Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

According to reports, a forty year old southeastern Massachusetts man has been charged with Video Recording or Surveilling a Person in the State of Partial Nudity. The defendant, Marco Silva is being accused of putting a hidden camera in the bathroom of his catering supply company and secretly watching women who worked for him going to the bathroom. He was arrested yesterday morning. Here is how Silva was caught. One of his employees noticed that anytime one of the female employees went to the bathroom the defendant would go into his office and close the door. When the woman was in Silva’s office she saw the bathroom captured on a computer monitor. Police officers, armed with a Search Warrant located the monitor, a VCR and a camera hidden inside of the bathroom. The case is pending in the Fall River District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Attorney

Silva is being charged with a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 105. The law states that anyone who intentionally videotapes someone who is naked or partially naked and does so secretly when the other person is in a place where he or she enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that person’s knowledge or consent is guilty of this crime. The crime itself is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two and one half years in the house of correction. There is also a fine of up to five thousand dollars than can be imposed.

We are seeing these charges in Massachusetts more frequently today than in the past. This is due to relatively inexpensive recording and transmitting devices that are common to most personal computers on the market today. The act itself typically begins as a prank. The defendants are usually college and high school students who think this is clever or funny. Trouble usually comes their way once one of their victims learns of the act. Prosecutions can be difficult to sustain in many of these cases since there is not actual recording of the act, rather, the defendant watches contemporaneously. Thus, without a witness there is no evidence for the police to find. Here is where the suspect usually makes a critical mistake. The police arrive with a Search Warrant as they did here. They find the camera and monitor. This corroborates the witness or victim’s complaint. Then the officers talk to the suspect who admits having committed the crime. Had the defendant not confessed when questioned, then in many cases there would be no sustainable prosecution. This once takes me back to my regular admonition. Never talk to the police without first consulting with a lawyer. Nothing good can come from it. No one talks his or her way out of a criminal prosecution. An extremely large number of prosecutions and indeed convictions rely on the defendant’s admission of guilt. It makes no sense to make the district attorney’s case for him. Simply say nothing and hire a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to defend you. If Silva did not speak to the police his chances of successfully defending his case improve significantly. If he did speak then suppressing the search and his statements become more important to his defense.

Continue Reading

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I am often perplexed by certain “office policies” that overlook justice for the sake of appeasing the public. Yesterday for instance I was in a Massachusetts district court on a case where my client was charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender. My client is twenty four years old. When he was sixteen years old an aunt made a complaint that four years earlier he had inappropriately touched her daughter, the defendant’s biological cousin. The touching, if true amounted to an Indecent Assault and Battery. The allegation was that the defendant grabbed his cousin’s buttocks. The victim’s mother and the defendant’s mother are sisters.

By “coincidence” these allegations came to light after the two sisters became embroiled in a lawsuit over a piece of property that the two inherited. The dispute became bitter. The sisters still do not speak with one another. Now stupidly the defendant pleaded guilty to the Indecent Assault and Battery charge as a juvenile. He was placed on probation for two years. At the time of his guilty plea he was made aware of the Sex Offender Registry consequences. This admonition was conveyed by the judge, not the defense lawyer. The lawyer never told him about this prior to the hearing on his change of plea. However, once this obligation was conveyed to him he immediately complied with the laws.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Laws have stringent registration requirements. Correctional institutions have the obligation to report the convicted offender to the registry. Parole and probation departments have the same obligation. Sentences of less than ninety days for a conviction of a sex offense require the judge to advise the accused of his duty to register in accordance with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry laws. Sex offenders who move into Massachusetts must register within two days. The registration must include the Sex Offender’s address, work address and the school he or she is attending. Sex Offenders who move around within Massachusetts must provide their new home, work or school addresses. Sex Offenders who want to move out of Massachusetts must notify the Registry. There is a special provision for work addresses as well; that being an offender must notify the board ten days prior to starting work in that establishment.

The client about whom I am speaking works as a chef. He has moved among jobs and homes about eleven times over the past several years. He has always complied with the registration requirements. He took a new job this past summer. He believed that he had once again registered in accordance with his obligations as he had on eleven prior occasions. He was wrong. He made a mistake. He forgot to do so. Now keep in mind that his residence remained the same. That notwithstanding, over the Labor Day Weekend he was stopped for a Motor Vehicle infraction. The officer learned that he had not registered and he was properly arrested. He was held until his arraignment on that Tuesday and he registered upon his release. I provided this information to the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case. As is her office policy, she called the Sexual Assault supervisor. The recommendation came back: guilty with two year probation. The supervisor never took the time to look at the facts of this case, rather, she held to the rigid policy of her office, refusing to even look at this client’s history of registering and the substance of the crime that occurred twelve years ago to which he pleaded guilty eight years ago. What is even more troubling is that this same district attorney’s office, second earlier, recommended pre-trial probation for a man accused of driving one hundred ten miles per hour on the highway.

Continue Reading

Michael Rubino of Braintree, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn last Friday. It is alleged that the Massachusetts court officer had sexual contact with a couple of female prisoners while he was on duty. The alleged acts took place last year and early this year at the Boston Municipal Court on New Chardon Street in Boston. An article in the Quincy Patriot Ledger states that on two occasions Rubino engaged in sexual misconduct with a woman when she was shackled and handcuffed. In another matter authorities allege that the defendant gave a female detainee cigarettes and money in exchange for sexual acts at the courthouse.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer, Sexual Assault

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am interested in knowing exactly what acts are alleged against Rubino and what evidence exists to support these allegations. The reason for my curiousity is simple. There is no law prohibiting consensual sex between court officers and inmates. This is not the case for correctional officers. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A makes it a crime for any correctional employee to engage in sexual relations with an inmate during the course of his or her employment. A conviction for this offense is punishable by up to five years in state prison. The crime is a felony. There is no defense of consent for correctional officers whereas there is for court officers. The full text of the law reads as follows:

“An officer or other person who is employed by or contracts with any penal or correctional institution in the commonwealth, and who, in the course of such employment or contract or as a result thereof, engages in sexual relations with an inmate confined therein, within or outside of such institution, or an inmate who is otherwise under the direct custodial supervision and control of such officer or other person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in a state prison or by a fine of $10,000 or both. In a prosecution commenced under this section, an inmate shall be deemed incapable of consent to sexual relations with such person. For purposes of this section, sexual relations shall include intentional, inappropriate contact of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to conduct prohibited by section 22 or 24 of chapter 265 or section 2, 3, 35 or 53A of chapter 272.”

There is very little case law in Massachusetts. This is understandable in that this is one of the few laws in Massaschusetts that does not have any gray area. Either the act happened or it did not.

One of the things I wonder about in this case is the extent of the evidence against Rubino. The lockups at the courthouses are monitored with video cameras. There are several of these cameras mounted throughout the lockup area providing surveillance at numerous angles and in all cells and areas used for transporting detainees. These monitors are installed for continuous viewing of prisoners to ensure their safety and the safety of the court officers moving them in and out of the courtrooms. The video monitors are also used to ensure the safety of the correctional officers transporting the prisoners from correctional facilities and jails to and from court. Anyone such as Rubino, working the lockup is aware of these devices and what they are constantly revealing. If the basis for these allegations is simply the word of the accuser then Rubino’s defense might depend on the cameras, other inmates present at the time of the alleged incidents and the testimonies of his co-workers.

Continue Reading

Just two days ago Lawrence, Massachusetts Police responded to a call at a rooming house on South Union Street. They arrived to find a thirty three year old woman they knew to be a prostitute complaining that she had been strangled and harassed by a man. The man, Richard Croteau was still at the scene when the police arrived. Croteau told the police that the woman had stolen money from him. The police interviewed some witnesses. One claimed to have heard Croteau threaten to “bash” the woman’s head in. Another witness supposedly saw Croteau grab the woman by the neck. Croteau was charged with Assault with the Intent to Commit Murder and Threatening to Commit a Crime. The case is being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Prostitution, Violent Crimes

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that stories like this one are common in the Massachusetts district courts, especially those courts in cities such as Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn and Brockton. It is true and unfortunate that prostitutes get robbed and beaten. However, it is also true that they frequently do the robbing. They then preempt any retributive efforts by making false claims about being robbed and beaten. This permits these women to retain the fruits of their crimes. I cannot count the number of times I have had clients complain to me that they were robbed by the prostitute they were engaged with and ended up arrested and in court to defend a dubious accusation. There is usually good news for the men who stand in Mr. Croteau’s shoes. These women have no interest in appearing in court and cooperating with law enforcement personnel. After all, why would they? They got what they wanted. Money. Oftentimes they are able to do this without performing their marketed sexual services. In twenty four years of practice I cannot remember a time when a prostitute appeared in court to testify for the prosecution on a case like this one.

These stories can stimulate conversation about the pros and cons of legalizing prostitution in the United States. Currently, only one state permits Prostitution, Nevada. There, prostitution is legal in eight counties, not the entire state. It is illegal in Las Vegas notwithstanding the prevalence of sexual attractions and stimulations in that city. Rhode Island permitted prostitution until 2009. In Louisiana convicted prostitutes must register as sex offenders. The prostitution industry nationwide is estimated to generate fourteen billion dollars annually. Proponent of legalized prostitution argue among other things that regulating this trade will provide tax revenue to municipalities and states, control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and prevent crimes such as the ones for which Croteau is being charged in this case.

Continue Reading

Michael Brundige is fifty seven years old. The Quincy resident is facing twenty counts of Rape of a Child in Norfolk County and Plymouth County dating back as far as 1990. The Plymouth County case is being prosecuted in Brockton, Massachusetts. The alleged victim in that case was between the ages of six and eight when what has been charged as one count of abuse occurred. About one year ago Brundige was charged with three counts of Indecent Assault and Battery and three counts of Child Rape in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham. Just last week Brundige was charged with sixteen counts of Child Rape, all of which are currently pending in the Quincy District Court. The prosecution contends that those acts occurred over an eight year period.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Rape Defense Attorney

Our office represents many people charged with Rape of a Child in Massachusetts. Oftentimes the accused is facing accusations that occurred several years earlier. I am always asked whether the statute of limitations expired and whether or not the district can go forward with the case. The answer is complicated. Massachusetts legislature and courts have expanded the statute of limitations for this crime on several occasions. Prior to 1985 the statute of limitations was six years. Then, in 1985 the statute of limitations was extended to ten years. A Massachusetts Appeals Court decision interpreted the amendment to include those cases that preceded the amendment date. Thus for instance, an alleged act that occurred in 1977 would no longer be barred by the statute of limitations after the passage of the amendment. In 2006 the statute of limitations was again extended. This time the legislature wrote that the crime of Rape of a Child could be prosecuted anytime after the commission of the crime. In other words, there is really no statute of limitations for this crime anymore in Massachusetts. There is one caveat however. The law states that “any indictment or complaint found and filed more than 27 years after the date of commission of such offense shall be supported by independent evidence that corroborates the victim’s allegation. Such independent evidence shall be admissible during trial and shall not consist exclusively of the opinions of mental health professionals.” As a practical matter, if the district attorney wants to prosecute one of these cases he or she can do so at virtually any time.

In matters like this one the defendant needs to hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. A successful defense to old Child Abuse cases requires a thorough investigation. It requires tenacious advocacy. Anyone defending these cases needs to explore the motivation of the accuser for the delayed disclosure. There is also a need to get a judge to order the prosecutor to disclose details of the event such as a particular date, time and location rather then permitting the accuser to simply say that the event happened when he or she was six or eight years old.

Continue Reading

Last night a woman reported seeing a man exposing himself and making obscene
gestures towards her as she drove by him in her car. Shortly before 10:30 Lowell police arrested the man. He was identified by the woman shortly after the incident. The defendant, Michael Sullivan was arrested at the same location just about one week ago after police received information that Sullivan had been exposing himself. When the police arrived to investigate the first incident Sullivan’s pants were down. That arrest resulted in an Indecent Exposure charge, a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. The new charges are Open and Gross Lewdness, a felony in Massachusetts. The cases are being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Lowell Massachusetts Sex Offense Defense Attorney

Open and Gross Lewdness in Massachusetts is a felony. The crime is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16 which states: “A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.” The proscribed conduct if conducted secretly does not amount to a violation of this statute. The crime is very close to the other crime Sullivan is charged with, Indecent Exposure however the consequences of a conviction for each differ significantly. Open and Gross is distinguished by the element of producing alarm or shock, an element necessary to sustain a conviction. The district attorney likely views Sullivan’s obscene gestures as satisfying this element of the felony offense. Indecent Exposure is a crime under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53. The maximum sentence that can be imposed for a conviction of that crime is six months in jail, making the crime a misdemeanor.

Massachusetts case law specifically states that masturbating in public constitutes a violation of the Open and Gross law. Also, there is no requirement that the body part be genitalia. Exposing one’s buttocks if coupled with the other elements can result in a felony conviction. Walking in on a person performing oral sex on another person in a public place is in certain circumstances Open and Gross Lewdness. Case law has made clear that urinating in public can result in a valid conviction for this offense. The factual underpinnings of these are important details for your Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. If properly represented these cases can be pled down to a lesser offense, dismissed or tried to an acquittal. The line between the felony charge and the misdemeanor charge is thin, thus requiring proper, experience representation. Even getting the felony continued without a finding might not be the best result in some contexts. Consult with a Sex Crimes Lawyer in Massachusetts any time you are facing charges like Mr. Sullivan.

Continue Reading