Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

The Malden Observer reported

that a 23 year old man who had been arrested for motor vehicle

violations tried to avoid a cocaine prosecution by hiding the drug in

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that a 35 year old Lawrence was arrested and charged with trafficking heroin in excess of 200 grams.  According to the article the defendant was a major supplier of heroin to Southern New Hampshire.  About 2 months ago this individual was identified by Plaistow, New Hampshire police as the major source of heroin in that area.  Once that determination was made Lawrence police were contacted to assist in an investigation.  The investigation resulted in a search of the defendant’s home on Andover Street in Lawrence during which police confiscated 327 grams of heroin worth an estimated $32,700, and $14,000 in cash.  An arrest of the defendant was made at the apartment after the search.  Also arrested was his girlfriend who was present during the search as well.  Police expect 5 additional arrests from this investigation.  These individuals would make trips to Lawrence to obtain heroin and travel back to New Hampshire where they would sell to teenagers.  At times the defendant himself would go to New Hampshire and make sales.  In the last two weeks an undercover police officer made four purchases from the defendant in Lawrence.  New Hampshire police believe that this arrest will make a major dent in heroin activities in their state.  During a search a police canine located 223 bags of heroin.  Also found were stashes of money, scales, false identification and related heroin trafficking paraphernalia.  The defendant was held on $250,000 bail while his girlfriend was held on $100,000 bail.  Read entire article.

If the newspaper account is accurate, the defendant is likely in a lot of trouble.  He needs an excellent Massachusetts Drugs Crime Defense Lawyer to help him with this case.  Heroin trafficking over 200 grams carries a minimum 15 year state prison sentence.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 C Section 32E makes heroin trafficking a crime.  That statute states that “[a]ny person who trafficks in heroin . . . any derivative thereof by knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing or dispensing or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense or by bringing into the commonwealth a net weight of fourteen grams or more of heroin . . . any derivative thereof or a net weight of fourteen grams or more of any mixture containing heroin or any . . . or any derivative thereof or any mixture thereof is” guilty of trafficking.  “Two hundred grams or more, be punished by a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years. No sentence imposed under the provisions of this clause shall be for less than a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of fifteen years and a fine of not less than fifty thousand nor more than five hundred thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established therein.”  Whereas in this case there were 4 controlled buys it will be difficult for the defendant win this case at trial.  Additionally, where the quantity significantly exceeds the threshold for the 15 year mandatory sentence it is not likely that the prosecution will agree to break this case down.  The defendant is also looking at a school zone violation which adds another 2 years mandatory to the sentence. 

The case against the girlfriend might be easier to defend.  If she was merely present at the time of the search and was not a party to the controlled buys she might have a good chance at a successful defense.  One of the Massachusetts jury instructions states that “[i]f it has been proved that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, that fact alone is not enough to find teh defendant guilty.  Presence alone does not establish a joint venture, even if a person knew about the intended crime in advance and took no steps to prevent it.  Our law does not allow for guilty by association.  There must be proof that the defendant intentionally participate in committing that particluar crime, not just that he or she knew about it”.

The Brockton Enterprise reported that David Gregoire of Quincy and William Hogrell of Raynham were arrested and charged with multiple drug crimes and weapons offenses in the Quincy District Court.  Read Entire Article, Brockton Enterprise September 19, 2008.  According to the article, police believed that the defendants were dealing cocaine, OxyContins and Methadone out of a 62 year old woman’s apartment in a public housing complex in Quincy and that Gregoire “had set up shop” in that apartment.  The 62 year old woman was identified as Susan McDermott.  No charges have been filed against her.  Police reported that McDermott admitted to using crack cocaine and that she turned over a crack pipe that was in her apartment.  She also admitted that Gregoire was living with her and that he was selling cocaine.  McDermott permitted the police to search her house.  Police also located additional drug paraphernalia including scales and packaging materials.  The weapon was a pair of brass knuckles. 

The investigation began on Monday, September 15, 2008.  Police received a tip that a drug deal was going down at Coop’s Bar and Grill on Washington Street in Quincy, Massachusetts.  A surveillance was set up during which Gregoire was arrested and found in possession of 2 bags of cocaine, some pot and 6 OxyContins.  The article was unclear as to why Gregoire was arrested and what probable cause, if any the police had to make that arrest.  Further information led the police to McDermott’s apartment and the eventual purported consensual search of her apartment.  While the police were at the apartment Hogrell arrived.  He had 46 methadone pills in his pocket.  He did not have a prescription for the pills. 

It appears that at a minimum Gregoire will be charged with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and OxyContins.  Possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances in Massachusetts is a felony.  Possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, a class B substance, permits a sentence of up to 10 years in state prison.  Rarely is someone sentenced to that amount of time for this offense.  If this is a first offense it is possible to have the case continued without a finding.  If the case is disposed of in that manner you will not have a criminal record if you stay out of trouble for the period of time for which the case is continued.  Hogrell will likely be charged with possession with intent to distribute methadone, also a class B substance.  It is possible that McDermott was not charged with any crime because she has cooperated with law enforcement officials.  The basis for Gregoire’s arrest may be subject to a constitutional challenge defending on the reasons articulate in the police report.  This is typically done through a motion to suppress.  A motion to suppress is a written request to a judge for an order to exclude certain evidence from being introduced during a trial.  It serves to keep law enforcement in check and ensure that they do not violate a person’s constitutional rights.  Usually, where the judge allows the motion and the evidence is suppressed the case is over.  This is particularly true in drug cases where, without the drugs there can be no conviction. 

Caridad Hernandez is a 51 year old grandmother who lives in Lawrence, Massachusetts.  On September 5, 2008, she was arrested for trafficking cocaine over 28 grams, trafficking cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone and possession with intent to distribute prescription drugs.  Charges will be initially filed in the Lawrence District Court.  After the case is indicted the case will be handled in the Essex County Superior Court.  Lawrence police stated that the drugs were found in sandwich bags, a candy tin and pill bottles.  Officers also located drug packaging paraphernalia.  According to an article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune police had made several controlled buys from the defendant.  Afterwards they obtained a search warrant.  It was during the execution of the search warrant that the majority of the drugs were located.  Read Article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, September 6, 2008.

Search warrants in Massachusetts are governed by G.L. c. 276 et seq.  Search warrants can be issued in Massachusetts upon a showing of probable cause.  Police officers seeking to conduct a search are required to file an affidavit with a judge or clerk magistrate.  The affidavit must contain facts and information upon which the officer relies that are sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrant to issue.  Criminal defense lawyers often challenge the issuance of the warrant through motions to suppress.  Grounds for the motion to suppress vary from case to case.  Sometimes criminal defense lawyers challenge the sufficiency of the facts in the affidavit and ask the judge to suppress the search.  Other times criminal defense lawyers challenge the integrity of the officer’s representations by asking the judge to look beyond the affidavit by using collateral evidence to show the judge that these facts were untrue. 

In this case Caridad Hernandez is looking at a minimum mandatory state prison sentence of 7 years.  The trafficking over 28 grams carries a mandatory 5 and the school zone carries a minimum mandatory 2 that must be served from and after the trafficking sentence is served.  It is likely that during the course of her defense her attorneys will try to locate anyone who was present during the controlled buys to ascertain the accuracy of the police officer’s account of these transactions.  I also imagine that a motion to suppress will be filed challenging the constitutionality of the search. 

Last fall Christopher Al-Nabulsi was a senior at Salem High School.  On December 6, 2007 he sold a $15 bag of marijuana to another classmate at school.  The other student was caught and identified Al-Nabulsi as the supplier.  School officials searched his backpack and found 3 additional packets of marijuana.  Al-Nabulsi was expelled from school and charged with distribution of marijuana in a school zone.  At that time he was the captain of the football and lacrosse teams.  On September 4, 2008 he was convicted in the Salem District Court for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana.  Through a plea bargain he received a 2 1/2 year suspended sentence with an additional 2 years probation.  In exchange for his guilty plea the prosecution agreed to drop the school zone charge.  Al-Nabulsi has not graduated from high school as neighboring towns will not accept his enrollment due to these charges.  The story was reported in the Salem News.  Read full article, September 5, 2008.

Under the Massachusetts school zone statute the defendant in this case was facing a minimum mandatory 2 years in jail.  The prosecution exercised great discretion and elected to drop the school zone charge provided that the defendant plead guilty to the possession with intent to distribute marijuana charge.  Massachusetts law makes this crime a felony. 

As noted by the defense attorney in his interview with the Salem News, this case calls into question the fairness of certain aspects of the Massachusetts drug laws.  Al-Nabulsi was just 17 at the time that he committed this crime.  The person to whom he sold was 15 years old and also a student at the same high school.  The quantity was small.  The substance, while illegal is perhaps the most benign controlled substances.  Al-Nabulsi now has a felony conviction and no high school degree.  Prior to this incident his life appeared to by quite promising.  Felony convictions however cannot be sealed for at least 15 years in Massachusetts. 

The Lynn Item reported that Ruben Ramos pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine, heroin and marijuana as part of a plea bargain agreement that will require him to serve at least three years on state prison.  During the guilty plea hearing the prosecutor told the judge that based on information that the defendant was selling drugs in the Lynn area police began an investigation.  An undercover police officer and Ramos agreed to meet in January during which an arrangement was made whereby the officer would receive from the defendant one gram of heroin.  The deal was completed in January.  Three similar deals followed later that month and in February.  The total amount for all four deals was one thousand eight hundred forty dollars.  After the last transaction was consummated Ramos was arrested.  Police found marijuana, marked “buy” money and a cell phone in his possession.  The cell phone was used to arrange the deals. 

Plea bargaining is part of any good criminal defense lawyers’ arsenal.  Not all cases are triable.  When people sell to undercover police officers the chances of success at trial are slim.  Typically cases involving hand to hand sales are tried only when the prosecution fails to negotiate a favorable agreement.  In other situations people accused might opt to go to trial where the actions of the police amount to entrapment.  Entrapment does not mean that a person was “tricked” into selling to an undercover police officer.  Rather, it involves law enforcement’s illicit efforts to compel someone otherwise not disposed to sell or provide drugs by breaking down that person’s will.  Attorney Stephen Neyman has successfully tried three cases involving hand to hand sales to undercover officers, each time using an entrapment defense.  By clicking on the link above you can go to our website and view specific case results.  Each of these defendants was acquitted of the trafficking indictments. 

If you have been charged with a drug crime in Massachusetts contact our office right now.  We are prepared to fight your case. 

A Norfolk County Superior Court jury found Keely Johnson, a former Stoughton Court Officer guilty of two counts of distribution of Vicodin and violating the Massachusetts School Zone statute.  The prosecution alleged that in July 2006 state police began investigating Johnson for selling Vicodin inside and outside the Stoughton District Courthouse where she served as a Court Officer.  On July 28, 2006 Johnson sold 50 tablets of Vicodin to an undercover police officer.  She did so while her seven year old son sat in her car in a parking lot adjacent to the location of the transaction.  On August 3, 2006 Johnson sold the undercover officer more Vicodin tablets, this time at the courthouse which sits within one thousand feet of an elementary school.  A Superior Judge sentenced Johnson to the mandatory two years in jail for the school zone conviction and to an additional three months in jail for the distribution convictions. 

The Massachusetts School Zone statute makes it a crime to distribute, possess with the intent to distribute or traffic controlled substances within one thousand feet of a school zone.  Anyone convicted of violating this statute must serve at least two years in jail.  The maximum sentence for a conviction of this law is fifteen years in state prison.  The school zone statute also makes is a crime to commit these acts within one hundred feet of a public park or playground.

In spite of the mandatory sentence connected with school zone violations, experienced criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts often succeed in getting the prosecution to agree to dismiss the school zone offense in exchange for a plea to a lesser offense.  This is done in cases where the person does not have a remarkable criminal background and there are circumstances that mitigate the criminal act.  Trying the case is also an option.  Our office has proven that the similar crimes were not committed within one thousand feet of a school zone thus eliminating the mandatory sentence that the prosecution sought to have imposed.  On other occasions we have proven that our client did not commit the act regardless of what the police and prosecutor told the jury. 

Saturday night, as a result of a surveillance, Methuen police officers arrested three men for violating the controlled substances laws.  According the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, the Methuen Police Drug Unit was conducting a surveillance at the intersection of Lowell Street and Wheeler Avenue.  Around 5:00 p.m. officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction.  When they attempted an arrest one of the subjects, Jose Mercedes-Leon fled on foot into the woods.  After a forty five minute chase Mercedes-Leon was apprehended.  He was charged with subsequent offense distribution of heroin, conspiracy, disorderly person, resisting arrest, providing a false name to police and trespassing.  Mercedes-Leon was also charged with being a fugitive from justice for defaulting on charges of aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Rhode Island. 

Two other men, Walter Zachary and Blair Despres, were also arrested in connection with this incident.  They were both charged with trafficking heroin and conspiracy.  Fifteen grams of heroin were found in their possession.

Attorney Stephen Neyman represents people accused of drug crimes in Massachusetts and throughout the country.  Cases such as the one discussed above are routinely defended by our office.  In this case, since both Zachary and Despres were charged with trafficking heroin it is likely that the prosecution will proceed against one of them as a joint venturer and the other as a principle.  There is a simple distinction that separates those theories.  Principles are those who actually commit the act.  The person directly distributing or selling the substance is the principle.  A joint venturer is someone who is “(1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement is willing and available to help the other if necessary.”  In Massachusetts the penalties for the principle and joint venturer are the same. 

A Haverhill man and his girlfriend were charged with selling cocaine at a cosmetic counter in the Haverhill Walgreens located at 301 Main Street.  Police were alerted by an informant that Enery Fernandez, a store employee was selling cocaine during her work shift.  After receiving this information police arranged a controlled buy during which Fernandez sold cocaine that she had concealed in her purse and bra.  It was further alleged that the boyfriend, Luis Ledesma would supply the drugs and provide the same to Fernandez.  Customers would call Ledesma who in turn would direct them to Fernandez at the Walgreens.  Fernandez would take the customer to a bathroom or a secluded area and consummate the transaction.

Bail for Fernandez was set at five thousand dollars cash.  Bail for Ledesma was set at twenty five thousand dollars cash.  Ledesma had recently been released from jail after having served a fifteen month sentence.  Ledesma was not arrested at the scene.  He had no drugs at the time of his arrest.  Fernandez has no criminal record.

Read Lawrence Eagle Tribune August 12, 2008, first article on this story.

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.