Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers Badge
Avvo Badge
Massachusetts Bar Association
Top-Rated Lawyer
Certificate of Excellence

| by

The defendant was charged and convicted by a Suffolk Superior Court jury of possession of a firearm in violation of G.L. c. 269 sec. 10(a).  On appeal he claimed that there lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.  The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed and reversed the conviction.  The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and reversed the Appeals Court decision.  Commonwealth v. White, slip opinion August 11, 2008. 

The Court in White found the following facts.  The defendant and others were engaged in a gun fight in Jamaica Plain in front of a laundromat and a car wash.  Once the shooting stopped a witness to the incident saw a black man hold a gun and place it into his pants.  The man was wearing a black jacket with white writing on it.  The police arrived and observed the defendant in the vicinity of the car wash.  He was wearing a jacket resembling the one identified by the witness.  He was unarmed at the time.  The witness made a positive identification of the man.  She never identified the firearm.  Police subsequently located a weapon concealed in an air vent in a hallway in the vicinity of where they first saw the defendant.  Another firearm was found on a street near the building. 

The Supreme Judicial Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction.  It held that “circumstantial evidence is competent to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,… and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence.”  In spite of other reasonable inferences that could have been drawn here, i.e. the gun having been placed in the air vent by someone else in the fight or the other gun possibly being the defendant’s, the Court affirmed the conviction. 

Continue Reading

| by

A grand jury sitting in Middlesex County returned indictments against a fifty-seven year old Everett man charging him with three counts of rape of a child and four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen.  If convicted the man faces a possible sentence of life in prison. 

The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office press release stated that 57 year old Robert Shea raped and assaulted a young boy at his residence in Everett as well as in the High School building.  These acts occurred in 2007 over a period of several months.  The victim made his complaint in April of 2008.  Bail was set at fifteen thousand dollars.

For full story read Middlesex County District Attorney Press Release

Continue Reading

| by

The Boston Herald reported that on August 7, 2008 Middlesex County register of probate John Buonomo was arrested and charged with eighteen counts of breaking and entering into a depository, eight counts of larceny under $250.00 and eight counts of theft of public property.  An investigation started in June after state employees detected shortages in their copy machines.  State police installed concealed cameras near the copy machines.  Videotapes captured Buonomo getting into the machines and pocketing the cash, usually towards the end of the work day.  Buonomo has no authority to access the copy machines in the Registry of Deeds.  If convicted Buonomo faces twenty years in state prison.  Buonomo is a county wide elected official. 

Larceny in Massachusetts is a criminal act proscribe by G.L. c. 266 sec. 30.  To be found guilty the prosecution must prove that 1) the defendant took the property of another, 2) without the consent of the owner and 3) that he did so with the intention of depriving the owner of that property permanently.  Often times criminal larceny charges are brought as a result of legitimate disputes as to rightful ownership of the property in question.  Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers familiar such cases often convince prosecutors, magistrates or judges that these cases are actually civil in nature and should be dismissed and handled in another forum. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman defends larceny cases throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Larceny cases can be prosecuted in the District Courts or the Superior Courts depending on the dollar amount of the property stolen.  There are usually no minimum mandatory sentences associated with larceny cases.  It is advisable to retain a lawyer with extensive experience if you are charged with a theft crime in Massachusetts.  If you have concerns about a potential criminal matter involving larceny call a lawyer right away. 

Continue Reading

| by

Charges of assault and battery issued against prize fighter Micky Ward after a clerk’s hearing held in the Lowell District Court.  The victim, Ward’s wife’s stepfather alleged that on May 28, 2008 during a confrontation Ward punched him in the face.  The alleged victim Kevin Nolette claims to have sustained a split lip, a broken nose and lost some teeth as a result of the punch.  Ward maintains that he acted in self defense when Nolette was poking him in the chest and raised his hand in a threatening manner.  An arraignment date has been set for September 4, 2008 in the Lowell District Court.

Clerk’s Hearings in Massachusetts are governed by G.L. c. 218 sec. 35A.  In the case of many misdemeanors, a clerk magistrate will hear evidence to determine whether there exists 1) probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and 2) that the person accused was the person who committed the crime.  The threshhold for the issuance of the complaint is low however good Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers are often able to convince the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. 

Our office has represented people accused of committing crimes in Massachusetts at clerks hearings on countless occasions.  Many times we have succeeded in convincing the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint.  We encourage you to visit our case results page to read about some specific examples of our victories at these proceedings. 

Continue Reading

| by

On August 5, 2008 police arrested two Beverly men identified as suspects in an early morning robbery.  The victims claimed that as they were walking in downtown Beverly they were approached by a group of four men.  One of the men brandished a knife and held it to one of the victim’s neck.  The assailant then stole money and a cell phone from the man.  He then made the other victim surrender his wallet. 

With the victim’s identifications two of the four men were apprehended.  They were arraigned in the Salem District Court and held without bail.

Armed robbery in Massachusetts is a felony.  It is punishable by anything from probation to a life sentence.  In order for you to be found guilty of armed robbery Massachusetts law requires the prosecution prove four elements: 

Continue Reading

| by

In Giles v. California, slip opinion June 25, 2008 the United States Supreme Court examined at the doctrine of forfeiture by wrondoing in the context of its decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).  Giles was convicted for the 1992 shooting and killing his girlfriend.  At trial, prosecutors successfully introduced statements made by the same victim to police concerning an earlier domestic violence incident involving the defendant.  California Evidence Code section 1370 permitted such evidence in situations where 1) the declarant was unavailable, 2) the statement described the infliction or the threat of physical injury on the declarant and 3) the statement was deemed trustworthy. 

The Supreme Court acknowledged two forms of testimonial statements that were admitted at common law even though they went unconfronted.  The first involved dying declarations.  The second involved situations where a witness was kept away by the defendant to eliminate that person’s testimony.  Under the latter exception courts held that a defendant should not benefit from such wrondoing and that “[t]he absence of a forfeiture rule covering this sort of conduct would create an intolerable incentive for defendants” to manipulate, bribe, itimidate, threaten or even kill witnesses against them.  The Court held that the California Evidence Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court exceeded the context of deliberate witness tampering and in essence violated the tenets of Crawford v. Washington.  The conviction was reversed.

Massachusetts recognizes the forfeiture by wrongdoing law as well.  The seminal case is Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 (2005).  Witness tampering in Massachusetts is also a crime in and of itself.  It is defined by G.L. c. 268 sec. 13B.  A conviction of that statute carries a ten year state prison sentence. 

Continue Reading

| by

A Lowell, Massachusetts woman went to speak to her boyfriend after learning that he had been cheating on her.  During the confrontation the woman rammed his car with her car and clawed at his chest.  The victim restrained the woman until police arrived.  When the officers took over the woman fought with them and kicked one of them in the face.  Pepper spray was used to subdue her.  She will be charged with malicious destruction to property over two hundred fifty dollars, assault and battery and assault and battery of a police officer.

In Massachusetts crimes such as this fall under the umbrella of domestic violence.  People typically think domestic violence cases involve men battering or abusing women.  However, as with this case the opposite holds equally true. 

Stephen Neyman is a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney who has years of experience defending domestic violence cases.  Without proper representation there exists a possibility that you will be incarcerated if convicted of a crime involving domestic violence.  Do not wait.  Contact a criminal defense who understands how to defend against these charges. 

Continue Reading

| by

In Commonwealth v. Parreira, slip opinion August 4, 2008 the Massachusetts Appeals Court clarified joint venture and its application to sex crimes.  In Parreira, the defendant and another met up with two fifteen year old girls and agreed to get together the next day.  The girls wanted the older boys to buy them alcohol so that they could get drunk on Halloween.  The girls achieved their objective and after consuming some drinks ended up in a vacant apartment with the defendants.  One of the girls had been to the apartment before to attend parties. 

Eventually the two girls ended up in separate rooms in the apartment.  One ened up with the defendant and another with his friend.  One of the girls testified that the defendant penetrated her without consent after which he went into the other room where his friend was purportedly violating the other girl.  When he entered that room the girl got up and got dressed and rejoined her friend.  A jury convicted the defendant of being a joint venturer with his friend as to the lesser included offense of statutory rape of the other girl. 

To be convicted of being a joint venturer in Massachusetts the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the scene with the knowledge that another intended to commit a crime or with the intent to commit a crime and that by agreement was available and willing to assist the other if necessary.  As to sex crimes, there is a requirement that to be found guilty as a joint venturer there must be a common victim.  The defendant must also be present at the crime scene and either provide assistance or facilitate the crime for another.  Examples of this are driving the victim to her attacker and guarding the door while the act is being committed. 

Continue Reading

| by

An Essex County Superior Court jury convicted a fifty six year old man of trafficking over fourteen grams of cocaine on Thursday.  He was sentenced to the minimum mandatory three year state prison sentence, two years probation from and after that sentence and a five year loss of license. 

The case arose from the following set of facts.  On August 10, 2007 police executed a search at the defendant’s home.  When they encountered the defendant they conducted a “pat frisk” and found ten small packages of cocaine.  As the search continued officers located over twenty grams of cocaine, thirteen bags of marijuana, some cash, a scale, a police scanner and other assorted drug paraphernalia.  The defense unsuccessfully attempted to convince the jury that the drugs were for personal use only. 

Massachusetts appellate courts have held time and time again that the presence of drug distribution paraphernalia permits juries to infer that a defendant intended to distribute the illegal substance.  See for example Commonwealth v. Lopes, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 988 (1998).  In cases such as this, where there are numerous separately packaged bags, scales, baggies and a police scanner the jury will be able to conclude that the defendant intended to traffic the substance.  In this case, the defendant did not take the stand.  That made rebutting the inference much more difficult for the defense attorney.

Continue Reading

| by

Haverhill police arrested two young adults yesterday and charged them with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, conspiracy and a school zone violation.  The arrests came about as a result of a raid on the defendant’s apartment that was authorized by a search warrant.  It is alleged that the couple had been selling cocaine in their own neighborhood for several weeks and that complaints were made to police about the recent drug activity.  During the course of the search police seized two bags of marijuana, five bags of cocaine and assorted drug distribution paraphernalia. 

Possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances in Massachusetts is punishable by imprisonment.  The Massachusetts school zone statute requires that a person convicted of either distributing, possessing with the intent to distribute or trafficking controlled substances be imprisoned for at least two years in addition to the sentence they received for the underlying offense. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is committed to defending the rights of those accused of committing drug offenses in Massachusetts and throughout the country.  Whether you are charged with simple possession, possession with the intent to distribute, distribution or trafficking you should contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.  Convictions for violations of Massachusetts drug laws can result in imprisonment and a loss of license.  If you are involved in a criminal drug matter you can help yourself by contacting our office now.

Continue Reading