Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

| by

tfs_mm_hollywoodog.jpgMedical marijuana is a phrase that refers to the cultivation, possession and use of the drug marijuana for medical purposes. It is used to relieve pain associated with terminal illnesses or diseases. Ingesting marijuana has made AIDS and some forms of cancer more manageable. There are many people who believe that marijuana has great value in the treatment of many medical problems. Recently, and throughout the country, medical marijuana laws are coming into existence. These laws vary from state to state and appear to conflict with federal marijuana laws. Federal law still trumps state law however there has been limited effort on the part of the federal government to prosecute people who are acting in conformity with their state laws as they relate to medical marijuana. The exception to this pertains to medical marijuana suppliers.

There now exist sixteen states that permit growing and using marijuana for medical purposes. These states are California, Washington, Rhode Island, Vermont, Michigan, Maine, New Mexico, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, Montana, Delaware, Nevada and Arizona. Here is a look at how some of these states treat this issue of medical marijuana:

Alaska: Patients may possess up to one ounce and grow six plants;
Arizona: Patients may possess up to 2 ½ ounces and in certain circumstances grow up to twelve plants;
California: Patients can possess up to eight ounces and grow six plants;
Colorado: Two ounces and six plants.

All states that permit the use of medical marijuana regulate the diseases or medical conditions that qualify for the use and cultivation of the drug. For instance, Maine permits usage where the patient suffers from epilepsy, seizure disorders, glaucoma, and AIDS and chemotherapy related nausea. Montana lists these conditions and adds cancer in general, debilitating physical and mental conditions, severe or persistent muscles spasms and Chrohn’s diseases.

Some states require payment of a fee for the use of medical marijuana and others require the patient or provider to carry a medical marijuana card.

Here is something everyone should be aware of. Even where medical marijuana is legal there exist criminal penalties for people who exceed what is permissible or manipulate the law. For instance, selling to people not eligible to possess, possessing more than the legal amount and cultivating more than is permissible can get you in trouble. Jail sentences are often authorized as punishment for those who violate these laws.

Massachusetts does not have a medical marijuana laws. Moreover, Possession of Marijuana in Massachusetts is not legal. Possession of less than one ounce of Marijuana in Massachusetts is no longer a criminal offense however it is an infraction that can lead to having to pay fines. Make no mistake about this however, Distribution of Marijuana in Massachusetts remains a felony under all circumstances. Do not assume that it is okay to sell, give away or share any quantity of marijuana in Massachusetts. This is a felony. If you get caught you will be prosecuted for this offense. If you have any questions about this law you should contact a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer right away.

Continue Reading

| by

Police allege that Samuel Gambaro of Providence, Rhode Island was involved in a drug operation spanning at least three states, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. An investigation into Gambaro’s activities started in October of this year. Authorities claim that seven hand-to-hand sales to an undercover Massachusetts State Police Officer and a search warrant executed at a Lawrence, Massachusetts residence led to the criminal drug charges. The Search Warrant was executed at Bunkerhill Street. There, officers located over one hundred grams of heroin and sixty five grams of cocaine all said to have a street value in the vicinity of ten thousand dollars. Apparently the substances were located on a coffee table. Two other individuals were also charged with Massachusetts Drug Crimes as a result of this investigation. Santo Mota-Vizaino of Lawrence, Massachusetts and Francisco Carmona-Sanchez of Dorchester were charged with Trafficking Cocaine and Trafficking Heroin. Both have also been charged with Conspiracy to Violation the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Laws. Gambaro has been charged with Distribution of Class B and Distribution of Class A according to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune article. Gambaro is being held on one million dollars cash bail. Mota-Vizaino and Carmona-Sanchez are being held on fifty thousand dollars cash bail. These cases will most likely be prosecuted on the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Drug Crimes Lawyers In Lawrence Massachusetts

While reading this article I could not help but wonder why the police needed seven controlled buys to achieve their goal. I understand that sometimes they want to build a relationship with the suspect in hopes of getting to the source of the drugs. And sure, if they are successful the police will get more drugs off of the streets. Yet sometimes, and all too often, they have another motive in mind. That is, to get the suspect to sell them greater quantities of drugs so that the crime, and ultimately the minimum mandatory sentence is greater. Some jurisdictions recognize this as a defense to the crime. The defense is known as sentencing entrapment. This occurs when the government makes someone, who may have a predisposition to engage in one sort of criminal activity (i.e. selling small amounts of a drug), to engage in more serious criminal activity that exposes that person to harsher punishment (i.e. trafficking a drug). The purpose of recognizing the defense is to discourage improper government conduct. Some jurisdictions recognize sentencing entrapment as a defense theory in drug cases that can result in the reduction of a sentence. Unfortunately, Massachusetts does not. See Commonwealth v. Garcia, 421 Mass. 686, 692-693 (1996).

So let’s suppose that in this case Gambaro or his two co-defendants had an inclination to sell only small amounts of cocaine and heroin. Further suppose that this is all that they had ever sold and all that they were inclined to sell. If the undercover officer kept raising the amount he wanted to buy and essentially coerced the defendants to do so a sentencing entrapment argument could be made if this case were being prosecuted in a jurisdiction that recognizes the defense.

Continue Reading

| by

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

| by

One of the most valuable tools that an aggressive and successful defense attorney has in his or her arsenal is the motion to suppress evidence. Whether a case is in the Lowell District Court, Peabody District Court or Lawrence District Court the viability of filing a motion to suppress evidence should always be considered when a client is charged with an offense in which the Commonwealth must prove possession to secure a conviction against a defendant. Boston area criminal Defense Our Attorney has successfully litigated motions to suppress evidence in the Massachusetts Superior and District Courts. Whenever a client is charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition or possession of a dangerous weapon a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney should consider filing a motion to suppress evidence. If a motion to suppress evidence is successful that is often the end of the case.

STANDING

In order to be in a position to file a motion to suppress a defendant must have standing and an expectation of privacy. Standing generally means that a person is legally in a position to file such a motion. Whenever a defendant is charged with an offense in which the Commonwealth must prove possession to convict a defendant, such as unlawful possession of a firearm, G.L. c. 269 § 10 9h), he has automatic standing to contest the reasonableness of the search under Article Fourteen of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Commonwealth v. Amendola, 406 Mass. 592, 601 (1990) [adopting doctrine of “automatic standing” where defendant is charged with a possessory offense and seeks to exclude evidence under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights]. Whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy is usually a separate–but related issue. In Commonwealth v. Kirschner, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 836 (2006) the Appeals court recognized that a defendant charged with a possessory offense is relieved of the burden of showing an expectation of privacy. See, Commonwealth v. Frazier, 410 Mass. 235 (1991).

STANDING/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

Under the Fourth Amendment, the question of whether the defendant has standing to challenge a search or seizure is merged with the determination of whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched, and a defendant has no standing if he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Rakas v. Illinoi, 439 U.S. 128, 138-39 (1978); Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 456 Mass. 385, 391 (2010). In contrast, under Article Fourteen, the question of standing remains separate from the question of reasonable expectation of privacy. Mubdi, 456 Mass. at 391; Commonwealth v. Williams, 435 Mass. 203, 207-08 (2009); Commonwealth v. Frazier, 410 Mass. 235, 244 n. 3 (1991). “This separation matters most in cases where a defendant is charged with a possessory offense, because Article Fourteen gives a defendant automatic standing to challenge a search of a private place, such as an automobile or home, in which the object he is alleged to possess is found.” Mubdi, 456 Mass. at 392. Where a defendant has automatic standing, he does not need to show that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. Id. “The practical consequence of automatic standing is that, if a defendant is charged with illegally possessing drugs or firearms that were seized during a search, the defendant may succeed in suppressing such evidence where the search was unconstitutional, regardless of whether he has a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the drugs or firearms were found.” Id. at 392-93.

Continue Reading

| by

A homicide detective working for the Massachusetts State Police was on his way home from work when he saw something that caught his eye. Three cars were driving suspiciously in a residential neighborhood in Braintree. The cars pulled over and a large piece of luggage was transferred from one vehicle to another. The trooper had information that involved other drug transactions in that neighborhood. So, the officer approached the group to ask what they were up to. They claimed to be lost and looking for the South Shore Mall. They then left. The trooper then called another officer who effectuated a stop of one of the vehicles, the one where the suitcase was placed. This occurred in Milton on Route 93. The driver, Thu Viet Tran of Revere, Massachusetts was arrested. He has been charged with Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance and a School Zone Violation. Over forty pounds of marijuana was seized. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Possession With Intent Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who reads this article is no doubt thinking the same thing. What right did the officers have to pull the car over? Well, maybe none. Tran’s lawyer will file a motion to suppress. The judge is going to have to decide whether the stop was justified in the first place. To get past this point the district attorney will have to prove that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Tran was committed, had committed or was about to commit a crime. This suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts that flow from the officer’s experience. The test is an objective one. A hunch will not suffice. Nor for that matter will being present in a high crime area. In cases like this one where the officer makes the decision to stop and search based on his first hand observations the determination of reasonable suspicion focuses on the totality of the circumstances. Here, the district attorney will probably argue that the trooper’s observations led him to believe that he had just witnessed a drug transaction thereby prompting him to stop and search the defendant’s car. However absent the recognition of anyone in the group as being involved with drugs in the past this observation stands to be challenged.

Motions to Suppress Searches are tools used by defense lawyers to get cases thrown out of court. When these motions succeed the fruits of the illegal search, in this case the forty pounds of marijuana, get suppressed. They cannot be used as evidence against the defendant. As a common consequence, the district attorney is unable to proceed against the defendant and the case gets dismissed. Hiring a lawyer who understands the law of Search and Seizure is important, particularly in drug cases where searches are prevalent. With the right lawyer you can avoid jail time and possibly a criminal conviction. In this case, the School Zone Charge mandates two years in jail so Tran’s choice of a lawyer is going to be very important.

Continue Reading

| by

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

home-invasion.jpg

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

| by

According to the Lynn Item, back in August of this year Michael DeStasio of Revere, Massachusetts entered a CVS pharmacy in Beverly, Massachusetts. He presented the pharmacist with a prescription for Percocet. The prescription was for an elderly woman. It was also a bad prescription. The police were called. They confronted DeStasio who claimed that he got the prescription from a man in a bar. DeStasio, who has two prior convictions for the same offense is being prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. He is being charged with Uttering a False Prescription, a Second and Subsequent Offense.

Read Article:

Revere Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

Uttering a False Prescription is a felony pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 33. The law prohibits anyone from uttering a false prescription and from possessing controlled substances through forgery or other deceptive means for the purpose of getting the drugs from someone permitted to dispense the substances, i.e. in this case a pharmacy. A conviction for this offense carries up to four years in state prison. A conviction for a second and subsequent offense, as is the case for DeStasio carries as sentence of up to twice that for first time offenders.

The law is pretty straightforward. As a matter of fact, it is so straightforward that there is virtually no significant case law discussing the subject in Massachusetts. There are some defenses to this crime discussed in limited detail in the Lexis annotations to the statute. There might be a defense of duress, or of coercion or perhaps necessity. The defense of necessity requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence one of the following three elements: 1) that the defendant was confronted with an imminent danger, one that was clear and not subject to debate; 2) that the defendant had a reasonable expectation that his conduct would reduce or eliminate the danger and 3) that there was no legal effective alternative. This defense is rarely used. I recall using the defense of necessity successfully on one occasion. That case involved a defendant who was operating a motor vehicle on a driver’s license that had been suspended for OUI. One of his family members suddenly became severely ill requiring immediate medical attention. He called 911 and after waiting for over ten minutes he placed the family member in his car and sped off to the hospital. There was a record of his 911 call and the delay in the EMT response was well documented. The trial proceeded without a jury and the defendant was acquitted.

In the context of this case I have difficulty seeing the viability of the defense mentioned particularly where this is not DeStasio’s first offense. If he has a known substance abuse addiction or problem perhaps his Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will have some success in getting this case resolved without the need of having to go through with a trial. Massachusetts judges and prosecutors are often sensitive to these types of problems and case dispositions tend to focus on rehabilitation and cure rather than lengthy periods of incarceration.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lowell Sun, seventeen year old Sergio Figueroa, a student at Lowell High School was escorted out of school and charged with a number of criminal offenses in Lowell District Court including threats, disturbing a school assembly and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. According to the Sun, after a teacher told him to leave the classroom the student made a motion similar to shooting and made threats to the teacher. Apparently, after the police caught up with Figueroa, he did not have a binder with him that he had with him when he left school. The authorities eventually searched his locker and found a bag containing four smaller baggies of what they believe is marijuana and one-hundred thirty five dollars in cash.

Although all of the facts of the case are not known at this time, it would be important for an experienced defense attorney to examine all of the facts that led to the decision by law enforcement to search the student’s locker. In Massachusetts an individual has a right to an expectation of privacy on his or her person and in his or her home. Depending on the circumstances, this “expectation” can extend to cover motor vehicles. Whether a student has an “expectation of privacy”in his or her locker could depend on the rules promulgated by the school. An argument can be made that it is a privilege to go to school and the students must abide by the rules. However, the constitutionality of any “rules” and whether the proper procedure was followed can often be the subject of a viable motion to suppress evidence.

Filing a motion to suppress evidence is one of the many tools that an aggressive defense lawyer has in his or her arsenal. In cases in which a person is charged with illegal possession of an item i.e., a firearm or a controlled substance, examining the circumstances surrounding any stop, search and seizure is a good place to start in mounting a successful defense. In the event that evidence is suppressed, and the Commonwealth cannot prove its case, the case is often dismissed by a judge or nolle prossed by the prosecution.

In Massachusetts, if a defendant loses a motion to suppress, in most circumstances that decision cannot be appealed unless, and until, the case goes to trial and a defendant loses and appeals his case. Thus, even if a defendant loses a motion to suppress, that he or she should have won, if a defendant then pleads guilty, the defendant cannot then appeal the improper denial of the motion to suppress. However, if the Commonwealth feels that a motion was improperly allowed, the prosecution can appeal. The rationale for this is that the Commonwealth will not be able to prosecute without the evidence so in the interest of fairness, they are allowed to appeal the allowance of motions to suppress. However, if a defendant is found not guilty, the Commonwealth has not right of appeal.

Continue Reading

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reports that last Friday members of a local drug task force arrested twenty to year old Katelyn Boutiette after what has been called a “months-long” investigation. Authorities believed that Boutiette might have been selling drugs in the greater Bridgewater area for the past year. The investigation resulted in the police obtaining and executing a Search Warrant at Boutiette’s home. During the search police located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia as well as eight grams of class “A”, enough to charge her with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin. Boutiette’s car was seized as evidence as well. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney there are many additional facts I would like to know about this case. What did the year or “months-long” investigation show? Was Boutiette seen distributing drugs? What are her drug habits? Is she a heroin user? Does she live alone or with someone else? Where were the drugs found during the search? Was anybody else present during the search, i.e. a friend or roommate? Was Boutiette present during the search? What information did the police have to get the Search Warrant in the first place? Was the warrant properly issued or is there a reasonable constitutional challenge to the search based on an absence of probable cause to search? The answers to these questions will likely guide the defense of this case.

So what happens to Boutiette? Suppression of the evidence seized during the search might occur if the search is declared unlawful. Or, if Boutiette does not have a criminal record then do not be surprised if the case gets continued without a finding. If Boutiette is able to show that she has a heroin habit then an acquittal of the charges is possible and a conviction for simple Possession of Heroin might be all that she faces. Certainly 8 grams of heroin can be consistent with personal use. The district attorney’s office will disagree with this. They will call a witness (expert), usually an experienced drug detective to say that the quantity, possibly coupled with other factors is consistent with an intent to distribute. There is a flaw in that characterization however. Unless the detective knows the accused and his or her habits any testimony on this issue can be viewed as speculative. Furthermore, the defense attorney can ask the detective how many times he has testified that a particular quantity (eight grams) is consistent with something other than an intent to distribute. I will bet that the answer is never. That, in and of itself speaks to the integrity of that testimony. Make no mistake about it. Heroin habits can easily exceed the eight gram per day threshold. The possession of eight grams can be the product of a lesser habit as well. Using some of the product over a short period of time is not unusual and a reasonable explanation for the possession of this amount of the drug.

Continue Reading

| by

According to an article in the Melrose Patch, eleven people were arrested and charged with various Massachusetts Drug Crimes including Trafficking Cocaine Over 200 Grams. Ten of the individuals are from Massachusetts. The investigation began in March. Official were looking into activities of a Boston North End man who was alleged to have run the drug network. He allegedly dealt out of an accomplice’s apartment in Boston and Revere. In June Search Warrants were obtained resulting in the seizure of over five hundred grams of cocaine and seventy five thousand dollars cash. The article and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office press release identify the following defendants: Gerald Esposito of Boston, Steven Tracia of Revere, Kettia Piris of Revere, Anthony Giannetti of Revere, Adam Saggese of Melrose, Marino Velasquez of Revere, Anthony Vigorito of Boston, Ferdinando Daniele of Revere, Anthony Ascenzo of Boston, Salvatore Lazzari of Winthrop and Paul Mattarese of Maine. Charges range and vary from defendant to defendant and include Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws, Trafficking Over 100 Grams of Cocaine, Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of Cocaine, Trafficking Over 200 Grams of Cocaine, Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone and more. The cases are being prosecuted in the Suffolk Superior Court.

Read Article:

Suffolk County Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

In cases like this rarely do all eleven defendants go to trial. Many of the defendants are charged with crimes that do not contemplate mandatory minimum sentences. Depending on their records they may be able to resolve the case with probation or perhaps a continuance without a finding. All of this depends of course on the extent of their involvement in the operation. The defendants facing Drug Trafficking Charges are in a more difficult predicament. They will either have to get the items seized suppressed, plea bargain their cases down to something less than the crime with which they are charged or go to trial. In cases like this there are almost always varying levels of culpability from defendant to defendant. Each defendant’s defense will be unique and there is always the risk of finger pointing. Sometimes one of the defendants, usually one who possesses substantial information about the operation and a lesser amount of culpability with cooperate with the prosecution against the others. I expect you will see lots of evidentiary motions filed in this case. I also expect that one by one these cases will be resolved leaving one or two left to go to trial. These cases also become a managerial nightmare for judges and court staffs. It is nearly impossible to get eleven criminal defense lawyers together for hearings, motions, status conferences and related court appearances.

Sometimes in larger cases you see a lawyer representing more than one defendant. Rarely is this a good idea. At a minimum I believe it is necessary to consult with your own lawyer. Oftentimes conflicts of interest arise as cases progress making the representation of multiple parties controversial. These conflicts may not be apparent at the time of arraignment or when the initial discovery materials are produced. However, once they become evident you can be at risk if you and someone with a competing defense had the same criminal attorney.

Continue Reading