Articles Posted in Miscellaneous Crimes

| by

At 2:00 this morning in Somerville, 32 year old Marcel Laurol of Malden man was shot by a 25 year old man from Brockton.  Laurol then hijacked a taxicab and drove it into his attacker.  Both of these guys are going to need good defense lawyers.

According to the BostonChannel Laurol was shot in the leg near Elm Street and Herbert Street.  He then jumped into a taxicab, assaulted the driver, hijacked his passengers and drove down Chester Street.  Laurol then drove into the Brockton man (the shooter) injuring his arms and head.  The cab then struck a nearby building. 

Laurol was charged with kidnapping, carjacking, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a revoked driver’s license.  Apparently the police were unable to locate and identify the taxicab’s passengers. 

Read Full Article:  http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18668109/detail.html

Carjacking in Massachusetts is a crime under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 21A.  That law states that anyone whoever “with intent to steal a motor vehicle, assaults, confines, maims or puts any person in fear for the purpose of stealing a motor vehicle shall” is guilty of carjacking.  You do not have to actually steal the car to be found guilty so long as you intended to do so.  There is a maximum 15 year prison sentence for anyone convicted of this offense.  If the crime is committed by someone who is armed with a dangerous weapon the maximum sentence increases to 20 years.  If the offense is committed with a firearm there is a 5 year minimum sentence. 

Continue Reading

| by

The Harvard Crimson reported today that third year Harvard Law student Charles Simpkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conducting and resisting arrest.  According to the article, on January 24, 2009 Simpkins left a bar drunk and entered a parked Boston Police cruiser.  He told the officers to give him a ride and offered that he worked for the district attorney’s office.  Apparently the defendant was an intern at the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office, working at the Dorchester District Court.  The district attorney’s office terminated Simkins’ employment shortly after the incident. 

Read Full Article at

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526274
Continue Reading

| by

Assistant United States Attorney Suzanne Sullivan’s reputation took a severe blow last week when Jonathan Saltzman from the Boston Globe reported that Chief District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf threatened sanctions for Sullivan’s failure to provide exculpatory evidence to defense counsel.  According to the article, the veteran prosecutor failed to disclose that a Boston Police officer offered testimony in court that was contradicted by what he told Sullivan beforehand.  In a lengthy memorandum Wolf wrote that “The court assumes that her failure to disclose material, exculpatory information was not intentional, in part because Sullivan produced her notes for the court’s in camera inspection,” Wolf wrote. “Nevertheless, the violations were clear and inexcusable. If the error by an experienced prosecutor was inadvertent, it seems only to be explained by ignorance of, or utter indifference to, the constitutional duty she repeatedly claimed to have understood and obeyed.”  In another part of the memorandum Sullivan’s actions were referred to as an “egregious failure” to disclose materially exculpatory evidence. 

This notwithstanding, the arrest and evidence obtained against the defendant was found to be made in a constitutional manner.  The defendant is charged with firearms related activity. 

Read Entire Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/27/judge_chastises_federal_attorney/?page=full

About two to three years ago I had a case against Suzanne Sullivan.  At that time she was an assistant district attorney in the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office.  The case involved multiple counts of sexual abuse of several children.  I was the second defense lawyer on the case.  Ms. Sullivan had inherited the case from another prosecutor who had just left the district attorney’s office to join the United States Attorney’s Office.  I personally found Ms. Sullivan to be extremely professional.  She promptly provided me with all discovery materials.  She even went so far as to invite me down to her office to view her file.  I accepted her invitation.  She gave me a couple of large boxes full of police reports, grand jury minutes, witness statements, exhibits and more.  She even left her notes of interviews with witnesses in the box for me to review and photocopy.  I was permitted to view this material in a private room, unsupervised.  Ms. Sullivan gave me access to a copy machine and made sure that I was able to obtain copies of all materials I wanted.  We later tried the case.  Suzanne Sullivan’s hospitality and professional congeniality continued in the same manner.  She never personalized the case, prosecuted with a passion and conducted herself in a dignified manner.  That case was and remains my only contact with this prosecutor.  Her ethics and professionalism are, in my opinion unparalleled.   

The rule in federal courts is similar to that In Massachusetts state courts as they relate to prosecutorial misconduct.  Dismissal with prejudice “is a draconian sanction that must be reserved for cases manifesting egregious prosecutorial misconduct or a serious threat of prejudice to the defendant.”  Even dismissals without prejudice are rare and not used absent “some demonstrable prejudice to the defendant.”  Our courts prefer alternative sanctions such as a fine or a report to the Board of Bar Overseers.  On appeal there are times when prosecutorial misconduct results in a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. 

Continue Reading

| by

On New Years’ Eve a Framingham woman contacted the police to report that her former boyfriend, Josue Gonzalez telephonically threatened her and her and her three children.  Specifically, he told her that if she did not give him money he would burn her house down.  A restraining order was in existence at that time.  A police officer told Gonzalez to stop calling. Gonzalez ignored the request and the victim again sought out police assistance.  Police again tried to intercede to no avail.  Four days later Gonzalez called the police to report that the victim was neglecting her children and asked that the children be taken away and placed into state custody.  Gonzalez added that one of the children was being raped.  Officers investigated the complaint and found no evidence of neglect and made Gonzalez aware of their findings.  Gonzalez then threatened to blow up the Framingham Police station.  Police then obtained a warrant for Gonzalez’s arrest.  He was located and apprehended last week. 

Gonzalez was charged with stalking, threatening to commit a crime, making annoying phone calls, violating a restraining order and making a false police report.  All charges are pending in the Framingham District Court.  Gonzalez is being held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing. 

Let’s take a look at some of the more serious charges; violating a restraining order and stalking.

1.  Violating a restraining order.  This is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209 Section 7.  The law specifically states that”[a]ny violation of such order or a protection order issued by another jurisdiction shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” 

2.  Stalking.  This is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43.  The Massachusetts stalking law states that anyone who willfully and maliciously engages in a pattern or series of acts directed towards someone which seriously alarms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and threatens that person with the intention of placing them in immediate fear of bodily injury or death is guilty of stalking.  There is a possible 5 year prison sentence.  If the case is handled in a Massachusetts district court the maximum sentence is 2 1/2 years in jail.  If this crimes is committed in violation of a restraining order there is a mandatory minimum 1 year jail sentence you must serve if convicted. 

Continue Reading

| by

Lawrence, Massachusetts police responded to an apartment on South Broadway Thursday night in response to a domestic assault and battery 911 call.  During the call police were able to hear the couple arguing.  When they arrived they found the defendant and his girlfriend both of whom denied making the call and any abuse.  The police told the defendant to leave the apartment.  He complied only to return later in the evening.  At 9:35 p.m. the girlfriend called 911 to report that the defendant had returned and threatened her with a knife.  When the police returned to the apartment they found the girlfriend waiting for them outside.  She reported that the defendant had returned drunk, picked up a kitchen knife, pointed it at her and threatened to cut her throat. Officers entered the apartment after which a struggle with police ensued.  The defendant was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, trespassing, disorderly conduct and threatening to commit a crime.  Charges are pending in the Lawrence District Court. 

Assuming the case remains in the district court, a likely scenario, the defendant is looking at the following:

1.  Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  This is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A.  The law provides a district court sentence of up to 2 1/2 years in jail and a $5,000 fine.  An assault and battery is the intentional and unjustified use of force upon the person of another however slight.  It may be proved by showing the intentional commission of a wanton or reckless act.  It must be something more than gross negligence and it must cause physical or bodily injury to another.  The district attorney must prove both the assault and the battery.  Here, to prove this case the prosecutor must show that the defendant touched the knife to his girlfriend.  Many objects suffice to establish the element of dangerous weapon.  It should be no surprise that a knife is considered a dangerous weapon.

2.  Assault and battery on a police officer.  This act is prohibited by Massachusetts General  Laws Chapter 265 Section 13D.  That law states verbatim that “Whoever commits an assault and battery upon any public employee when such person is engaged in the performance of his duties at the time of such assault and battery, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ninety days nor more than two and one-half years in a house of correction or by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars.”  This crime is almost always charged in cases where police officers use force, particularly severe force in the course of an arrest or investigation.  The large majority of times that I am retained on one of these cases my client appears in my office with bruises, cuts and sometimes broken bones.  Almost always the bruises are on parts of the body that are usually covered by clothing.  The story is typically the same.  The police arrive at an alleged crime scene and conduct an investigation.  The defendant argues with them or “challenges” them by requesting a badge number, threatening to sue them or report them to their superiors.  The officers respond with unlawful and unnecessary force, many times excessive force and they arrest the person.  Now, to protect themselves they charge the individual with assault and battery on a police officer. 

Continue Reading

| by

A 38 year old Newton man has been charged with soliciting payments from a developer in exchange for relaxing permit and inspection requirements.  The defendant, Paul Camilli faces charges of bribery in the Concord District Court.  A Middlesex County District Attorney press release said that Camilli was arraigned today on one count of a public employee accepting or receiving a bribe.  The private developer began a construction project in Maynard earlier this year.  The defendant is the Maynard superintendent of public works.  Apparently Camilli was making life difficult for the developer.  The developer asked what would get the project done.  Camilli responded that he was looking for cash.  Ultimately the developer paid thousands of dollars to get the necessary approvals.  The investigation was conducted with undercover law enforcement officials and surveillance videos.  Bail in the amount of $1,000 was imposed.  See Waltham Daily News, December 21, 2008.  See also Middlesex District Attorney press release December 22, 2008. 

Most likely Camilli was charged with violating Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268A Section 2.  Subsection (b) of that law makes it a crime for any county, state or municipal employee to ask for or receive, directly or indirectly anything of value in return for 1) being influenced in his official capacity, 2) being influenced to commit a fraud on the state, municipality or county or 3) being induced to commit or omit acts in violation of his or her official duty.  A conviction for this offense carries a potential 3 year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine. 

This statute focuses on hindering the potential for the undermining of official integrity.  Even though the statute targets public officials, private citizens can be convicted if it is shown that they acted as an agent of the public official.  For instance, someone who acts as a “bag man’ for a public official can be convicted under this statute.  It is no defense that the bribe was not accepted. 

Continue Reading

| by

Today, in a published opinion the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a conviction for threatening to commit a crime in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 275 Section 2 citing insufficient evidence.  See Commonwealth v. James, slip opinion December 18, 2008.  The Appeals Court reported the following facts: 

1.  That in December 2006 the defendant was serving a sentence in the Suffolk County House of Correction.

2.  During a search of his cell prison authorities found letters that the defendant had written to another inmate in which the defendant asked this inmate to kill a woman whom he had dated prior to his incarceration.  Apparently, during his incarceration this woman ended the relationship.  The defendant believed it had something to do with her seeing another man. 

3.  In one of the letters the defendant wrote that he wanted the woman shot in the stomach, chest or head, that he wanted her in critical and that he would kill her himself.  In another letter he against wrote that he wanted her shot in the chest or stomach, and that he wanted the place checked out in advance.

4.  In a tape recorded the defendant admitted to writing the letters but that he did so in a passing moment of anger and that he never intended for anyone to follow up on the threats.

5.  The threats were communicated to the woman through law enforcement officials. 

A jury sitting in the Boston Municipal Court convicted the defendant.  Reversing the conviction the Appeals Court held that to sustain a conviction under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 275 Section 2 the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the intention to inflict a crime on another and an ability to do so in circumstances that would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient.  Menacing words alone, or even those that express a threat to commit a crime do not satisfy the prosecution’s burden to sustain a conviction under this statute.  The prosecution must also prove that the threat was communicated in some manner to the defendant’s intended victim, either directly or through an intermediary.  Mere proof that threatening words their target will not suffice to satisfy the government’s burden under this statute. 

Continue Reading