrence, Massachusetts entered a Park Street home. There, they assaulted, beat and attempted to rob the occupants. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune report that the victim and his girlfriend were at home watching television when Javier Fernandez and Eduardo Amill broke. The assailants demanded drugs and money. According to the man the accused threatened to Rape his girlfriend if he did not comply with their demands. Both victims were taken into the bedroom. The woman was sexually assaulted. The defendants then heard a knock on the door and tried to leave the home. They were met by the police who had been called for a "disturbance" at the home. The man was bleeding and bound. Both Fernandez and Amill were quickly apprehended. Both men will be charged with Armed Home Invasion. Amill had outstanding warrants for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. He is also going to be charged with Indecent Assault and Battery, Possession of a Firearm and Possession of Ammunition.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Lawyer

Armed Home Invasion in Massachusetts is one of the most serious felonies. Proving the crime requires the district attorney to prove beyond several elements, all of which appear provable at least from this article. Those elements are that the defendant or defendants entered the home of someone else without consent, that they did so knowingly, that they had reason to know that someone would be home, that they were armed with a dangerous weapon and that they used force or threats on the occupants. From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer it is going to be difficult for the defendants to simply sit back in this case. Rather, they are going to have to offer some sort of defense that either mitigates their actions or shows that what the "victims" are alleging here never happened.

The Massachusetts Home Invasion Cases that I have defended successfully typically involve some sort of drug deal gone bad. The deal itself usually takes place in the home and the accused were often invited in prior to the problems arising. This fact, if proven defeats the Home Invasion charge in that the defendants were in the home consensually. Factors that help with this defense are the criminal records of the victims, particularly for Drug Offenses. There are still the remaining allegations however once the Home Invasion charge is questioned the remaining indictments are not as strong. Jurors are suspect of witnesses who come into court with baggage. In many of these cases I have found the victims reluctant to come forward. Remember that in this case the police were called to the scene by what appears to be someone other than the victims.

The gun charges will likely be the biggest hurdle for these defendants. Amill has even bigger problems given the existence of outstanding warrants, one involving a Violent Crime. It would not surprise me to see him work some sort of a plea bargain to avoid having to go to trial and to wrap up all of his cases.

Continue reading "Two Lawrence Massachusetts Men Arrested After Home Invasion Facing Arraignment For Several Felony Charges" »

Last year a Marblehead, Massachusetts man was arrested following a bizarre incident involving the improper use of Facebook. Apparently the forty one year old man and the woman knew one another. She claims that they were just friends. On one occasion while alone with the man the woman fell asleep. She eventually told him that she did not want to spend time with him anymore. He then opened a Facebook page using her name and personal information. He also posted pictures he had taken of her during their relationship. A friend told the woman about the Facebook page and the pictures. The police were called. Their investigation led them to the man. The investigation also suggested to them that the woman had been digitally raped. Charges of Rape, Photographing a Person in the Nude Without Consent, Indecent Assault and Battery and Identity Fraud have been filed. The case was indicted and is now pending in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. The article goes on to say that the defendant has a dating profile on "Plenty of Fish". His profile boasts having sex in public and threesomes.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Case Defense Attorney

As would be the case with most Massachusetts Criminal Attorneys this case intrigues me. Not because of the actual charges but due to the timing of the accusations. It is clear that nothing came about in a criminal context during the pendency of the "relationship". Rather, once the Facebook page was posted the woman clearly became angered and felt victimized. Rightly so given that her pictures were posted on Facebook without her consent. Even according to the Salem News, the defendant's lawyer concedes this point. And yes, the charge of Identity Fraud seems viable and perhaps indefensible. The other charges are not as easily provable. The defendant will probably defend this case on the theory that all acts were consensual, including the photographing of the woman naked. It will be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these acts were not consensual. First off, when were these pictures taken? The woman is going to say that it all occurred when she fell asleep. What links that date to these photographs? How is the prosecution going to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt an absence of consent. To the average juror it will appear that the relationship was somewhat significant. After all, how many people fall asleep in the presence of others with whom they feel anything less than comfortable? Here is something else to think about. Did the woman meet the defendant through the dating site? If she did she must have know of his sexual proclivities and found them intriguing at a minimum. How long had they been together and what was the nature of their relationship?

The Identity Fraud statute in Massachusetts is G.L. c. 266 Section 37E. The crime is a misdemeanor meaning in Massachusetts that no state prison sentence is authorized. This is minor compared to the remaining charges the defendant is facing. The Rape charge is a life felony and the Indecent Assault and Battery charge is punishable by up to five years in state prison.

Continue reading "Marblehead Massachusetts Man Charged With Rape, Alleged To Have Occurred While Woman Was Sleeping" »

Yesterday Richard Conley of Framingham, Massachusetts was arraigned on charges that he was in Possession of Child Pornography and for Distribution of Child Pornography. The charges stem from an investigation that started in July and that was conducted by the Massachusetts State police. The article in the Metrowest Daily News states that the investigating officer was searching the internet for these illicit images and used a program to determine the origin of download for the materials. The results suggested to the officer that Conley's computer was the source of the photos. At the arraignment hearing prosecutors offered that when confronted with the allegations Conley denied having any computers. He further denied using peer-to-peer file sharing programs. A Search Warrant was applied for and granted. Officers raided Conley's home and found a laptop with a large quantity of Child Porn on it. He was released on a modest bail. Right now charges are pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

I very often I have clients retaining me on Distribution of Child Pornography Cases in Massachusetts. Those who did in fact download the illicit material, either deliberately or inadvertently, are baffled when they are charged with distribution. They make clear that they never distributed the material to anyone and that a forensic examination of their computer will prove this. Well, what they do not know is that by accessing the material through file sharing programs or peer-to-peer networking they are in fact in violation of the Massachusetts and Federal Child Pornography Distribution laws. Now how can that be? File sharing as we know it today started with Napster, about ten or twelve years ago. Researchers believe that there may be as many as eighty million people in the United States who use file sharing programs in some way or another.

Peer-to-peer file sharing or P2P permits people to download files, games, music videos and more from other computers that are connected or "peers". What happens however is that now others can access that material from your computer. For legal purpose, at least right now, that constitutes distribution in Massachusetts and in Federal Court.

So what are some defenses to cases like this one? Certainly the defendant's intent can be argued to a jury. That a person intended to download only or simply "possess" the material is a decision that the jury can make. After all, distribution must be made knowingly. If the district attorney cannot prove that the person using a peer-to-peer program knew that his actions constituted distribution then an acquittal might be possible. Proving knowledge rests on many factors that may or may not be present in Conley's case. What experience did he have with computers? This can be determined not only from the testimony of witnesses who are aware of his proficiency but also from an examination of his hard drive. What is actually on the hard drive? Was the defendant selling this material online? Was he engaged in chats that alerted people to the location of this material? Remember that the article states only that the state trooper conducting the investigation learned that Conley was downloading the materials. The forensic report for the hard drive in this case will answer many of these questions and to some extent guide the defense efforts.

Continue reading "Framingham Massachusetts Man Faces Possession, Distribution Of Child Pornography Charges After Images Found On His Computer" »

Back in 1993 Herbert Racine, now forty three years old, was convicted of one count of Rape. He was ultimately classified as a Level 2 Sex Offender by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board. It is now alleged that Racine committed an Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person Over the Age of Fourteen and that he has committed the crime of Enticing a Minor. The details of the incident as reported in the Lowell Sun are scant. The victim is between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and the gender of the victim was not identified. Racine is also being charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender and an unrelated Assault and Battery case. The cases are pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

The laws in Massachusetts for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender are very strict. In essence, anyone who after 1981 was convicted of a designated sex offense must register. The word conviction included adjudications of delinquent and adjudications of being a sexually dangerous person. The offenses triggering the requirement of registration include rape, assault with the intent to rape, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping a child, enticing a minor into prostitution or for sexual intercourse, drugging persons for sexual intercourse, inducing a minor into prostitution, sharing or living off of the earnings of a minor prostitute, possession and distribution of child pornography, engaging in unnatural acts and more. Level two and level three sex offenders are obligated to register at the police department in the city or town where they live.

The penalties for violating this law are severe. For first time offenders, there is a minimum six month house of correction sentence and up to five years in state prison. For second and subsequent violators of this law there is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence. Hiring an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer is always advisable for anyone who is charged with a crime, particularly where there is a minimum mandatory sentence associated with the crimes charged.

So what exactly does this mean for Racine? Well, the article does not provide much detail however I would expect that the minor victims in this case have been and will continue to be cooperative with the district attorney. If not then the case probably would not have gotten this far to begin with. Also, since this case is being prosecuted in Middlesex County I expect an indictment to issue and the prosecution to be handled in the Superior Court in either Woburn or Lowell. While at times Massachusetts prosecutors might exercise restraint in terms of the aggressiveness with which they pursue the accused, they are less likely to do so when the defendant is a repeat offender and the victim is a minor. Also, the fact that Racine failed to register as a sex offender and has an outstanding complaint for a Massachusetts Violent Crime leads me to believe that this case will not be prosecuted in Ayer for very long.

Continue reading "Convicted, Registered Massachusetts Sex Offender Held Without Bail On Charges Of Indecent Assault And Battery, Enticing A Minor In Ayer" »

The Lynn Item reports that William Townsend of Lynn, Massachusetts has been charged with Assault With the Intent to Commit Murder, Rape and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. The charges follow a weekend where the complainant, Townsend's former girlfriend fell off the wagon and engaged in a lengthy partying binge.

The police responded to a call for Domestic Violence at an undisclosed address. When they arrived they found the complainant barefoot in the rain. She purportedly displayed bruises described as both old and new. She told the police that Townsend tried to throw her out of a window on the second floor. She was eventually taken to a local hospital. There she told attending personnel that Townsend had repeatedly raped her. Meanwhile, back at the scene police went up to the second floor, kicked the door in and arrested Townsend.

The complainant told police that she had been sober for fourteen months and that she fell off the wagon this past Friday. She met up with friends and family and began drinking heavily. She then went to visit Townsend who was apparently her first boyfriend. There, she continued drinking with the defendant. On Monday evening the woman reported that Townsend demanded the two have sex. Having AIDS she declined. The two continued to drink for several more hours, passing out. The next day Townsend continued to demand sex. The woman again declined and Townsend passed out yet again. She claims that when she went to wake him up Townsend grabbed her, smashed her head against a wall and threatened to throw her out of the second floor window. He threw her out of the apartment and the police were called. Charges are now pending in the Lynn District Court

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell you that cases like this often enjoy a multitude of defenses. Think about this from a purely factual standpoint. The complainant's credibility is suspect from the start. She started drinking on Friday and continued until she passed out on Monday night. Just how much of that weekend could she have remembered with any degree of detail? She claims that Townsend demanded sex and raped her notwithstanding the fact that she has AIDS. How many people are willing to risk contracting a deadly disease? Now think about the independent corroborating evidence in this case. What do the hospital records show? Did the two in fact have sex? Was the bruising both new and old as characterized by the police? How about the complainant's head. Were there bruises or cuts corroborative of her account of having her head smashed into the wall. Remember that Mr. Townsend's account of the weekend is probably much different than the woman's. Defense lawyers rarely share the details of their defense at an arraignment. If bail was set in the amount of three thousand dollars as stated in the article then the judge probably got a good read on the viability of these charges. It would not surprise me to see this case remain in the district court.

Continue reading "Lynn Massachusetts Man Accused Of Rape, Assault With Intent To Murder, Assault And Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Weekend Drinking Binge" »