Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

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.

Ariel Lara Aguasviva of Jamaica Plain and his cousin Jorge Luis Ortiz Lara were charged with distributing heroin.  The case is currently pending in the East Boston District Court.  The prosecution alleged that an informant made a controlled purchase of heroin from the defendants.  After doing so undercover officers descended on the defendants who in turn locked themselves in their car.  Officers saw Aguasviva swallow what appeared to be drugs.  An arrest ensued during which Aguasviva was shot.  He suffered non life threatening wounds. 

Distribution of heroin in Massachusetts is s criminal act.  The term distribution encompasses not only the sale of the illegal drug but giving or sharing the substance with anyone including friends.  Penalties for heroin distribution in Massachusetts are severe.  If convicted you can be sentenced to up to ten years in state prison.  Second and subsequent offense are punishable by a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence and as much as fifteen years can be imposed. 

Hiring a good lawyer is your best option for defending a heroin distribution case.  Often times the arrest was unlawful.  Searches and seizures that reveal the presence of drugs if not done within constitutional guidelines are subject to suppression.  Testing the weight of the substance can result in a reduction of the charges.  All top Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers defend people accused of committing drug offenses. 

A joint task force comprised of the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Medford, Massachusetts Police and the Middlesex County PACT Unit executed a search warrant at a Medford man’s home this past Monday.  Officers found and seized a total of nine kilograms of cocaine.  Seven were located in the defendant’s home and the remaining two were found in a companion’s SUV parked in the driveway of the home.  Law enforcement officials estimated the street value of the drugs around $500,000.00. 

The Medford man was identified as Heriberto Cruz.  His companion is Patricia Taia.  Both were arrested after the search was conducted.  They were charged with trafficking 200 grams or more of cocaine as well as conspiracy to violate the drug laws.  If convicted both face a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen years in state prison.

Trafficking is the most serious of all the drug crimes in Massachusetts.  Mandatory state prison sentences have been set by the legislature.  Cocaine trafficking is broken down into four separate crimes.  Trafficking cocaine of 14 grams or more requires a 3 year state prison sentence.  Trafficking cocaine of 28 grams or more mandates a 5 year state prison sentence.  Trafficking cocaine of 100 grams or more is punishable by a mandatory 10 year state prison sentence.  Trafficking cocaine of 200 grams or more mandates the greatest sentence, 15 years in state prison.

The defendant was convicted in the Superior Court for possession with the intent to distribute PCP and for violating the Massachusetts School Zone statute.  He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution’s late disclosure of exculpatory evidence deprived him of his right to a fair trial.

At the time of his arrest the defendant had in his possession a quantity of PCP that the testifying officer considered consistent with an intent to distribute rather than for personal use.  Supporting this opinion was the defendant’s possession of items consistent with an intent to distribute.  One of these items was neatly folded money that the officer believed the defendant used as his bank role.  One of the defendant’s friends testified that the money was hers.  She further testified that she called the police station to claim the money.  Two prosecution witnesses testified to having checked the police logs and seeing no evidence of the friend’s call. 

After the evidence in the trial had closed the prosecution located recordings of two telephone calls that indeed supported the friend’s testimony.  The trial judge refused defense counsel’s request for a mistrial and the case was appealed.  The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the late disclosure warranted a reversal of the conviction.  See Commonwealth v. Green, slip opinion July 21, 2008. 

After a jury waived trial the defendant was convicted of two counts of cocaine trafficking in the Superior Court.  He appealed his conviction claiming that his waiver of his right to a jury trial was not effective in that he never signed the waiver form. 

G.L. c. 263 sec. 6 provides criminal defendants with the right to have their case heard by a judge or a jury.  The exception applies to capital cases and to cases in which there are co-defendants and one of the co-defendants elects to proceed before a jury.  Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 19(a) reflects this rule as well.  In 2006 the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed this issue and concluded that absence of the written waiver is fatal to the conviction.  See Commonwealth v. Osborne, 445 Mass. 776 (2006).  The Court in Osborne reasoned that G.L. c. 263 sec. 6 was designed to provide a record that persons waiving their constitutional right to a trial by jury were doing so in an informed manner.  It was further held that adhering to the letter of the statute would protect the defendant from falsely or accidentally waiving his or her constitutional rights. 

The decision of whether or not to proceed with a jury or a judge is not to be taken likely.  There are times when an objective determination of guilt or innocense by a jury is unlikely.  This can be the function of an unsympathetic defendant or a repugnant accusation.  In these situations your choice of lawyers is critical.  A lawyer’s familliarity with the judges is essential to the determination of whether to have your case tried with or without a jury.