Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

| by

Steven Mai and William Blundell are getting arraigned in the Lynn District Court today stemming from their involvement in criminal activity in Lynn on Saturday night.  Apparently there was a party attended by fifty to sixty people, all of whom were identified as being Crip gang members or associates.  The party was hosted by Natasha Cedano at her home at 4 Summerset Court.  Complaints by neighbors of excessive noise and a female brandishing a gun prompted the arrival of police officers.  As officer approached the party they observed Mai wearing a shirt remembering a murdered Crip gang member.  Seeing the police Mai threw an object, later identified as a .35 caliber handgun into some bushes.  He was charged criminally for possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition and disorderly conduct.  Blundell was at the party shouting obscenities as they arrived.  Blundell was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and failing to disburse. 

Read Article:  http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2009/02/10/news/news18.txt

Crips are a violent street gang that started in the late 1960’s in Los Angeles, California.  The two co-founders are now dead.  Raymond Washington was murdered in 1979.  Tookie William was executed in San Quentin Prison years after having been convicted and sentenced to death.  There are over 30,000 Crip gang members operating throughout the country.  The Lynn Crip gang is known as the Avenue King Crips. 

The most serious charge here is the gun possession case against Mai.  If convicted he faces a minimum mandatory 18 months in jail pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10. 

Continue Reading

| by

Even though Paul Mateiko has a license to carry firearms he does not have the right to possess a machine gun.  Worcester Police actually found multiple machine guns when they searched Mateiko’s home Saturday night.  These weapons along with 79 other firearms, thousands of rounds of ammunition and explosive devices were enough to convince a Worcester District Court Clerk Magistrate to impose bail in the amount of $15,000 for the defendant.  Makeito was charged with four counts of illegal possession of a machine gun and one count of unlawful possession of an infernal machine.

Read Entire Article:  http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Massachusetts-Crews-Make-Explosive-Find-/46$62661

The crimes charged are as follows:

1.  Possession of an infernal machine.  This is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 102A.  That statute makes it a crime to possess any device that can danger life or property by fire or explosion.  There is a possible 10 year prison sentence that can be imposed for anyone convicted of this crime.  Massachusetts case law makes clear that the device must be something which is made.  It cannot just exist of a single element of the device.  It must consist of more than one part in order to be a device, instrument or machine. 

2.  Possession of a machine gun.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10 makes it a crime to possess a machine gun.  A conviction for this offense carries a minimum mandatory 18 months in the house of correction. 

Continue Reading

| by

At 2:00 this morning in Somerville, 32 year old Marcel Laurol of Malden man was shot by a 25 year old man from Brockton.  Laurol then hijacked a taxicab and drove it into his attacker.  Both of these guys are going to need good defense lawyers.

According to the BostonChannel Laurol was shot in the leg near Elm Street and Herbert Street.  He then jumped into a taxicab, assaulted the driver, hijacked his passengers and drove down Chester Street.  Laurol then drove into the Brockton man (the shooter) injuring his arms and head.  The cab then struck a nearby building. 

Laurol was charged with kidnapping, carjacking, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a revoked driver’s license.  Apparently the police were unable to locate and identify the taxicab’s passengers. 

Read Full Article:  http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18668109/detail.html

Carjacking in Massachusetts is a crime under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 21A.  That law states that anyone whoever “with intent to steal a motor vehicle, assaults, confines, maims or puts any person in fear for the purpose of stealing a motor vehicle shall” is guilty of carjacking.  You do not have to actually steal the car to be found guilty so long as you intended to do so.  There is a maximum 15 year prison sentence for anyone convicted of this offense.  If the crime is committed by someone who is armed with a dangerous weapon the maximum sentence increases to 20 years.  If the offense is committed with a firearm there is a 5 year minimum sentence. 

Continue Reading

| by

On January 23, 2009 Barnstable and Yarmoutth police along with a Brockton K-9 officer executed a search warrant at 55 Nautical Way, the home of Kenneth and Denzel Chisholm.  In the course of doing so officers located and seized 2,000 oxycodone pills valued at $60,000 a couple of guns and $15,000 cash.  The search warrant was sought out after police received information that the Chisholm brothers were in possession of particular caliber firearms identical to firearms used in an earlier shooting of two men.  Also located during the search was some cocaine, marijuana, narcotics packaging paraphernalia and a police scanner. 

Authorities described the defendants as major players involved in drug trafficking crimes and violent crimes.  Both men were initially charged with trafficking oxycodone in excess of 200 grams, possession of a firearm (defaced serial number), possession with the intent to distribute a class D substance and possession of ammunition.  Charges are pending in the  Barnstable District Court until the defendants are indicted. 

Read Entire Article: 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090123/NEWS11/90123025

So exactly what does this mean for the Chisholm brothers.  That is a good question.  The big case is the trafficking carrying a minimum mandatory 15 year state prison sentence.  Search warrant cases such as this one always raise the question “Whose drugs were these?”.  Massachusetts law makes clear that someone’s presence at a crime scene without more is not sufficient to establish his guilt.  This is so even if the defendant knew about the crime and took no steps to prevent it.  The district attorney must prove that the defendant intentionally participated in committing that crime, not that he was just there or knew about it.  Thus, there is no guilty by association in Massachusetts.  In order to convict the prosecutor is going to have to show that that both defendants had the intent to possess the oxycodone with the intent to distribute the same.  That can be accomplished through statements made by the defendants, the location of the drugs or trafficking related paraphernalia in the home, fingerprints on the drugs or its packaging.  There are many other ways to prove that the defendants engaged in a joint venture and many ways to defend against these allegations. 

Continue Reading

| by

This past Wednesday, Ricardo Calvo of Worcester was sentenced to fifteen years in federal prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  The defense was looking for a seventy seven month prison sentence based on his lawyer’s representation that Calvo had a history of substance abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse since he was a child.  According to defense counsel Victoria Bonilla, Calvo was introduced to drugs by his father at the age of 12.  The prosecution argued that the defendant’s lengthy criminal history was reason enough not to depart from the 15 year mandatory minimum sentence. 

The defendant was arrested in December of 2005 along with sixty other people as part of a federal crime sweep.  When he was apprehended police found him in possession of a .22 caliber pistol, magazine and ammunition.  

Read Entire Article:  http://www.telegram.com/article/20090205/NEWS/902050969/1008/NEWS02

Calvo was most likely charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g) making it a crime for anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm.  The sentence associated with a conviction of this crime is a maximum of 10 years in federal prison.  So, for Calvo to have been sentenced to 15 years there must have been an armed career criminal enhancement.  To be enhanced the defendant in this case must have been convicted of three prior felonies for serious drugs or violence. 

Victoria Bonilla is an excellent experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who unquestionably did a great job for her client.  The federal courts are a tough place to defend people accused of committing crimes.  The defense victories are difficult to come by and success in this forum is a relative term.

Continue Reading

| by

The Harvard Crimson reported today that third year Harvard Law student Charles Simpkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conducting and resisting arrest.  According to the article, on January 24, 2009 Simpkins left a bar drunk and entered a parked Boston Police cruiser.  He told the officers to give him a ride and offered that he worked for the district attorney’s office.  Apparently the defendant was an intern at the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office, working at the Dorchester District Court.  The district attorney’s office terminated Simkins’ employment shortly after the incident. 

Read Full Article at

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526274
Continue Reading

| by

Lawrence, Massachusetts police responded to an apartment on South Broadway Thursday night in response to a domestic assault and battery 911 call.  During the call police were able to hear the couple arguing.  When they arrived they found the defendant and his girlfriend both of whom denied making the call and any abuse.  The police told the defendant to leave the apartment.  He complied only to return later in the evening.  At 9:35 p.m. the girlfriend called 911 to report that the defendant had returned and threatened her with a knife.  When the police returned to the apartment they found the girlfriend waiting for them outside.  She reported that the defendant had returned drunk, picked up a kitchen knife, pointed it at her and threatened to cut her throat. Officers entered the apartment after which a struggle with police ensued.  The defendant was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, trespassing, disorderly conduct and threatening to commit a crime.  Charges are pending in the Lawrence District Court. 

Assuming the case remains in the district court, a likely scenario, the defendant is looking at the following:

1.  Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  This is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A.  The law provides a district court sentence of up to 2 1/2 years in jail and a $5,000 fine.  An assault and battery is the intentional and unjustified use of force upon the person of another however slight.  It may be proved by showing the intentional commission of a wanton or reckless act.  It must be something more than gross negligence and it must cause physical or bodily injury to another.  The district attorney must prove both the assault and the battery.  Here, to prove this case the prosecutor must show that the defendant touched the knife to his girlfriend.  Many objects suffice to establish the element of dangerous weapon.  It should be no surprise that a knife is considered a dangerous weapon.

2.  Assault and battery on a police officer.  This act is prohibited by Massachusetts General  Laws Chapter 265 Section 13D.  That law states verbatim that “Whoever commits an assault and battery upon any public employee when such person is engaged in the performance of his duties at the time of such assault and battery, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ninety days nor more than two and one-half years in a house of correction or by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars.”  This crime is almost always charged in cases where police officers use force, particularly severe force in the course of an arrest or investigation.  The large majority of times that I am retained on one of these cases my client appears in my office with bruises, cuts and sometimes broken bones.  Almost always the bruises are on parts of the body that are usually covered by clothing.  The story is typically the same.  The police arrive at an alleged crime scene and conduct an investigation.  The defendant argues with them or “challenges” them by requesting a badge number, threatening to sue them or report them to their superiors.  The officers respond with unlawful and unnecessary force, many times excessive force and they arrest the person.  Now, to protect themselves they charge the individual with assault and battery on a police officer. 

Continue Reading

| by

Three Springfield, Massachusetts men were charged in Federal Court with a civil rights violation stemming from an arson purportedly committed on November 5, 2008.  Authorities stated the men poured gasoline inside and outside the church and set fire to the structure “because it was a black church”.  The act took place hours after the presidential election.  The men were detained pending a hearing and on January 21, 2009 all were released subject to specified conditions.  The fire caused an estimated two million dollars to the church. 

The investigation into this crime took just over two months to complete.  It was conducted by Massachusetts State Police, the Springfield Police, the FBI, the ATF, the United States Attorney’s office, the state fire marshal and the Hampden County District Attorney’s office.  According to reports one of the defendants boasted about having committed the crime and in doing so attributed the actions of the three to hate. Arson was not charged as one of the crimes.  It was reported that on November 9, 2008 police received information from an informant who stated that two of the perpetrators bragged about having set the fire.  In January of this year an undercover officer solicited one of the defendants to set a fire for insurance money.  In the course of discussions one of the defendants boasted about having burned down the church as well as several arsons that he supposedly committed. 

Read Full Article, Boston Globe, January 17, 2009

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/17/church_arson_tied_to_racism/

See also United States Attorney Press Release, January 16, 2009

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20Press%20Release%20Files/Jan2009/ComplaintPR.html

It appears that right now all defendants are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 241 which states that “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same” that person can be punished by up to 10 years in prison. 

For some reason not explained in the new reports the defendants were not charged with arson.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 2 makes the burning of a church a crime.  The law states in part that anyone who willfully and maliciously burns a church can be sentenced to 10 years in prison if convicted.  There is a federal arson statute that may not have had applicability to this case.  See 18 U.S.C. Section 81. 

Continue Reading

| by

In 2005 four men were stabbed in the Wonderland parking lot in Revere.  The defendant Ervin Memushaj fled Massachusetts.  The FBI was enlisted and a search led them to Chicago where Memushaj was located and arrested.  This past Friday the defendant was returned to Massachusetts, arraigned and held on $250,000 cash bail, the amount requested by the prosecutor.  While neither the district attorney’s press release nor the Lynn Item list the charges Memushaj faces it is likely that he was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault with intent to murder or kill.  All of these charges are felonies in Massachusetts. 

According to the prosecution the victims were from Winthrop and Revere Massachusetts.  All were males between the ages of 22 and 27.  Apparently the stabbings stemmed from an earlier incident in Cambridge where Memushaj had thrown a bottle at one of the victim’s relatives.  A confrontation ensued during which the defendant stabbed his first victim in the upper back, stomach and abdomen.  The other men tried to intervene and in doing so each suffered stab wounds to the abdomens.  A bloodstained knife was located at the scene.  All four victims received medical care for their injuries. 

See Lynn Item Online January 18, 2009

Suffolk County District Attorney’s Press Release, January 16, 2009

Let’s take a look at the potential charges.  Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon is a felony in Massachusetts.  The statute proscribing such activity is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A.  Punishment can be up to 10 years in prison.  The potential penalty increases by 5 years if the victim sustains serious bodily injury or is a pregnant woman or if the conduct is in violation of a 209A restraining order. 

Assault with intent to murder is defined under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18.  There is a 20 year maximum prison sentence that can be imposed after a conviction of this offense.  If the offense is committed with a firearm there is a 5 year mandatory prison sentence.  Assault with intent to murder is very difficult to prove in Massachusetts.  The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you assaulted the person and that you possessed a specific or actual intent to cause the death of the person assaulted. 

Continue Reading

| by

Former Boston gang member Michael Addison was sentenced to death yesterday for killing a Manchester, New Hampshire police officer.  In October of 2006 Officer Michael Briggs and his partner confronted Addison who was suspected in a shooting and a couple of armed robberies.  In order to avoid apprehension Addison shot Briggs in the head and fled.  The death penalty phase of the trial followed the murder conviction after a 9 week jury trial.  It marked the first time in 49 years that a New Hampshire jury issued a death sentence.  The last execution in New Hampshire was in 1939.  If the death sentence is upheld Addison will die by lethal injection. 

Fighting against the death penalty Addison’s lawyers showed that he had a troubled childhood and likely sustained brain damage as a result of his teenage mother’s alcohol and drug abuse during pregnancy.  Evidence showed that Addison had been abandoned by his parents and raised by his maternal grandmother. When he was 16 Addison was taken into custody by the Department of Youth Services after a failed attempt to shoot a student outside a Dorchester high school. He was convicted later of stabbing a man and stealing his hat.  The prosecution on the other hand portrayed Addison as the former leader of a violent Boston street gang. 

Several politicians weighed in on the verdict.  Governor John Lynch issued a statement affirming his belief in the death penalty.  He also stated that he “believe[s] this was a just verdict.”  A Portsmouth state representative vowed to file anti death penalty legislation.  Such legislation was passed by the legislature in 2000 only to be vetoed by the governor.  Boston Globe, December 19, 2008, Shelley Murphy. 

Currently there is no death penalty in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  In 1975 the Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. O’Neal, 367 Mass. 440 (O’Neal I).  In that case the Court focused on the defendant’s right to Due Process and held that “the right to life is a fundamental constitutional right, that due process of law requires that the burden be on the State to demonstrate a compelling State interest served by the mandatory death penalty and absence of any less restrictive means of furthering such interest”.  The Court in O’Neal I requested that this matter be briefed on this one issue.  A few months later in Commonwealth v. O’Neal II, 369 Mass. 242 (1975) the Court ultimately held that the Commonwealth had not provided adequate justification for capital punishment, and the statute thus violated both the due process and the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. This remains the state of the law today notwithstanding approximately seven gubernatorial and/or legislative attempts to re-institute a death penalty law. 

Continue Reading