Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

| by

Last year a Marblehead, Massachusetts man was arrested following a bizarre incident involving the improper use of Facebook. Apparently the forty one year old man and the woman knew one another. She claims that they were just friends. On one occasion while alone with the man the woman fell asleep. She eventually told him that she did not want to spend time with him anymore. He then opened a Facebook page using her name and personal information. He also posted pictures he had taken of her during their relationship. A friend told the woman about the Facebook page and the pictures. The police were called. Their investigation led them to the man. The investigation also suggested to them that the woman had been digitally raped. Charges of Rape, Photographing a Person in the Nude Without Consent, Indecent Assault and Battery and Identity Fraud have been filed. The case was indicted and is now pending in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. The article goes on to say that the defendant has a dating profile on “Plenty of Fish”. His profile boasts having sex in public and threesomes.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Case Defense Attorney

As would be the case with most Massachusetts Criminal Attorneys this case intrigues me. Not because of the actual charges but due to the timing of the accusations. It is clear that nothing came about in a criminal context during the pendency of the “relationship”. Rather, once the Facebook page was posted the woman clearly became angered and felt victimized. Rightly so given that her pictures were posted on Facebook without her consent. Even according to the Salem News, the defendant’s lawyer concedes this point. And yes, the charge of Identity Fraud seems viable and perhaps indefensible. The other charges are not as easily provable. The defendant will probably defend this case on the theory that all acts were consensual, including the photographing of the woman naked. It will be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these acts were not consensual. First off, when were these pictures taken? The woman is going to say that it all occurred when she fell asleep. What links that date to these photographs? How is the prosecution going to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt an absence of consent. To the average juror it will appear that the relationship was somewhat significant. After all, how many people fall asleep in the presence of others with whom they feel anything less than comfortable? Here is something else to think about. Did the woman meet the defendant through the dating site? If she did she must have know of his sexual proclivities and found them intriguing at a minimum. How long had they been together and what was the nature of their relationship?

The Identity Fraud statute in Massachusetts is G.L. c. 266 Section 37E. The crime is a misdemeanor meaning in Massachusetts that no state prison sentence is authorized. This is minor compared to the remaining charges the defendant is facing. The Rape charge is a life felony and the Indecent Assault and Battery charge is punishable by up to five years in state prison.

Continue Reading

| by

Yesterday a man from Framingham, Massachusetts was arraigned on charges that he was in Possession of Child Pornography and for Distribution of Child Pornography. The charges stem from an investigation that started in July and that was conducted by the Massachusetts State police. The article in the Metrowest Daily News states that the investigating officer was searching the internet for these illicit images and used a program to determine the origin of download for the materials. The results suggested to the officer that the man’s computer was the source of the photos. At the arraignment hearing prosecutors offered that when confronted with the allegations the defendant denied having any computers. He further denied using peer-to-peer file sharing programs. A Search Warrant was applied for and granted. Officers raided the defendant’s home and found a laptop with a large quantity of Child Porn on it. He was released on a modest bail. Right now charges are pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

I very often I have clients retaining me on Distribution of Child Pornography Cases in Massachusetts. Those who did in fact download the illicit material, either deliberately or inadvertently, are baffled when they are charged with distribution. They make clear that they never distributed the material to anyone and that a forensic examination of their computer will prove this. Well, what they do not know is that by accessing the material through file sharing programs or peer-to-peer networking they are in fact in violation of the Massachusetts and Federal Child Pornography Distribution laws. Now how can that be? File sharing as we know it today started with Napster, about ten or twelve years ago. Researchers believe that there may be as many as eighty million people in the United States who use file sharing programs in some way or another.

Peer-to-peer file sharing or P2P permits people to download files, games, music videos and more from other computers that are connected or “peers”. What happens however is that now others can access that material from your computer. For legal purpose, at least right now, that constitutes distribution in Massachusetts and in Federal Court.

So what are some defenses to cases like this one? Certainly the defendant’s intent can be argued to a jury. That a person intended to download only or simply “possess” the material is a decision that the jury can make. After all, distribution must be made knowingly. If the district attorney cannot prove that the person using a peer-to-peer program knew that his actions constituted distribution then an acquittal might be possible. Proving knowledge rests on many factors that may or may not be present in this case. What experience did he have with computers? This can be determined not only from the testimony of witnesses who are aware of his proficiency but also from an examination of his hard drive. What is actually on the hard drive? Was the defendant selling this material online? Was he engaged in chats that alerted people to the location of this material? Remember that the article states only that the state trooper conducting the investigation learned that Conley was downloading the materials. The forensic report for the hard drive in this case will answer many of these questions and to some extent guide the defense efforts.

Continue Reading

| by

Back in 1993 Herbert Racine, now forty three years old, was convicted of one count of Rape. He was ultimately classified as a Level 2 Sex Offender by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board. It is now alleged that Racine committed an Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person Over the Age of Fourteen and that he has committed the crime of Enticing a Minor. The details of the incident as reported in the Lowell Sun are scant. The victim is between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and the gender of the victim was not identified. Racine is also being charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender and an unrelated Assault and Battery case. The cases are pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Racine.jpg

The laws in Massachusetts for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender are very strict. In essence, anyone who after 1981 was convicted of a designated sex offense must register. The word conviction included adjudications of delinquent and adjudications of being a sexually dangerous person. The offenses triggering the requirement of registration include rape, assault with the intent to rape, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping a child, enticing a minor into prostitution or for sexual intercourse, drugging persons for sexual intercourse, inducing a minor into prostitution, sharing or living off of the earnings of a minor prostitute, possession and distribution of child pornography, engaging in unnatural acts and more. Level two and level three sex offenders are obligated to register at the police department in the city or town where they live.

The penalties for violating this law are severe. For first time offenders, there is a minimum six month house of correction sentence and up to five years in state prison. For second and subsequent violators of this law there is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence. Hiring an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer is always advisable for anyone who is charged with a crime, particularly where there is a minimum mandatory sentence associated with the crimes charged.

So what exactly does this mean for Racine? Well, the article does not provide much detail however I would expect that the minor victims in this case have been and will continue to be cooperative with the district attorney. If not then the case probably would not have gotten this far to begin with. Also, since this case is being prosecuted in Middlesex County I expect an indictment to issue and the prosecution to be handled in the Superior Court in either Woburn or Lowell. While at times Massachusetts prosecutors might exercise restraint in terms of the aggressiveness with which they pursue the accused, they are less likely to do so when the defendant is a repeat offender and the victim is a minor. Also, the fact that Racine failed to register as a sex offender and has an outstanding complaint for a Massachusetts Violent Crime leads me to believe that this case will not be prosecuted in Ayer for very long.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lynn Item reports that William Townsend of Lynn, Massachusetts has been charged with Assault With the Intent to Commit Murder, Rape and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. The charges follow a weekend where the complainant, Townsend’s former girlfriend fell off the wagon and engaged in a lengthy partying binge.

The police responded to a call for Domestic Violence at an undisclosed address. When they arrived they found the complainant barefoot in the rain. She purportedly displayed bruises described as both old and new. She told the police that Townsend tried to throw her out of a window on the second floor. She was eventually taken to a local hospital. There she told attending personnel that Townsend had repeatedly raped her. Meanwhile, back at the scene police went up to the second floor, kicked the door in and arrested Townsend.

The complainant told police that she had been sober for fourteen months and that she fell off the wagon this past Friday. She met up with friends and family and began drinking heavily. She then went to visit Townsend who was apparently her first boyfriend. There, she continued drinking with the defendant. On Monday evening the woman reported that Townsend demanded the two have sex. Having AIDS she declined. The two continued to drink for several more hours, passing out. The next day Townsend continued to demand sex. The woman again declined and Townsend passed out yet again. She claims that when she went to wake him up Townsend grabbed her, smashed her head against a wall and threatened to throw her out of the second floor window. He threw her out of the apartment and the police were called. Charges are now pending in the Lynn District Court
Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell you that cases like this often enjoy a multitude of defenses. Think about this from a purely factual standpoint. The complainant’s credibility is suspect from the start. She started drinking on Friday and continued until she passed out on Monday night. Just how much of that weekend could she have remembered with any degree of detail? She claims that Townsend demanded sex and raped her notwithstanding the fact that she has AIDS. How many people are willing to risk contracting a deadly disease? Now think about the independent corroborating evidence in this case. What do the hospital records show? Did the two in fact have sex? Was the bruising both new and old as characterized by the police? How about the complainant’s head. Were there bruises or cuts corroborative of her account of having her head smashed into the wall. Remember that Mr. Townsend’s account of the weekend is probably much different than the woman’s. Defense lawyers rarely share the details of their defense at an arraignment. If bail was set in the amount of three thousand dollars as stated in the article then the judge probably got a good read on the viability of these charges. It would not surprise me to see this case remain in the district court.

Continue Reading

| by

cyber crimes.jpgA sixty three year old Braintree, Massachusetts man was charged in 2009 with thirty one counts of Possession of Child Pornography and Distribution of Child Pornography according to a report in the Quincy Patriot Ledger. The man, Francis Austin’s competency became an issue resulting in a two year delay of the case. It is alleged that Austin’s involvement in these acts was first detected by authorities in California who alerted Massachusetts officials to the activity. A Search Warrant was obtained for Austin’s home. His computer was seized and on it investigators located the illicit materials. The case is being prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x948304417/Braintree-man-faces-child-pornography-charges

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

There are times when a prospective client will “suggest” to me that he is incompetent to stand trial. They become disappointed very quickly when I explain to them the law on competency to stand trial in Massachusetts and the consequences of employing that approach. The test in Massachusetts for determining the competency of a person to stand trial is simple. The accused must have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and he must have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Challenges to competency to stand trial are governed by statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123 Section 15. That statute essentially works like this. At any time a judge can order a defendant to be evaluated for competency to stand trial. The defendant will then be examined by a qualified psychologist. The defendant can also be sent out for a twenty day period of observation. The time can be extended to forty days if necessary. At the end of the observation and evaluation period there will be a hearing on the issue of competency. If the judge finds that the defendant is not competent to stand trial then the case will be continued until he is ready to stand trial. So, as I tell my clients, they will most likely have to face the charges at some point. Until they do so they will be incarcerated, likely in the Bridgewater State Hospital, waiting for a determination that they are competent to stand trial. This is probably what happened to Austin. He was indicted in 2009. A challenge to his competency was made. The case was delayed and now he is competent to face the Child Pornography charges.

In sum, challenging a defendant’s competency to stand trial is not a defense to a crime. It merely delays the prosecution. There will be a strong likelihood that during the delay the defendant will be incarcerated in a treatment facility. Eventually he will be in court defending the charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Paul Teves was an eleventh grade school teacher working at the West Bridgewater High School. He also coached track. Now the thirty five year old stands charged with Distribution of Child Pornography in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Teves used a screen name and described himself as a mother willing to pimp out her eleven year old daughter. Chats were either monitored or seized wherein Teves communicated with someone from Albuquerque who, once arrested cooperated and led officials to Teves. Teves was interviewed by investigating FBI agents. He admitted exchanging videos and stills of Child Pornography with others. It appears that Teves is not currently in custody.
The statute under which Teves is being prosecuted is likely 18 U.S.C. §2252. That law states that anyone who receives or distributes material that involves this use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and that depicts such conduct is guilty of a felony. A conviction of this offense is punishable by a minimum mandatory five year prison sentence.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

Investigating these cases is often difficult and frustrating for law enforcement. People who engage in this type of conduct often do so from their homes. The mere fact that several people can live in one home and share the same IP address makes identifying the actual perpetrator difficult. Even if a person lives alone law enforcement officials know that unsecured IP addresses can be accessed by neighbors. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers can exploit this fact when filing Motions to Suppress unlawful Searches and Seizures. While identifying the source or origin of the illicit activity may be easy, putting a suspect’s fingerprints on the keyboard is a much more difficult task. More often than not law enforcement agencies solidify their cases when they contact the suspect and get him or her to talk. The accused usually panics talk to the authorities. They think they can minimize the damage by admitting to wrongdoing and being cooperative. They are wrong. I have been practicing criminal law for over twenty four years and never once have I had a client who “talked his way out” of a criminal problem. The police are skilled at asking questions. The questions are designed to elicit certain answers. Once they get those answers their case strengthens. Also, rarely does a client come into my office, look at a police report and tell me “that is exactly what I said to them”. The response is almost always “that is not what I said”. This is why I always advise clients to say nothing and hire a lawyer. Lawyers are paid to protect you and to make sure that you do not jeopardize your legal rights by acting foolishly or on impulse.

Continue Reading

| by

On or about August 6, 2011 a fifteen year old girl reported that she had consensual sexual relations with a twenty six year old Lowell, Massachusetts man she had met online. The defendant, Robert Conner and the girl made their initial contact through a dating site called DateHookup.com. The two “chatted” online, texted one another and had some phone conversations. They eventually met up and had sex. The girl then told her mother about the encounter. The mother accessed the dating website and contacted the police. The police investigated the allegations. While doing so they met with Conner who denied having sex with the girl. During this interview the police smelled marijuana. The home was searched and a supply suggestive of the intent to distribute the drug was found. Conner has been charged with Rape of a Child, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana and a School Zone Violation. The case is pending in the Lowell District Court however if the Rape of a Child charge is pursued the case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn. Conner has already been convicted of a Sex Crime in Massachusetts. He served eighteen months for Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child after being convicted of that crime in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Rape Lawyer

Statutory Rape laws in the United States are not consistent and in many instances make absolutely no sense whatsoever. In Massachusetts the law is clear that the age of consent is sixteen. That applies for both males and females. This is not the case however in many states. In Arkansas for instance, males must be fourteen to consent to sex whereas females must be sixteen. In Colorado the ages of consent are fifteen and seventeen for males and females respectively. North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee and Wisconsin hold the age of consent at eighteen. In some states a lower age applies when the age gap between partners is small, or when the older partner is below a certain age, usually eighteen or twenty one. In Massachusetts Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime. This means that there is no defense other than the alleged act never happened. Believing that someone has reached the legal age will not help you at trial. Nor will the fact that the victim appears to be older than he or she really is. In this case Conner said that there was no sex. That is a viable defense to these allegations. The victim’s testimony is not always enough to support a conviction, particularly where a competent defense attorney is able to impeach this testimony with inconsistencies or motive. Jurors want to see more. They want to see proof in the form of independent evidence that would support the naked accusation. Did someone see the act? Did the victim go to a hospital? Were tests performed to show penetration or the presence of seamen? If so, was a sample submitted for DNA testing and matched to that of the accused?

Continue Reading

| by

Janelle Grasty of Framingham, Massachusetts was engaged in an act of Prostitution with Nev Lima, another Framingham resident. After consummating the act Lima went to pay Grasty. She accepted her fee and pulled a knife on him, demanding the rest of his money. Lima defended himself and was bitten in the process. At least that is the story Lima told the police. Grasty on the other hand claimed that the money was hers, all one thousand two hundred dollars of it. According to a police report the two were fighting in a hallway, naked when the police arrived. Both have been charged with criminal offenses out of the Framingham District Court as follows:

Janelle Grasty
Prostitution,
Assault and Battery,
Armed Robbery

Nev Lima
Assault and Battery
Disorderly Conduct
Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1510861880/Framingham-woman-tried-to-rob-john-after-sex-police-say

proctor street.jpg

Framingham Sex Crimes Lawyer

So how is this case going to work out? A lot depends on what the police saw and more importantly whether anyone else witnessed this incident. According to the article the knife was found in a bathroom. Thus, it is difficult to determine who in fact is telling the truth here, at least about the Robbery allegation. It is true that prostitutes often get robbed. They also rob their customers. To prove the robbery allegation the prosecution will need a percipient witness. There is not one here. Here is another problem with this case from a prosecutorial point of view. Since both have been charged with criminal offenses it is probable that neither will be offering testimony against the other. Both Grasty and Lima will likely invoke their Fifth Amendment Privilege. That right, guaranteed by the United States Constitution provides that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. If Grasty and Lima decide to testify then they are waiving this privilege and, in the context of this case probably incriminating themselves. It would imprudent for either of them to do so, particularly where testifying truthfully would possibly result in an admission to the charges pending against them. The invocation of this privilege will make prosecuting this case virtually impossible. I would bet that the charges against these defendants get dismissed on the day of trial.

Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers have to help their clients make decisions like this one every day. It is important that your lawyer not only knows the law but that he or she knows how to utilize the law to help with your defense. The end result of criminal cases in Massachusetts and throughout the country often results on the strategies employed by the defense attorney. Knowing your rights and properly embracing them is a good formula for success.

Continue Reading

| by

On May 20, 2011 I blogged on a similar case involving the same defendant. Norman Barnes, age twenty eight. He was arrested at a hotel in Quincy, Massachusetts after the victim used Facebook to contact a relative who immediately went to the hotel. Police were called to the scene and Barnes was apprehended. The Salem News now reports that Barnes crimes spanned several counties. The allegations are extremely severe. It is alleged that Barnes kidnapped the fifteen year old girl on May 8, 2011 after giving her friend a ride and dropping her off at a local T station. Barnes convinced the victim to remain with him with the promise of taking her home. He did not. Rather, he took her from hotel to hotel throughout various counties in Massachusetts forcing her to engage in acts of prostitution and raping her several times. It is alleged that the girl was forced to have sex with as many as eight men one of the days she was at a motel in Danvers and seven men on another occasion, also in Essex County. The case against Barnes now pending in the Salem District Court charges him with Enticing a Minor Into Prostitution, Deriving Support From Prostitution of a Minor and Statutory Rape. Bail was set in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars cash, by agreement. When Barnes was arrested he had nearly twenty thousand dollars in his possession.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1241069618/Police-Girl-was-forced-to-sell-sex

In cases like this one, where a defendant is charged in several counties for the same conduct and a single victim, the issue of consolidation is often considered. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) permits a defendant to file a motion for the transfer and consolidation of cases. The judge hearing the motion is to consider the convenience of the request relative to the witnesses and parties. The prosecutor for each county must agree to the request if it is to be permitted. This rule is designed for the purpose of judicial economy by eliminating the need for multiple trials committed in different counties. From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer this rule has a different value. If Barnes were to have separate trials in each county, and if he were to lose each trial, the circumstances of these cases might prompt a judge to consider a consecutive state prison sentence. This might be due to the fact that one judge might not believe that the first judge’s sentence was severe enough. Or, it might be because the victim was forced to relive the horrors of her ordeal through her trial testimony on multiple occasions. Consolidation will result in one trial and one sentence. Consolidation for trial purposes is rare. The practice is much more common when someone is offering to plead guilty to criminal charges pending in multiple superior courts.

Continue Reading

| by

The Salem News reports that Patricia Papa, a former employee of the Sheriff’s Department for Essex County Massachusetts has been charged with having sexual relations with an inmate. Papa worked at the Lawrence Correctional Alternative Center, commonly known as the farm. The allegations focus on a one month period covering most of March of this year. The case is being prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=sessexterminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Facilities&sid=Sessex&b=terminalcontent&f=lawrence_cac&csid=Sessex

Lawrence Farm.jpg

It appears that the statute under which Papa is being prosecuted is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A. That statute makes it a crime for any corrections officer or anyone employed by a correctional institution to engage in sexual relations with an inmate. A conviction for this offense can result in a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and a five year state prison sentence. Consent is not a defense to these charges. So, how can Papa defend against these allegations? Obviously a lot depends on the evidence against her. Did someone see her engaged in sexual activities with the inmate? Were the acts caught on security and surveillance videos? Or was it the inmate himself who made the accusations? You would think that if this were happening that Papa would avoid such actions in view of any electronic monitoring equipment. As an employee of the sheriff’s office she would arguably know that such devices existed and the location where the cameras were operating from. Eyewitness testimony in cases like this one are often suspect as well. Keep in mind, these people are convicted criminals sentenced to a period of incarceration. Their credibility is suspect. Jurors have difficulty believing the testimony of someone who is serving a jail sentence. The first thing that goes through a juror’s mind when listening to an incarcerated person’s testimony is “what is in this for this guy? Why is he testifying for the prosecution?” There almost always has to be substantial corroboration for jurors to convict someone based on an inmate’s testimony. None was mentioned in this article. Rather, simply bare allegations that Papa had sexual relations with an inmate.

I can recall a case like this one many years ago where proof against the defendant was an easy task for the district attorney. The defendant was a woman, correctional officer at a state prison. She had a relationship with an inmate at a much more secure facility that the Lawrence Farm. She got pregnant and had the inmate’s child. She was terminated. In Papa’s case there is no indication that the prosecutor’s case is that clear cut.

Continue Reading