Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

According to a report in Boston.com, Ciro Reyes-Palma, a Massachusetts man was in the middle of a Rape of a Child trial in Great Barrington. He was facing eleven counts stemming from allegations that he committed Rape of a girl over a three year period. The Sexual Assault began in 2009 and continued until 2011. Authorities learned that Reyes-Palma fled to Mexico on Saturday. Despite his default the trial continued. The man was convicted in his absence.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Child Rape Cases in Massachusetts

This case brings up the interesting issue of how judges and lawyers handle cases where the accused defaults during trial. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 states that “[i]f a defendant is present at the beginning of a trial and thereafter absents himself without cause or without leave of court, the trial may proceed to a conclusion in all respects except the imposition of sentence as though the defendant were still present.” That is what occurred here. The right to be present at one’s trial is deemed waived or forfeited where the accused does one of two things. If he voluntarily absents himself from the trial his appearance is deemed waived. Or, if his conduct is disruptive to the proceedings a judge in his discretion may order the defendant secluded. In the latter situation the defendant is usually placed in a separate room where he can view the proceedings alone. If a defendant fails to show up during the trial the judge has to decide whether the trial should continue or whether mistrial should be granted. The judge’s job is to determine whether the defendant’s absence is with or without cause and whether or not it is voluntary. Thus, typically some sort of investigation is undergone and a hearing follows. The record must show what efforts were taken to find the defendant and what evidence has been gathered in relation to his default.

Here, I imagine that is what the judge in fact did and decided that given the defendant’s flight to Mexico the trial should continue. The bigger problem in situations like this the judge can charge the jury on consciousness of guilt. Naturally, if this instruction is given the jury will believe that the defendant’s mid-trial default was due to his belief that things were not going his way and that he was going to be convicted. As a practical consequence, the defendant’s sentence will probably be substantially greater than it would have been had he remained in court for the duration of the case. Similarly, he can be charged with another crime for defaulting in the middle of his trial.

Continue Reading

According to a report on Boston.com, four Massachusetts men have been charged with Rape following an incident alleged to have occurred at a Massachusetts college on October 13, 2012. Prosecutors claim that on the date of the incident the defendants texted the victim indicating a desire to go to her dormitory. She responded that she did not want them to visit. They ended up travelling to the school and were able to enter the complainants’ dorm room despite the fact that she was out at the time. She returned. By her own admission, the woman drank a couple of beers, smoked some marijuana and drank nine or ten shots of vodka. At one point one of the defendants shut off the lights. Afterwards, the four proceeded to rape her. Three left and one stayed behind and continued to rape the woman. The next day one of the accused received a text from the woman accusing him and his friends of Rape. The man texted back an apology. The woman told this defendant in a text that if she was paid two thousand dollars she would not report the incident to the police. The defendants were trying to meet the demand at the time of their arrest. Bail for each was set in the amount of ten thousand dollars cash. Three of the defendants are eighteen. The other is seventeen.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Defense Law Firm

Sex Crimes Defense Attorney in Boston, Rape, Sexual Assault

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I look at these facts and scratch my head. Rape is a horrific crime. A rape of this nature is even more horrific. Yet if the events transpired as the woman claims I would expect to see all sorts of corroboration with her story. Did people in her dorm hear what was going on? Did she scream or cry for help? Was she being held down? Do medical records support her claims? What was the role of each of the accused in this act? Why did one of the accused stay around for a while? How long did he remain there? What did the other occupants of the dorm see? Why would someone who was raped be looking for two thousand dollars? How did the complainant know the defendants? A review of this article suggests that this event was something other than the what was described by the prosecutor in court.

This article also brings to light one of the cautions I raise in many of my blog posts. Do not talk. Do not put anything in writing. A written apology in the form of a text message can leave jurors with the suggestion that the author of the text has admitted guilt. While this is not always the case it puts the defense in the position of having to explain the meaning of the words. An apology does not necessarily mean that someone did what the accuser says he did. It does however support that complaint. An apology in the eyes of the law can be viewed as an admission of guilt. But what was this man apologizing for? For raping her? Or was this simply an apology for other behavior that does not amount to the crime of Rape?

Continue Reading

According to a report in Today’s Peabody, Massachusetts Patch, the mayor of the Essex County city is promoting the passage of a law limiting the location where convicted sex offenders can appear. The proposal targets child sex offenders. If passed the law would be the first of its kind in Massachusetts. In a nutshell, here is how the law would work:

1. There would be the creation of “child safety zones”. The areas covered would be sports facilities and fields along with the associated parking lots. Also included are parks, arcades, beaches, pools, libraries and recreation centers.

2. The targeted Sex Offenders would be anyone who has been classified either a level 2 or level 3 sex offender by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB)or someone who has been adjudicated a Sexually Dangerous Person by the courts. Additionally, the victim of the sex offender’s crime would have to have been a child under the age of sixteen. Among the crimes for which the sex offender would have to have been convicted are Rape, Child Pornography, Child Kidnapping, Indecent Assault and Battery, Assault With the Intent to Commit Rape and more.

3. There are some exceptions carved into the rule. Level 1 sex offenders or people whose registering obligations no longer exist would be excluded. It would be permissible to enter the restricted area for the purpose of voting, to attend a religious service and for school parenting activities.

4. Implementation of the law would start with posting of maps of Child Safety Zones and notification sent to the offenders. Violations of the law would result in criminal charges and/or fines.

Read Article:

Peabody, Massachusetts Sex Offense Defense Law Firm

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I see endless problems with a law like this one. When someone in Massachusetts is convicted for a Sex Crime he or she receives a sentence from the judge. That sentence is likely to include a term of incarceration and a period of probation. Once the probation is terminated that person has paid his debt to society. While there might be some collateral consequences to the sentence, i.e. the requirement to register as a sex offender, the sentencing judge assumes that what is imposed on the offender serves its intended punitive purpose. The proposed ordinance essentially adds terms of probation not imposed by the court nor contemplated by the court. Furthermore, a violation of the “probationary conditions” established by the ordinance would constitute a criminal offense not contemplated by the legislature, sentencing judge and district attorney at the time of sentencing. If passed, I can see countless challenges to this law in both the trial courts and the Massachusetts Appellate Courts.

Continue Reading

Thirty two year old William French of Framingham, Massachusetts was arrested following a 2010 incident where he is accused of Rape. Authorities claim that French kidnapped a woman and took her back to his home where he committed Aggravated Rape, Robbery and assorted Massachusetts felonies. He is now trying to Suppress evidence (statements) he claims were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; specifically that French was drunk at the time his confession was obtained. Three officers testified at the hearing, all claiming that they did not smell alcohol on French at all.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer

Suppressing Statements in Massachusetts is not easy to do. Yet when a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer is able to get someone’s confession excluded the case often becomes difficult if not impossible to prove. Both the federal and Massachusetts constitutions require exclusion of statements obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Any statement of an accused to be used by the district attorney must have been made voluntarily. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Intoxication bears heavily on the issue of voluntariness.

Great deference is given to the observations and testimony of police officers at hearing on motions to suppress evidence. Successfully challenging their account often requires tireless investigation. It might be necessary to establish a timeline through witnesses showing when and where the defendant was drinking, how much he was drinking and his apparent state of sobriety. Sometimes security videotapes can be accessed showing the accused drinking and acting in a manner consistent with being intoxicated at or near the time of the interrogation. Receipts from bars often help prove how much the accused had to drink.

Recent developments in Massachusetts case law have helped with police credibility issues in this area. It has been suggested that the better practice for police interrogations is to have the interview recorded. Consequently, Massachusetts police usually explain to the subject the option of having the proceeding recorded. The accused can reject the offer. These recordings have been helpful to me in defending cases. They often better highlight the points my clients seek to get across. So rather than rely on the police officer’s testimony the judge or jury can make an independent assessment about sobriety and constitutional violations in general.

Here, it appears that absent suppression of French’s statements a conviction is likely to follow. The allegations are chilling. French is already serving a state prison sentence following a parole violation. Rape is a life felony in Massachusetts and the guidelines for a sentence after a conviction are high in this case. This shows just how important it is to make a proper challenge to these statements.

Continue Reading

When a ten year old New Hampshire girl’s parents became concerned about the child’s demeanor they took her to a counselor. The girl told the therapist that a sixty three year old man had her sit on his lap and watch pornography with him. She further complained that he touched her inappropriately underneath her clothes. The therapist reported the incident to local authorities who in turn provided the information to the Methuen, Massachusetts police. All of this occurred on July 10, 2012. The next day police applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. The search took place on July 12, 2012 around 8:00 p.m. Numerous items were seized including cameras and computers. During an initial examination of the equipment officers located files containing Child Pornography. Specifically, authorities found a video of a child performing oral sex on the accused, John Lefebre. The abuse occurred in Methuen and in New Hampshire. The reports are silent on the relationship between Lefebre and the victim and her family. It is further alleged that when officers asked Lefebre if he knew why they were there he responded that it was because of what the victim said to them. It is further alleged that these acts took place over the last four years. As of now Lefebre has been charged with Rape of a Child and Posing a Child in a State of Nudity. The case is currently pending in the Lawrence District Court but will the prosecution will most likely take place in the Salem Superior Court.

Read Article:

Essex County Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Child Rape Defense Lawyers in Lawrence and Salem, Massachusetts

So what now for Lefebre? These are always difficult cases to defend. The success of Child Rape prosecutions usually depends on the credibility of the victim. His or her ability to recall the details of the crime with sufficient particularity is vital to the district attorney. While an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer might succeed in showing a lack of credibility to a jury this case is going to be more problematic. The district attorney has alleged that Lefebre videotaped an act of Child Rape, that being someone under the age of sixteen performing oral sex on him. If the victim of that act is the same as the complaining witness in this case that video will be admitted as evidence against him. Even if this is not the same victim the district attorney might be able to use that as evidence of Lefebre’s pattern of conduct, motive or absence of mistake. It will be difficult for jurors to separate this collateral act from the testimony of the complaining witness. Lefebre’s best chances come with suppression of the items seized pursuant to the search. If successful, the videotape will be excluded as evidence and witness credibility will once again take center stage in his defense.

Continue Reading

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rendered its decision in Commonwealth v. Williamson. The Court held in summary that there is no mandatory requirement that someone who is convicted for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender by placed on Community Parole Supervision for Life (CPSL), commonly known as Lifetime Community Parole. The applicable statute is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 6 Section 178H which states that anyone who knowingly fails to register, verify registration information, provide notice of a change of address or gives false information is guilty of this crime. There is a provision of this law that states that Level 2 or Level 3 sex offenders convicted of Failing to Register as a Sex Offender in Massachusetts shall be subject to CPSL. Earlier this year the Supreme Judicial Court addressed this issue without deciding it. See Commonwealth v. Kately, 461 Mass. 575 (2012). That changed with Williamson.

Read:

Commonwealth v. Williamson, SJC 11132

In Williamson the defendant pleaded guilty to Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. He had been convicted over twenty years earlier of Rape of a Child and was classified as a Level 3 Sex Offender. The plea agreement contemplated that he serve one year in jail. The sentencing judge believed that Lifetime Community Parole was mandatory and imposed that as a condition of his sentence. His remarks on the record confirmed that belief. In reversing the sentencing the Court held that the statutory language “subject to” does not mean mandatory. The provision in the statute referencing Lifetime Community Parole is discretionary and left up to the discretion of the judge.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can tell you that there was widespread belief throughout the state that this law required the imposition of CPSL. Many people have pleaded guilty with the misunderstanding that they had to be placed on CPSL as a condition of their plea. Obviously, as this case indicates there was a belief on the part of judges that they had to sentence to these terms. CPSL is perhaps one of the most onerous conditions of a sentence that someone can endure. It is not simply a condition of a sentence it is an enhancement to a sentence. The person is subject to the supervision of the parole board and is treated as a parolee. Fees can be imposed on the probationer. A violation can subject the someone to further incarceration. Practically speaking, this is a terrible way to have to go through life. Accordingly, anyone who has been sentenced to CPSL should contact a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to see whether or not that sentence was imposed as a result of a judge or defense lawyer not knowing that the law was in fact discretionary.

Continue Reading

Operation Cross Country was a three day undercover venture that involved Massachusetts towns including Saugus and Malden. The target of the investigation was teenage sex trafficking. In Massachusetts alone three pimps and several other people were arrested for Pimping, Prostitution and Drug Charges. A high level local law enforcement described the young prostitutes as victims, not criminals. The operation was designed to locate and protect young prostitutes, to get them off of the streets and to essentially rescue them. The investigation involved over two thousand agencies nationwide. In all, seventy nine child prostitutes were rescued and over one hundred pimps were arrested. Locally, Dion Dottin of Medford and Jonathan Brown of Boston were arrested and charged with Deriving Support from Prostitution and Trafficking Persons for Sexual Servitude. Both were arraigned in the Lynn District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Human Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Earlier this year the Massachusetts Legislature passed into effect the Human Trafficking – – Sexual Servitude law. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 50 states that anyone who knowingly subjects someone else to engaging in commercial sexual activity or causes someone to engage in such activity is guilty of the crime of Human Trafficking. The crime is a felony. A conviction of this crime requires a five year mandatory minimum state prison sentence. If the victim is under eighteen years of age there is a potential life sentence after a conviction. This law became effective on February 19, 2012 and to date there are no Massachusetts appellate cases discussing this statute or in any way interpreting its meaning.

Human Trafficking is a problem worldwide. It involves the harbouring, transportation, transfer, coercion, abduction and general sexual exploitation of prostitutes or others. There is an undertone of coercion associated with this crime. The crime can essentially be broken down into three elements, the act (i.e. recruitment, transportation, etc.), the means (essentially coercion) and the purpose (sexual exploitation, particularly prostitution). From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer it will be interesting to see how district attorneys will distinguish this law from the prohibition against Deriving Support from a Prostitute, a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 7 which has a two year mandatory, less than half of the Human Trafficking requirement. The crimes appear similar in nature and from a factual perspective they are virtually indistinguishable. When for instance would the crime of Deriving Support from a Prostitute not involve recruitment, a form of force and sexual exploitation. It will be interesting to see if Deriving Support from Prostitution is considered a lesser included offense of Human Trafficking.

Continue Reading