Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Christopher White, a forty four year old Lowell, Massachusetts man is facing charges of Possession of Child Pornography and Distribution of Child Pornography following the execution of a Search Warrant at his Jackson Street home. Authorities allege that a search of White’s computer revealed somewhere around twenty five thousand images of child pornography. The article is silent as to how the police were led to White’s home and the basis for the application for the search warrant. The case is currently pending in the Lowell District Court however if the district attorney elects to pursue the distribution charges the matter must be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn or Lowell.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Defending Obscene Material Charges in Massachusetts

This article says very little about the strengths and weaknesses of the district attorney’s case against White. The simple execution of a search warrant leading authorities to unlawful acts does not come close to satisfying the prosecution’s burden of sustaining a case like this one. There must be something linking the defendant, in this case White, to the illicit material.

Here is something to think about when looking at this case. Did White have any roommates? Was the computer secure? In other words did someone need a password to get into it or was the device accessible to anyone who had access to the home? How did law enforcement learn that activity like this was taking place? Was there some sort of file sharing such as peer to peer networking involved? The answers to these questions can determine whether or not the prosecution can survive preliminary challenges.

The penalty for Distribution of Child Pornography in Massachusetts is ten years on state prison. This is a minimum mandatory sentence meaning that anyone convicted of this offense will not be paroled until he serves at least ten years of his sentence. This fact alone makes it extremely important that you choose the right criminal defense lawyer to defend you if you are charged with this crime.

Our office has successfully defended charges like this on several occasions. Every case is different and there are always defenses to cases no matter how strong you might think this case is against you. If you get arrested and charged with any Sex Crime in Massachusetts you need a lawyer.

Continue Reading

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the decision Essex Superior Court judge Howard Whitehead to reverse the conviction of a Worcester man convicted of breaking and entering and firearm offenses back in 2007. In Commonwealth v. Perez, an unpublished opinion issued on August 8, 2013 pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court held that the defendant’s right to a public trial was violated due to the defendant’s family members being excluded from the courtroom during jury empanelment. Apparently, family members attempted to gain entrance to the Lawrence Superior Court during the second day of empanelment and were denied admission. The opinion cites to the finding of the trial judge that two court officers testified that during the time period from 2006-2008 the court officers had the public remain outside of the courtroom during jury selection. The reason for this procedure was because of alleged space restrictions and for the convenience of both the venire and the public. The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the fact that the trial judge was unaware of this procedure did not mitigate the situation. This genre of cases is routinely referred to as “Cohen” cases. See, Commonwealth v. Cohen, (No.1) 456 Mass. 94, 105 (2010). In the event that you or a family member believes that there were family members or any members of the public excluded from the courtroom during any part of his or her trial the case should be reviewed to evaluate whether a motion for a new trial because the defendant’s Sixth Amendment constitutional rights to a public trial may have been violated.

It is well settled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. There are certain situations in which spectators may be excluded from certain parts of a trial. However, if that is going to happen the trial judge must follow a strict procedure. For example, the side seeking a closure must have an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; the closure must not be too broad; the trial judge must evaluate reasonable alternatives to a closure; the trial judge must make specific findings if he or she holds that a closure is necessary and in the interests of justice. In most cases that occurred prior to 2010, it does not appear that a judge has made findings because judges were often unaware that jury empanelment must be open to the public. In fact, many experienced and qualified attorneys were unaware of this fact. In the event a motion for a new trial is filed it is imperative to include an affidavit from the trial attorney if he or she agrees that he was not aware that the right to a public trial applied to jury selection.
Because this process of excusing jurors appears to have been routinely done in superior courthouses, it is imperative for anyone who has a family member that is serving a lengthy sentence to determine whether a “Cohen” type motion should be filed. In the event that a defendant is successful and the motion is allowed, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. These types of motions have been filed in Essex, Plymouth, Middlesex and Suffolk counties.

Four Groveland teenagers have been arraigned in Haverhill District Court on charges of malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct after allegedly confessing to smashing 19 mailboxes and two car windows with a baseball bat. The teens — Benjamin Tocci, 19; Brandon Yemmi, 17; Tyler Kelly, 17; and Cody Hillner, 17 – were allegedly playing a game of “mailbox baseball” after a 1:30 a.m. drive to buy cigarettes at a convenience store. Police allege that the property destruction was not confined to any particular area or neighborhood and believe that there were more unreported instances of vandalism. The prosecution will seek restitution, local news reported.

Police allegedly connected the teens to the vandalized mailboxes after writing down the license plates of “several” cars that they passed on road. This case is an example of why it is important to contact an attorney as soon as possible. Had the teens consulted with a lawyer and not admitted to the acts, then there may have been no probable cause to charge them with these crimes. There is no indication that anyone saw the teens smashing the mailboxes or provided any description of suspects. There is no indication that anyone provided a description of the vehicle. The fact that the teens’ car was among “several” cars that passed down the particular road would likely not have been sufficient to give rise to probable cause. If the suspects not spoken with the police, then there may not have been enough probable cause to charge them or, alternatively, they would have had strong grounds for a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause.

The teens are charged with malicious destruction of property over $250 for the smashed car windows. Malicious destruction of property over $250 is a felony. A viable defense would be to establish whether there was really more than $250 worth of damage to the windows. The damage alleged is apparently limited to the windows, as opposed to the rest of the vehicles, because it does not appear that the suspects were charged with malicious destruction of a motor vehicle, a distinct and more serious crime which cannot be continued without a finding.

Continue Reading

Last week an animal control officer in Lawrence, Massachusetts responded to a call reporting that a kitten was dying at a local rooming house. The officer learned from another tenant that the accused, Edwin Hernandez might have thrown the animal at a wall after it supposedly scratched him. The witness also reported seeing Hernandez hit the kitten several times in the head. The animal control officer reported that the kitten’s face was swollen and that it was bleeding from the mouth area. Hernandez denied striking the animal. A local animal hospital examined the kitten and confirmed that hit had a suffered a broken jaw and blunt force trauma to its head. Hernandez will be summonsed for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Essex County Massachusetts

There are two primary animal cruelty laws in Massachusetts. The first is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 112 which makes it a felony to “willfully and maliciously” kill, disfigure or maim an animal. This crime is a felony. A conviction for this offense can result in up to five years on prison. The other law is more commonly used when charging Animal Cruelty Cases in Massachusetts. This law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 77 makes it a felony to torture or beat an animal. This law also permits a state prison sentence for up to five years. Animal cruelty cases in Massachusetts are taken quite seriously by prosecutors and judges. People do get sentenced to jail when convicted of these charges. This makes your decision of which Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to hire an important one.

So what is going to happen to Mr. Hernandez? This depends on how the magistrate handles the allegations at the Clerk’s Hearing. If the tenant who witnessed Hernandez hit the kitten on the head appears and offers testimony against him then a complaint will most probably issue. Even if this person does not appear at the hearing, the animal control officer will provide this information to the magistrate making the likelihood of the issuance of a criminal complaint strong. Hernandez has to keep in mind that anything he might say at the Clerk’s Hearing can be used against him if the complaint issues. Not all Clerk’s Hearings are recorded however I have seen police officers take notes and prepare supplemental reports based on representations made during these proceedings. Prosecutors will use this material to help prove their case. Appearing at a Clerk’s Hearing without a lawyer is never a good idea. Too many times complaints issue in cases where had the defendant hired a lawyer no probable cause would have been established.

Continue Reading

Debra Antonitis, a 45-year-old North Attleboro woman, has been charged with mail fraud and wire fraud for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from the Wrentham Co-Operative Bank where she previously worked, the Boston Globe reported Thursday.

Prosecutors claim that between April 2006 and and January 2012, Antonitis made fraudulent transfers by faking withdrawals from customer accounts and transferring the money to her own account. The government also alleges that Antonitis created false entries in records to make it appear that the customers had made the withdrawals. Antonitis allegedly made 143 fraudulent transfers totaling $112,385. She is facing three counts of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud.

Federal prosecutors love to bring mail and wire fraud charges, and Antonitis will need an experienced federal criminal defense attorney on her side. Former federal prosecutor Jed Rakoff wrote the following in a Duquesne law review article:

To federal prosecutors of white collar crime, the mail fraud statute is our Stradivarius, our Colt 45, our Louisville Slugger, our Cuisinart-our true love. We may flirt with RICO…and call the conspiracy law “darling,” but we always come home to the virtues of [the mail fraud statute], with its simplicity, adaptability, and comfortable familiarity. It understands us and, like many a foolish spouse, we like to think we understand it.

As Rakoff notes, part of the reason prosecutors are so fond of mail and wire fraud is the simplicity of these offenses. Both come down to two basic elements, although there are sub-elements: (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) use of mail or use of interstate wire communications to further the scheme. Another reason prosecutors find these statutes so attractive is that they are amorphous and allow the government to prosecute a huge range of conduct, even activity that doesn’t necessarily fall under the traditional umbrella of “fraud.” The government does not have to prove that the mailing or wiring contained fraudulent information or that a defendant personally mailed or wired the item in question, as long as the defendant”caused” the mailing or wiring. The government also likes these offenses because the unit of prosecution for the purposes of charging is each mailing or wiring. Therefore, the government can bring a separate count for each mailing or wiring, even if there was just one scheme.

Antonitis should speak with a Massachusetts criminal lawyer who has experience in the federal courts and understands the complexities of federal criminal practice, one with a thorough understanding of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been advisory only, but judges often follow the guidelines or deviate from them at the government’s request. This is probably due in part to the fact that most federal district court judges were appointed since 1987, when the Guidelines went into effect, and are just familiar with that regime. Judges might also stick to the guidelines for fear of reversal. Some believe that judges had their hands tied by the guidelines for so long that they’re afraid too many downward departures will prompt Congress to restrain their discretion again. In any event, a skilled attorney should aggressively work to both build a strong defense and to minimize Antonitis’ Guidelines exposure.

Continue Reading

According to an article in the Brockton Enterprise Shane Wilson of Norton, Massachusetts has been charged with Leaving the Scene After Causing Personal Injury Resulting in Death. The incident occurred early Sunday morning on Route 24 near Randolph. It is alleged that Wilson struck a twenty nine year old Needham man around 1:15 in the morning. Apparently, just hours after the incident Wilson called the police, stating that he was aware that he hit something, just not a person. Investigators think the victim was walking against the flow of traffic and had not concluded from where he was coming. Wilson’s car is in the possession of law enforcement officials. The article indicates that an accident reconstruction is being performed by the Massachusetts State Police. Wilson will be prosecuted at least initially in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Defense Law Firm

Leaving the Scene After Personal Injury or Death Lawyers in Massachusetts

The charges here are quite serious. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24 states that anyone who leaves the scene of an accident to avoid being arrested or prosecuted and as a result of that accident kills someone will be subject to a mandatory jail sentence of either one year in jail or two and one half years in state prison. It seems to me that the keys to this case are whether Wilson knew that he hit someone with his car and that after doing so he left the scene to avoid prosecution. All elements of this crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Wilson. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer here is what strikes me as interesting in this case. Wilson called the police himself to report that he hit something. What does this signify? 1) That he did not know if he in fact hit a person and 2) more importantly that he never intended to flee and avoid prosecution. Rather, he wanted to alert the authorities to a situation in which he was involved.

Here are some facts that I would need to know before assessing the viability of defenses in this case. Who if anybody was with Wilson when this happened? What did that person see? Where was the body found? What time did Wilson’s call go out to the police department? What does the state police accident reconstruction conclude? Did anyone else see what happened? Did the victim have a toxicology workup? What if anything did that reveal? There are many options for defending cases like this one. Each is fact specific. Wilson may want to consider his own accident reconstruction defending on the state police conclusions. We have engaged accident reconstructionists many times with excellent results. Many times these experts are able to demonstrate to a jury the flaws in the prosecutors’ expert’s analysis and show what really happened.

Continue Reading

Last night Massachusetts State Police and Lawrence, Massachusetts police officers raided the Italien-American Civic Association on Essex Street looking for evidence of an illegal gambling operation. The establishment has been targeted by local police since a November 2011 murder occurring just outside of the club. The raid was permitted by a Search Warrant recently obtained by law enforcement. This investigation targeted conventional gambling activities such as craps and card games as well as Dominican lottery and cockfighting. Arraignments this morning are in the Lawrence District Court. There is no indication as to whether or not the case will be prosecuted in the district court or the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Gambling Defense Law Firm

Criminal Attorneys Who Defend Gaming Charges in Massachusetts

The prohibition against gambling in Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 271 Section 17. The law states that anyone who is in any way involved with gambling and convicted under this statute is guilty of a felony. There is a maximum three year prison sentence associated with a conviction for illegal Gambling in Massachusetts and a fine of up to three thousand dollars. This statute is all encompassing. At many levels there are constitutional challenges to this law that might result in a dismissal of charges against the accused. For instance, there is a phrase in the statute that provides liability for “whoever is present in such place”. Massachusetts case law however has held that “[m[ere unwitting presence of defendant in same place where apparatus is does not constitute crime”. There are many reasons why people might legitimately attend a social club that does not involve their participation in unlawful gambling. There is no valid reason to charge these people with a violation of this law even though they were present when a raid occurred. At times this is lost on district attorneys who prosecute large numbers of people, many of whom were simply caught up on the execution of the Search Warrant. It is not unusual to see as many as thirty people or even more initially charged with illegal gaming activities. Typically, the charges against many of these people will be dropped for a lack of evidence tying them to the Gambling.

In my experience as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer these cases usually involve Wiretap Warrants. After obtained a Wiretap Warrant law enforcement officials continuously monitor the content of telephone calls between the principles in the illegal business and their customers. The monitoring often goes on for months or at least until such time as the authorities believe that they have enough evidence to make arrests and/or apply for a Search Warrant. Sometimes the best way to defend one of these cases is to attack the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Wiretap Warrant. If successful all conversations will be suppressed as will the fruits of those conversations, meaning the Massachusetts Search Warrant.

Continue Reading

Thirty two year old Gregory Couture was recently arraigned in the Hingham District Court for one count of Open and Gross Lewdness. The Brockton Enterprise reports that last fall Couture exposed himself to a woman walking in Luddham’s Ford Park. The victim was unable to identify him at that time. Just a few weeks ago another woman in the same area saw Couture following her. This same woman saw him hiding behind trees another time in the park. This time the woman took a picture of Couture’s car and showed it to the police. Couture was questioned by the police and supposedly admitted to exposing himself in the fall and to having done so to other women in the past. Couture posted five hundred dollars cash bail. He has been banned from the park.

Read Article:

Hingham, Massachusetts Sex Offense Defense Lawyer

Open and Gross Lewdness in Massachusetts is a felony. It is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16. The law states verbatim that “[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”. While this offense is closely similar to the crime of Indecent Exposure it is considered more serious. Behavior conducted in private will not suffice to convict for this offense. The element of “open” means exactly that. The conduct must be performed with the intention to cause alarm or shock. Indecent Exposure in front of children will satisfy the elements of the offense but the same conduct in front of adults might not. A single act of Open and Gross Lewdness cannot result in more than one conviction even if there are multiple victims. Exposing oneself and masturbating in a public place are typical examples of acts that result in these charges being brought. “Mooning” adults should not result in a conviction and charges alleging such conduct should be dismissed upon motion.

This conduct in lay terms in known as exhibitionism. It is characterized as the act of showing genitals to a stranger without the intention of engaging in sexual activity with that person. Exhibitionists often masturbate during this exposure. Some do so with the intent to shock the victim. Others do this in hopes of arousing their target. The causes of this behavior vary and are mostly inconclusive. The perpetrators are almost always male. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I have represented many people accused of crimes involving exhibitionism. They defendants in my experience are always men. Experts will tell you that this behavior can be controlled with therapy and sometimes drugs. We have engaged psychologists to evaluate our clients charged with having committed crimes involving this type of behavior. Their reports and recommendations have helped us resolve these cases favorably on countless occasions.

Continue Reading

The Brockton Enterprise reports that yesterday a seventy two year old Fall River man attempted to abduct a twenty seven year old woman. The woman was walking her dog in Braintree. The man pulled up and asked for help entering an address in his GPS device. As the woman tried to help him the defendant tried to pull her into the car. The woman screamed. The defendant drove off and was later apprehended by the police. The accused, Carlton Comstock has been charged with Attempt to Commit a Crime, Kidnapping and Assault and Battery. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Sexual Assault Defense Lawyer

Norfolk County Massachusetts Sex Crimes Attorney

The crime of Attempt to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts is established through Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 274 Section 6. The law states that anyone who does an act towards the commission of a crime and is unsuccessful in doing so is guilty of a crime. Whether or not the crime of Attempt to Commit a Crime is a felony or a misdemeanor depends on the crime that the perpetrator intended to commit. Here, the crime is Kidnapping. Kidnapping in Massachusetts is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years. Accordingly, the crime Comstock is defending has a maximum penalty of five years. If the case is kept in the Quincy District Court then Comstock’s maximum exposure is two and one half years on jail. The Massachusetts case of Commonwealth v. Ware, 375 Mass. 118 (1978) made clear that the crime of Attempt to Kidnap requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intention to cause the victim to be imprisoned or confined against her will.

I am interested in learning just how the district attorney intends to prosecute this case. On its face the charges appear quite serious. The attempted abduction of a woman walking her dog is horrifying. However, when deciding when and where to prosecute criminal cases district attorneys look not only at the severity of the crime but the age of the offender, his or her criminal record, the danger the accused presents to the community and whether punishment upon a conviction can be adequately imposed by a district court judge. In cases like this one Comstock’s lawyer might investigate his mental health history, if any. Locating witnesses who witnessed the offense will also be helpful particularly if their accounts do not match up to the woman’s story. Her criminal history might also be a factor in deciding how to defend or prosecute this case.

Continue Reading

Members of the Essex County Drug Task Force concluded an investigation into illegal drug activities of four Lawrence, Massachusetts men. The result was Drug and Gun Charges. Apparently the investigation was initiated by a hand to hand sale of drugs by an man named Amado Colon to an undercover official. Once Colon was arrested a Search Warrant was obtained and his Morton Street home was searched. During the search officers located enough heroin to justify the filing of Cocaine Trafficking Charges and Possession of a Firearm. Colon has also been charged with a School Zone Violation and Possession with the Intent to Distribute Heroin. The investigation also resulted in the arrests of three other Lawrence, Massachusetts men. Pedro Berroa was charged with Trafficking Over 28 Grams of Heroin, Conspiracy and a School Zone Violation. Luige Cabrera was charged with Conspiracy, a School Zone Violation and Trafficking Over 28 Grams of Heroin. Laura Cabrera was charged with Selling Drug Paraphernalia, Trafficking Heroin, a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy. The cases will ultimately be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Bail for the defendants ranged from fifteen thousand dollars to one hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Essex County Drug Defense Lawyer

One of my clients recently asked me a very simple question that as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I often take for granted. He wanted to know just what is meant by “conspiracy”. Almost every person charged with a Drug Case in Massachusetts faces a count for Conspiracy. The legal definition for Conspiracy in Massachusetts is a combination of more than one person, acting together in some fashion with the intention of accomplishing a criminal objective or two or more people acting with criminal means to accomplish something that is not necessarily itself criminal in nature. One Massachusetts Criminal Case stated that “conspiracy as a criminal offence is established when the object of the combination is either a crime, or if not a crime, is unlawful, or when the means contemplated are either criminal, or if not criminal, are illegal, provided that, where no crime is contemplated either as the end or the means, the illegal but non-criminal element involves prejudice to the general welfare or oppression of the individual of sufficient gravity to be injurious to the public interest.”

We typically see a common pattern of facts when someone is charged with Conspiracy only. That person is usually present when others are either using, selling, possessing, possessing with the intent to sell, trafficking, manufacturing, cutting, guarding or buying drugs. The police lack probable cause to charge this person with a substantive offense, i.e. possession or distribution of the drug. But, their belief is that since the person was present at the scene of the crime, and somehow associated with the drug dealers, he or she is conspiring with that person and will be charged with a crime. It is very likely that in these circumstances, an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will succeed in getting that charge, particularly if it is the only charge, dismissed against his client.

Continue Reading