Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

| by

For the second time in two years a Massachusetts Drug Task Force has made an arrest of a Bridgewater State College student for a Massachusetts Drug Crime. For about one month law enforcement have been watching 37 Hale Street in Bridgewater. The address is home to a sophomore from Milbury, Massachusetts. It is alleged that law enforcement began their investigation after receiving anonymous tips. Additionally, police knew about the house as they had been called on several occasions after excessive noise from parties was reported. Once the investigation began officers conducted surveillance during which heavy foot traffic in and out of the house was noted. A Search Warrant was obtained and this past Tuesday, early in the morning the warrant was executed. During the search officers located their target as well as a pound of marijuana and over one thousand dollars identified as proceeds from drug deals. The police also seized Drug Paraphernalia believed to be used to weigh and package the substance. The target defendant was arrested. His two roommates received summonses to appear at a later date. The charges now filed are Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Brockton, Massachusetts Marijuana Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Crimes Charges in Bridgewater, Massachusetts

The defendant in this case is very lucky for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the charges fall short of Trafficking Marijuana. The amount of marijuana found is minimal by legal standards. Additionally, there is no School Zone Violation charged here as presumably the activity occurred outside of the prohibited area. These Drug Task Force operations tend to yield greater quantities of drugs. Take for example the last such case involving a Bridgewater State College student. There, jail time was imposed in that the quantity of drugs and types of drugs permitted a greater sentence. In this case I can see an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer working out some sort of resolution that will leave the target defendant and the two roommates without a criminal record. This would probably be a continuance without a finding.

Here are some other thoughts. I imagine that an informant was used by the task force. Perhaps this is the person who initially alerted law enforcement to the illegal activity. However, more than this tip is needed to get a Search Warrant. Thus, one would think that there was either a controlled buy made at the target home or that one or more of the purchasers were caught leaving the property with recently purchased marijuana. These people usually buckle and provide the police with the information they need to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. If I am correct, and this is how the warrant was obtained, there may be some opportunity to challenge the legality of the search.

Continue Reading

| by

Just after noon on Monday, Maximo Velasquez, a twenty-seven year old man from Dorchester, Massachusetts was stopped after he supposedly drove through a stop sign in Quincy. At the time Velasquez was driving a Mercedes that had been rented to someone else. The police asked Velasquez to produce his driver’s license. When he did officers learned that he had a pending Massachusetts Drug Case open against him. Subsequently the car was searched. During the search officers found seventeen grams of Heroin. The drugs were concealed in condoms hidden in the rear brake light compartment. It is further alleged that Velasquez had in his possession one gram of Cocaine. Right now he has been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and a Massachusetts Cocaine Charge. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Heroin Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Cases in Quincy, Norfolk County, Massachusetts

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am always suspicious when I read an article like this one. I ask myself why it is that all drug dealers caught in a car with drugs commit Motor Vehicle Offenses that justify the initial stop of the car. Rarely is that actually the case. Most of my clients insist that they were pulled over for no reason at all. Prior to 9/11 this was difficult to prove. It was the police officer’s word against my client’s. But now things have changed. Almost everywhere you look you can find a video security camera. If you figure out which business or entity owns the camera you can ask for footage or get a subpoena from the judge to access this material. And guess what? You will be surprised at just how many of these “Motor Vehicle Offenses” never actually occurred.

Relative to this case however, even going beyond the stop I am wondering what grounds the police had to make Velasquez wait while they went to get a dog to search the rental car. An open case does not give the police the right to detain someone and to search their property. Nor for that matter does driving a rental car that has been rented to someone else. It is conceivable that Velasquez’s name was on the rental car contract as someone permitted to drive the car. A challenge to the Search and Seizure in this case might prove fruitful for Velasquez. Here is something else to consider. Even if this case goes to trial, what evidence is there that Velasquez knew about the Heroin in the tail light compartment. Absolutely none. On so many grounds it appears that case might be very difficult for the district attorney to prove.

Continue Reading

| by

Just a few days ago Search Warrants were executed at two apartments located at 50 Harrison Avenue in Taunton, Massachusetts. In all, eight men and two women were charged with Massachusetts Drug Conspiracy, Trafficking in Heroin Over 100 Grams and a Massachusetts School Zone Violation. Five of the defendants were arrested during the execution of the Search Warrants. The other five were seen at the apartments shortly before the searches. They were located in a car just blocks from the apartments. Authorities stated that the heroin was found in three locations. Just over seventeen grams was found in a toilet bowl in one of the apartments. Just over thirty one grams of heroin was found in the possession of one of the defendants, Juan Jimenez. Just over fifty seven grams of heroin was thrown out of one of the apartments and lodged in the snow. Defendant Jaime Sanchez was found in possession of ten thousand dollars cash. Sanchez, Marques McCassie and Jose Quiles were named on the Search Warrants as targets of the investigation. The remaining defendants, Flavio Daviega, Antwunn Romell Jones, Felicia Lopes, Kelly Bulris and Agustin Roldan were apparently arrested due to a perceived association with the people who possessed the drugs. Five other people were also in one of the apartments, none of whom were charged.

Read Article:

Taunton, Massachusetts Heroin Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Bristol County Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer, Drug Trafficking, Conspiracy

So lets just break this down in a manner most favorable to the prosecution. Jimenez might have problems due to his possession of a quantity of Heroin sufficient to satisfy the Trafficking threshold. Sanchez could be in trouble given his possession of a significant amount of cash. Lopes was found in Possession of a Class B Drug but this does not mean that she had Drug Trafficking intentions. And what about the remaining defendants, Bulris, Jones, Daviega, Roldan, Quiles and McCassie? Well, proving a drug case in Massachusetts against the five in the car will be difficult. Just because they were at the apartment does not mean that they had any involvement in drug dealing. After all, what exactly is the district attorney going to say that they did? Were they buying drugs? Probably not particularly if they did not have drugs on them or drugs in their presence in the car. Are they going to be accused of selling to the people in the apartment? Again, probably not. There is no proof that they sold to these people and one would think that since the apartments were the subject of a Search Warrant the police believed that drugs were being sold at that location, not purchased by the occupants of the apartments. If these people kept their mouths shut and they Hire an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer they might be fully acquitted. Perhaps the cases against them will be dismissed.

Continue Reading

| by

Not a day goes by where I don’t see of or hear of a criminal defendant in Massachusetts putting the final nails in his or her coffin by talking on the phone. No matter how smart or how stupid the accused, talking on the phone is going to cause you a major problem. Take a look at yesterday’s Boston Globe article written by Shelley Murphy about the James “Whitey” Bulger case. Murphy reported that in September of 2012 a conversation that Bulger had with his younger brother undermines the defense contention that Bulger was a government informant. The article quotes Bulger as saying that “I bought [expletive] information, I didn’t sell it,” and “I never gave them [expletive] information. Nothin’. Nothin.'” The purpose behind making those statements and the context of the statements is virtually meaningless. Rather, the content of what Bulger said is what is going to be more heavily weighed by either a judge or a jury when deciding whether or not to believe Bulger’s claim that he was a government informant.

Massachusetts Proposed Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) states that the statement of a party opponent is admissible and is not hearsay. Case law in Massachusetts supports this concept and with limited exception any statement made by a defendant is admissible against him at trial. Most people awaiting trial understand this. Certainly those with substantial involvement with the legal system know 1) that their jail calls are being recorded and 2) that anything said by them during the course of those conversations can be used against them in court. Most jail telephones have a tape recorded warning advising the participants that the calls are being monitored. Any Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell his client not to talk on the phone. Talking does no good. Whether you are accused of Rape, Robbery, Drug Trafficking, Child Pornography or any crime you have to remember to remain silent and never talk about the case. Keep in mind that the Constitution gives you the absolute to remain silent. Federal case law and Massachusetts law support this proposition. As I have mentioned in several previous posts, many of my clients would never have even been charged had then not opened their mouths. And those of them who continued to talk even after being charged with the crime complicated matters. The most famous case implicating the right to remain silent is the Miranda case. In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was convicted of multiple Sex Crimes. He confessed to these crimes and it was the confession, not the strength of the district attorney’s case that led to his conviction. In 1966 the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction and held that Miranda’s rights had been violated. The Miranda case established the implementation of certain rights that must be afforded to anyone in custody being interrogated. It also reinforced the principle that criminal lawyers strongly embrace – – to keep your mouth shut.

Continue Reading

| by

Last week a grand jury sitting in Plymouth County charged Mister T. Hood with three counts of Distribution of Cocaine, Subsequent Offense. It is alleged that Hood committed these crimes in mid-December. He was arrested in connection with a massive drug investigation that led to the arrests of over twenty people. Hood’s prior convictions are from 2002, 2005 and 2009. Hood’s arrest stems from “Operation Clean Sweep”. Out of the twenty plus people arrested from that operation only Hood and one other have been indicted. This case will be prosecuted in the Brockton Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Cases in Brockton

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32A(b) states that anyone who is convicted of distributing cocaine and has one or more prior such convictions shall serve at least a two year state prison sentence. There is a maximum ten year state prison sentence authorized. So assuming this is the statute under which Hood has been indicted you might ask why bring a case like this one to superior court. After all, there are ways to get that kind of time through a conviction in the district court. Well, there could be countless reasons for the indictment but in this case I imagine Hood’s criminal history had a significant impact on this decision. Not only does he have three prior convictions but convictions for Massachusetts Violent Crimes (Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon) and, he beat a murder charge. Or perhaps Hood is viewed as the more dominant player in this sweep and the indictment is designed as a deterrent to warn others not to continue with these activities.

As an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I have noticed that absent some sort of concrete evidence such as a surveillance videotape jurors do not like to convict people who were not arrested at the time of the offense. The district attorney prosecuting these cases relies on an officer or cooperating person stating what they saw Hood do. Yet, there is no immediate arrest. Rather, they permit him to continue dealing drugs and then, at least in this case, make an arrest eight days later. That does not sit well with jurors. It also enables the accused to establish an alibi or alibis showing that he was nowhere in the area at the time of the alleged criminal activity. Investigations like this are risky and the police rely on getting most of the people who are arrested to plead guilty or cooperate. The article referenced above identifies five people who have already pleaded guilty to the crimes for which they were charged.

Continue Reading

| by

As Massachusetts continues to grapple with the Annie Dookhan scandal, a second crime lab chemist has been arrested and will face charges relating to evidence tampering and drug possession. Sonja Farak, a 35-year-old Northampton woman who worked at the Amherst lab, allegedly substituted real drugs with counterfeit drugs to support a suspected drug habit. The lab will close temporarily.

According to Attorney General Martha Coakley, the “drugs were tested, they were tested fairly. The certificates were not impeached in any way, but we allege… that the drugs were then taken and in her possession.” Coakley claims that this case is not connected with the Dookhan scandal because the “motives are completely opposite” and because Dookhan and Farak exhibited different behaviors. Prosecutors believe that the drugs were for personal use and that there was no distribution or intent to distribute. Supervisors at the lab discovered a discrepancy in inventory and contacted state police. Farak previously worked at the Jamaica Plain lab. She will be arraigned in Eastern Hampshire district court. District Attorney David Sullivan issued a statement on Sunday indicating that his office is assessing the number of cases that may have been compromised by the chemist’s wrongdoing.

Police interviewed Farak in connection with the Dookhan scandal on September 12, 2012. Police reports indicate that Farak worked with Dookhan in Jamaica Plain before Farak started working at the Amherst lab. Farak told police that they worked on some cases together and found Dookhan to be friendly. She told police that she never noticed Dookhan doing anything improper and that she had no knowledge of anyone in the lab performing analytical procedures improperly. Farak never reported any wrongdoing in the lab during her career.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise Paul Perelli met up with defendant Eddy Monteiro, a Brockton, Massachusetts resident at Perelli’s home in Marshfield. It is alleged that Monteiro owed Perelli one hundred fifty dollars and wanted to settle the debt. Monteiro and Perelli, along with Michael Capps and Stephen Burton smoked some marijuana together. Shortly thereafter, two unknown men arrived, bound Perelli, Capps and Burton and pistol whipped Capps. Monteiro allegedly participated with them as well. Perelli called the police. When they arrived they found “an elaborate indoor marijuana-growing operation, complete with hydroponic tanks for growing plants”. Monteiro was arrested and charged with Home Invasion with a Firearm and several counts of Armed Assault in a Dwelling. His case is pending in the Plymouth District Court. Perelli and/or his friends may have problems as well. The article reports that the police seized two pounds of pot and several thousand dollars cash.

Read Article:

Plymouth Home Invasion Defense Law Firm

Brockton Violent Crimes Defense Lawyer, Gun Cases, Marijuana Distribution

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer reading this article is going to ask why Perelli called the cops. Either Perelli, Capps or Burton or perhaps all three have exposure for Cultivating Marijuana or Possession With the Intent to Distribute stemming from their marijuana growing operation. The penalty for a conviction of these Massachusetts Marijuana Crimes pales in comparison to the sentence Monteiro and his cohorts face if convicted of the Home Invasion. Yet you have to wonder why Perelli made the call. Was this in fact the drug rip that is portrayed in this article? Or was this a drug deal that went bad? On several occasions I have defended cases that look at the outset like the accused was trying to rob a known dealer. However every time these cases get more closely investigate I learn that not to be the case. There is usually some sort of mutual dispute that escalates. Someone then tries to get the upper hand by making an accusation about something like a Home Invasion. The person making the report wants the police to believe that he is the victim and does what he can to get that person in custody as a way of getting out of the dispute. This tactic doesn’t always work. An experience criminal lawyer can expose the false accusation. Text conversations between Monteiro and Perelli can shed some light on what really happened here as can text messages between Monteiro and has unidentified “friends”. Perhaps these people too had memorialized conversations with Perelli thereby suggesting that they were not unknown to him. All of this will rear its head during the discovery process and might serve Monteiro’s defense well.

Continue Reading

| by

Patrick O’Neill of Weymouth, Massachusetts was arrested last week and charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Oxycodone, Distribution of Oxycodone, a School Zone Violation and Drug Conspiracy. An investigation into O’Neill’s activities started several weeks. Neighbors complained to the police that they believed O’Neill was dealing drugs. Following up on their leads the police watched O’Neill and his home. They applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. Then, last Thursday afternoon police stopped O’Neill as he left his apartment. They searched him and found him in Possession of Oxycodone and cash. They then searched his home. They found more pills. All charges are pending in the Quincy District Court. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Oxycodone Drug Offenses in Massachusetts

Every Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who defends drug cases is seeing more and more cases like this one. The anonymous “complaining neighbor” is becoming a fixture in Massachusetts drug detective’s police reports. From a legal perspective, the complaining neighbor takes on the status of an anonymous informant. This person’s veracity must be established in order for the district attorney to survive a challenge to the issuance of the Search Warrant. To satisfy the veracity requirement, this type of information must be supported by precise detail and police corroboration of that detail. So what happened here? Assuming the police did actually receive the information from an anonymous neighbor they probably started watching O’Neill’s apartment. Their subsequent observations must have led them to conclude that O’Neill was dealing drugs. They probably stopped and interrogated people they saw meeting with O’Neill and used this information to enhance their investigation. They may have used an undercover officer or known informant to engage in a controlled buy from O’Neill. If this happened the officer’s observations would be provided in detail in their Affidavit in Support of the Application for a Search Warrant. Much of this can be confirmed or contradicted by O’Neill’s lawyer if an attack on the Search Warrant is considered. If the police observations are simply general and conclusory suppression might be in order.

Sometimes the anonymous “complaining neighbor” does not exist. He is a fiction used by the police to help ensure that their Search Warrant Application is approved. Pretrial discovery motions and/or a private investigator can help to determine whether or not these people actually exist. Suspicious Search Warrant Affidavit can result is a dismissal of a criminal case or suppression of the drugs seized. It is a criminal defense lawyers’ job to dig and challenge the information set out in these documents.

Continue Reading

| by

Police in Weymouth, Massachusetts had been investigating Brandon Runge for several months. Complaints from neighbors led them to believe that the twenty year-old Runge had been involved in criminal activities. Late last week, armed with a Search Warrant police went to Runge’s home on Oakdale Street. At the time of the entry of the police officers Runge leapt out of a window and fled. The search of the apartment continued. Officers located a significant quantity of Cocaine, Oxycodone, a Firearm, Ammunition, Bath Salts and a large amount of cash. Late Monday night Runge was located in Hull where he was apprehended. He now faces charges of Trafficking Cocaine, Trafficking Oxycodone, Possession With Intent to Distribute Bath Salts, Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of a Firearm and more. Runge had several outstanding warrants at the time of his arrest as well. Right now the cases are pending in the Quincy District Court but will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Drug Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Dedham Criminal Lawyer, Drug Trafficking, Gun Cases

Perhaps the most serious charge Runge is facing is being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. This statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G provides for much more severe penalties than the statute prohibiting Gun Possession in Massachusetts. The felon in Possession statute in essence states that anyone in possession of a gun and having a single conviction for either a crime of violence or a drug crime is to be punished by a minimum mandatory three-year state prison sentence. Two such prior convictions mandates a ten year prison sentence after a conviction for being a Felon in Possession. Thus, Runge may have some steep exposure for a conviction of this offense if his criminal record contains any of these predicate convictions.

So what are the defenses to an indictment charging this crime? Beyond the ordinary, i.e. invalid Search Warrant, affirmative defenses, attribution to another, Runge may want to try to get his prior convictions vacated. That can sometimes be done through a new trial motion attacking either the predicate convictions or pleas. Ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence or constitutionally infirm pleas serve as a basis for the collateral attack. This approach is often taken in cases where the concerns focus more on sentencing than with defending the underlying Felon in Possession Charge. Runge’s Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will probably take a look at this issue. Vacating prior convictions will usually result in a lesser sentence no matter what the outcome is on the primary criminal charge.

Continue Reading

| by

Just two days ago a Massachusetts State Trooper made a motor vehicle stop just before four in the morning. According to reports the car ran a stop sign and was speeding in Brighton. Some of the passengers were “ducking” in the car at the time the trooper started to approach the car. Brian Poitras of Lynn, Massachusetts was supposedly driving the car with a suspended driver’s license. He was placed under arrest. The three passengers were then removed from the car. In an area not specified in the article officers found eleven grams of cocaine, seven grams of methamphetamine and some marijuana, the amount of which did not meet the threshold for a criminal complaint in Massachusetts. In addition to being charged with Operating with a Suspended Driver’s License Poitras was charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine, Drug Conspiracy, and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana. The passengers, Kristen Hosman of Salem, Massachusetts, Victor Cordino of Boston, Massachusetts, and Cameron Linehan of Somerville, Massachusetts were all charged with the same Massachusetts Drug Offenses. The case will be prosecuted in the Brighton District Court.

Read Article:

Boston, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm

Boston Drug Defense Lawyer, Possession With Intent, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methamphetamine

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I truly enjoy defending cases like this one. Countless variables factor into defense strategies in this case. There will be defenses pertaining to some of the accused, one of the defendants, and all of the defendants depending on where the drugs were found, who said what and what the officers recorded in their report. There is no way that all four people in the car were Possessing Drugs either directly or constructively as is required for a conviction for these crimes. There is no way that all four of the accused conspired to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. Rather, they were all arrested because they were present where drugs were found and that is not enough to get a conviction in Massachusetts. In its simplest form, conspiracy in the context of this case requires an agreement to commit a designated drug offense. Four people in a car and the presence of drugs does not establish that element (the agreement) of the conspiracy charge. It will be even more difficult for the district attorney to prove that all of the defendants intended to distribute the substances. As I have mentioned several times in the past, being present where a crime is being committed is not proof that that person was involved in criminal activity. Absent more than is mentioned in this article the drug charges might not survive.

Continue Reading