Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The Lowell Sun reports that 29 year old Marco P. DaSilva, has been held without bail as a result of an incident of domestic violence involving his wife. According to the Sun, DaSilva and his wife have been experiencing marital difficulties over the past months. On April 3rd DaSilva came home drunk and an argument ensued when he and his wife argued about the fact that she suspected him of having an affair. The paper reports that the argument became physical and when the police arrived at the home DaSilva’s wife has a large bruise on her neck and the house was in disarray. DaSilva was arraigned in the Lowell District Court and charged with attempted murder, assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon and intimidating a witness.

This type of case is often categorized as a case of “domestic violence.” In Massachusetts, a spouse cannot be forced to testify against his or her spouse. This is called the “marital privilege.” However, the privilege is a “trial privilege” and many counties are insisting that a case be marked for trial in order for a spouse to assert the “privilege.” Also, prosecutors can force a spouse to testify in front of a grand jury because it is not a trial. However, even if the grand jury returns and indictment, the spouse still cannot be forced to testify at a trial.

Cases of domestic assault can be dismissed if a spouse asserts his or her privilege and the Commonwealth does not have any other evidence. The types of evidence that a District Attorney’s Office often tries to introduce into evidence even if a spouse does not testify include a statement of the defendant, a “911” or “turrett tape,” pictures of injuries, medical records and any other independent witness testimony.

If you have been charged with a case of domestic assault and battery it is imperative that you have an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side. Filing appropriate motions to dismiss and exclude evidence can often be the difference between walking away from the charges and being convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor.

Continue Reading

Our Attorney successfully litigated a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant pleaded guilty to so much of a second-degree murder indictment that alleged manslaughter in the Suffolk County Superior Court. Apparently recognizing weaknesses in the case, the Commonwealth recommended that the defendant be sentenced to ten to eleven years in state prison. Prior to the plea hearing the defendant was aware that a witness had recanted his statement. However, during the plea hearing the prosecutor stated that a number of witnesses had recanted their statements. The defendant, uncertain as to what witnesses the prosecutor was referring to, inquired about the number of witnesses that actually changed their statements. The defendant secured a copy of the transcript from the plea hearing and pursued his claim.

Post conviction investigation revealed that one of the main witnesses for the Commonwealth informed a victim witness advocate that she had lied in the grand jury. Affidavits and witness testimony proved that this information was NEVER forwarded to the defendant or his attorney prior to the plea hearing. Following the hearing, the motion judge allowed the defendant’s motion finding that the Commonwealth had not produced exculpatory evidence.

Depending on the circumstance of a case, a defendant may argue that a guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently tendered because he or she was not aware of exculpatory evidence prior to the hearing. In this case, the exculpatory evidence was the witness’ statement that she lied in the grand jury. The United States Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea must be intelligently made because a waiver of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. See, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) [The issue of an intelligent waiver by the defendant is inextricably tied to the knowledge that he had at the time he pleaded guilty]; Commonwealth v. Correa, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (1997); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962); M.R.Crim.Proc. Rule 12; 43 C M.G.L.A.. [With respect to the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea, the court may consider whether coercion, deception, duress, improper inducements or trickery played a part in the defendant’s decision to plead guilty]; Huot v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 91, 96 (1973); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 493 (1962) [A guilty plea is void if it is involuntary and unintelligent for any reason]. It is also well settled law in Massachusetts that the prosecutor has a continuing duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. Commonwealth v. Lam Hue To, 391 Mass. 301 (1984). Thus, if a defendant has grounds to claim that he or she was not given information that would have effected his or her decision to plead guilty, a viable motion to withdraw the plea should be filed in the appropriate cases.

Continue Reading

Jenna Conrad of Framingham and her boyfriend Andrew Spaulding of Walpole were arrested Tuesday and charged with Distribution of Class C following a two week investigation. It is alleged that police made undercover buys on three occasions from Conrad with an arrest coming after the final purchase. According to reports Conrad was selling Diazepam and Clonazepam, both prescription drugs. When arrested the car in which both defendants were riding was searched and additional drugs were found. Conrad has been charged with three counts of Distribution of Class C. Spaulding has been charged with three counts of Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Act. The case is being prosecuted in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

Two Arrested For Drug Dealing In Framingham

Distribution of Class C In Massachusetts

Distribution of Class C Substances in Massachusetts is a felony punishable by up to five years in state prison. In cases like this the prosecution will likely take place in the district court where the maximum exposure to the defendants after conviction is two and one half years. If the defendants do not have criminal records and they Hire an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Attorney the might be able to have their cases continued without a finding. There also might be some defenses to this case. Typically in cases involving hand to hand sales to undercover officers the only viable defense involves entrapment. Our office has won several cases using this defense, all of which are well documented.

Continue Reading

Around 10:00 p.m. Saturday night Lynn, Massachusetts police responded to a 911 call from a woman who reported having been beaten by her boyfriend with a broom stick. When the police arrived they found the fifty year old woman bleeding from the head. The woman told police that the boyfriend, Joseph McLaughlin accused her of taking money from the bar where he works and proceeded to hit her ten times with an aluminum broom stick. The woman declined medical attention. McLaughlin was located shortly thereafter and arrested. He has been charged with Domestic Assault and Battery and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Bail has been set at two thousand five hundred dollars cash. The case is being prosecuted in the Lynn District Court.

Read Article:

Lynn Man Faces Charges Of Domestic Violence After Attacking Girlfriend

From a prosecution perspective the strength of these cases depends on several factors. 1) Will the victim be cooperative throughout the course of the prosecution? Often times these relationships get resolved to the point where the victim refuses to cooperate thereby making the district attorney’s job more difficult. 2) Is there any independent evidence that the prosecution can use if the victim becomes uncooperative such as an eyewitness or a contemporaneous 911 call from the victim? 3) What did the responding police officers observe? Bruising, bleeding or other signs that the victim has suffered an attack can be used by the prosecutor to corroborate the allegations of Domestic Assault.

Continue Reading

A phone call from a concerned neighbor reporting a domestic dispute led to an unidentified forty seven year old man being wheeled from the home on a stretcher with what police described as a “very deep stab wound.” The Lowell Sun reports that late last evening the police were guarding the scene and waiting for word relative to the seriousness of the man’s injuries. An unidentified woman was taken to the Lowell police station for questioning.

There are a variety of turns that this case could take. Although it appears that the man suffered serious injuries, the circumstances surrounding the stabbing must be thoroughly investigated. In the event that the woman in charged with a crime charges may stem from assault and battery with a dangerous weapon to assault with intent to murder. However, as of the publication of this article, it had not been determined that the woman was even the person that committed the stabbing.

When an arrest is made in a case of “domestic violence,” the complaining witness is given information relative to applying for a restraining order. If issued a 209A restraining order usually requires that the defendant refrain from abusing the plaintiff and often times orders him or her to stay away from the plaintiff’s residence and sometimes children. Although it is a civil order if the defendant is accused of violating the order criminal charges may issues. The standard for issuing an order is low. If you have been served with a temporary restraining it is important that you contact an attorney to explain your rights and what to expect at the next hearing. If you want an experienced Massachusetts domestic violence attorney on your side contact Our Attorney.

In cases with similar facts, a potential defense would be investigating whether the individual that used the knife was acting in self-defense or in defense of another. Another aspect of the case to be examined in the event that a suspect gave an incriminating statement would be to determine whether the statement was given freely and voluntarily with knowledge of his or her “Miranda Rights.”

Continue Reading

Sixty year old Chamroeun Theam of Lowell Massachusetts has been charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol for a second time, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, operating to endanger, having defective equipment and failing to submit his motor vehicle for inspection. According to The Lowell Sun, the charges stem from an incident when a twenty-five year old mother attempted to cross Flethcer Street with her two and four year old children. Apparently not realizing that there were pedestrians in the cross walk, Theam failed to yield and struck the stroller. The accident was witnessed by a number of bystanders including Lowell police officers. The police and emergency personnel responded to the scene. Following a number of field sobriety tests Theam was arrested and charged with the above offenses.

The most serious of the offenses that Theam faces is driving while under the influence of alcohol, commonly referred to as “drunk driving.” Since this it Theam’s second offense, if he is found guilty he faces a mandatory minimum sentence. M.G.L.A. 90 § 24 provides that for a conviction of a second offense the defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than six hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than two and one-half years. Any sentence imposed shall not be reduced to less than thirty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served thirty days of such sentence. The Courts routinely allow a defendant to enter and complete a two week inpatient alcohol program in lieu of serving the thirty days in the house of correction.

In Massachusetts, the consequences for a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol are significant. If you have been charged with drunk driving it is important that you have an experienced criminal lawyer on your side to ensure that all of your rights are protected. Areas of the case that must be examined are often whether the individual was “driving” in the legal sense; whether any operation took place on a “public way”‘ and whether the defendant was legally under the influence of alcohol. Understanding the law and the facts are critical to mounting a successful defense.

Continue Reading

Micahel Cipoletti of Salem Massachusetts pleaded not guilty to charges that he committed indecent assault and battery on a mentally disabled person and witness intimidation. According to The Salem News, the police have reported that Cipoletti earned the trust of a younger man and ultimately took him to his apartment where the sexual conduct allegedly took place. It has been reported that Cipoletti recently received a two year suspended sentence in Peabody District Court for sending child pornography to an individual that he believed was fourteen years old.

Based on these facts, Cipoletti faces the possibility of incarceration in both cases. Although all of the facts of the cases are not known at this time, when a probationer is charged with a new offense while on probation, he or she faces the possibility of a “surrender hearing” where the maximum sentence on the underlying case can be imposed. There a number of circumstances in which a probation officer may chose to surrender a probationer. For example, failing to report to the probation officer as ordered, failure to pay fines, failure to attend any meetings ordered by the court and picking up new charges while on probation are a few reasons that a probation officer would bring a case forward to court.

A defendant often pleads guilty because he or she receives a favorable disposition that does not involve incarceration. However, if you have been charged with a crime in Boston or surrounding areas including Lowell and Lawrence, it is important that you understand the significance of your actions if you chose to plead guilty or admit to sufficient facts. Generally, individuals are placed on probation when they plead guilty. However, that is not the end of the case. In the event that the probation officer feels that the person has not abided by the terms of probation the case is brought before a judge. In the event that the judge finds the defendant in violation of probation the defendant faces the possibility of being incarcerated for up to the maximum time allowed by the statute.

Continue Reading

Officer Paul Torino just ended his shift and went to a local CVS in his street clothes. As he went in he brushed shoulders with Joshua Desrochers and the two exchanged words. According to reports Torino stated that he did not know that he bumped into Desrochers. Desrochers started swearing at Torino as the incident became more heated. Torino supposedly then identified himself as a police officer and told Desrochers to leave. He then reported that co-defendant Ryan Trant joined in, also swearing at the officer. Torino claimed that Desrochers then positioned himself in a fighting stance. Torino responded by pushing the defendant and calling for assistance. Trant then struck Torino with the side mirror of his SUV as he attempted to drive away. Torino leaned into the car and hung as the defendants attempted to flee. Desrochers then tried to punch Torino however Torino was able to block the blows and subdue Desrochers until backup arrived. Trant supposedly parked the car and went after Torino but he too was subdued by Torino and another officer. The defendants have been charged with Resisting Arrest, Assault and Battery and Disorderly Conduct in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

Fight With Off Duty Police Officer Gets Two Massachusetts Men Charged With Assault And Battery

So what really happened here? Well, that is a matter for a jury or judge to decide but you might think this report is tough to swallow. Certain things simply do not add up here. How would Torino not know that he bumped into Desrochers? Why then after exchanging words would Desrochers get in a fighting stance? Did Torino then “just” push him? Did Torino really try to stop Trant and Desrochers from leaving and did Desrochers then get out of the car to attack Torino? Why if they were trying to leave the scene would they then get out to fight with Torino again? Jurors are often skeptical about the testimony of police officers, particuarly in situations that involve an assault on a police officer. Every time a client comes into my office after getting assaulted by a police officer it turns out that the client in fact gets charged with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. Police officers take complaints for such charges against defendants whom they have beaten as a pre-emptive strike in situations where they, the officers have initiated the assaultive conduct. The district attorney in this case will fight not only to prosecute the defendants but to defend the actions of the police So both of these guys need an Excellent Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who defends cases in Hingham to represent them in this case.

Continue Reading

This past Sunday night various Massachusetts police agencies received information from the Maine branch of the DEA advising them to watch for a certain vehicle expected to drive through the northern Essex County area along Route 495. Apparently law enforcement had information that one of the occupants had a large quantity of cocaine in his possession. With this information one Massachusetts state trooper came upon the vehicle and claimed that the vehicle had a broken right tail light. The trooper stopped the vehicle and with backup from the Haverhill and Merrimac police conducted an investigation. At that time officers located a large quantity of cocaine on Clinton Jennings, a Bronx, New York native. They also found cocaine on Courtney Nye. The driver and another passenger, Nicolas Norris and Daniel Borders respectively were also arrested. All four men have been charged with trafficking cocaine. The case is currently pending in the Newburyport District Court where bail was set at one hundred thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Men From Maine And New York Charged With Trafficking Cocaine In Essex County Massachusetts

A couple of questions immediately come to mind when reading this article. Why would anyone trafficking cocaine drive with a broken tail light? Faulty equipment such as defective or broken tail lights are the easiest way to get pulled over legitimately. The answer to that question is simple. Either the tail light was not broken when the driver got into the car that evening or the driver had no idea that his passengers had large quantities of cocaine in their possession. The best way to prove that the tail lights were not broken is to get photographs from gas stations where the vehicle filled up earlier that evening. Here is another question. Why are Norris and Borders charged with trafficking cocaine? What evidence is there that they knew that Jennings and Nye had cocaine in their possession? More importantly, how is the district attorney going to prove their intent relative to trafficking? Merely being present at a crime scene is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. How about the quantity of cocaine? How much cocaine was seized? The amount triggers the minimum mandatory sentence that these men face if convicted.

It appears that a motion to suppress will be filed the lawyers for each of these men. If successful the drugs get suppressed and cannot be used as evidence at trial. This effectively ends the case. I imagine for at least two of these men, Jennings and Nye, the success of their defenses lies with the validity of the stop. Keep in mind that under Massachusetts law stopping someone for a broken tail light does not give police the right to remove the driver and occupants from the vehicle and conduct a search of the driver, occupants or vehicle.

Continue Reading