Lawrence, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm
The facts of this article suggest that the defendant was improperly charged. Lamothe had the heroin in her possession. There is no indication that the two intended to share the drugs. Conversely, the article suggests that the quantity in Lamothe’s possession was consistent with personal use. In this case one would think it was for her personal use otherwise it would be in Anthony’s clothing or hands. Whereas there is no Conspiracy charge the charges against Anthony might either be dismissed or resolved in a way where he will not have a criminal record provided he does not already have one. The case against Berroa is a bit more difficult for the prosecution to prove. Absent testimony from Anthony or Lamothe proving that Berroa distributed the drugs to Anthony would require speculation on the part of the jury. An instruction always given to jurors prohibits them from speculating. The district attorney has to prove his or case beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept is one that I have always had a problem with. Massachusetts case law makes clear that “presence only” at the scene of a crime is not enough to sustain a conviction for the underlying crime. However, the law making it a crime to knowingly be present where heroin is kept cuts against this. A challenge to the constitutionality of that law is always a good idea.
Our office is committed to defending the accused. If you are in trouble you need to contact a lawyer right away. Call us at 617-263-6800 or send us an email. We will fight for you.