Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

On Wednesday August 27, 2008 a drug deal went bad on Quincy Terrace in Lynn, Massachusetts and resulted in the murder of a 24 year old man.  On August 28, 2008 a Lynn man was arraigned in the Lynn District Court on charges of murder.  Court papers stated that the victim and two black males and a female went to Quincy Terrace where one of the group had been ripped off during a marijuana distribution transaction.  An argument followed during which the defendant brandished a gun and scared the group away.  The victim retrieved a firearm from his car and returned to the scene.  A gun battle followed.  When the police arrived they observed the defendant holding the clothes that witnesses saw him at the time of the shooting.  They also saw the defendant lying dead on the ground with a .40 caliber handgun lying close by.  A .38 caliber handgun was found at the rear of the Quincy Terrace apartment. 

Arguing for bail the defense attorney told the judge that the victim fired the first shot and the defendant acted in self-defense.  The judge in the Lynn District Court held the defendant without bail.  Witnesses said that the defendant fired three shots.  The defendant has been identified as Walter Clare.  Read full article, Lynn Item Online, September 3, 2008. 

Self-Defense in Massachusetts 

Yesterday’s Metrowest Daily News reported that Kevin Porter of Stowe, Massachusetts was indicted by a Middlesex County Grand Jury for the June 24, 2008 murder of Jeffrey Weaver.  Porter was also charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  The Middlesex County District Attorney’s office press release provided little information on this case. 

Porter was initially arraigned in the Framingham District Court on June 25, 2008, one day after the murder.  During the arraignment, Porter’s defense lawyer argued that Porter acted in self-defense.  The prosecution claimed that Porter stabbed Weaver during a fight.  The defense contended that Weaver attacked Porter with a baseball bat, his fists and a chair.  Porter was held on $250,000 cash bail.  Read Article, Metrowest Daily News June 25, 2008.

In a ruling published today the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that victims of assault and battery in Massachusetts must be people when charged under G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A.  Commonwealth v. Wilson, slip opinion August 21, 2008.  In connection with a drug deal the defendant in Wilson was chased by police.  The chase ended when the car the defendant was driving hit a police car.  One of the counts charged the defendant with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The prosecution claimed that the weapon was the car.  The victim was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as owner of the police car that was damaged.  The defendant pleaded guilty to this count in the complaint.  Years later through a motion for a new trial he moved to vacate his conviction.  The trial judge denied the motion.  On appeal the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed.  It held that Massachusetts General Laws c. 265 establishes “Crimes Against the Person”.  The section under which Wilson was charged, G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A requires that the victim be a person.  The conviction violated Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the defendant’s right to due process.  As such it was vacated and the count was dismissed. 

Vacating criminal convictions is one of the services that the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman routinely provides to its clients.  Sometimes people are convicted of committing crimes that are not supported by law or fact.  This can happen when the defense lawyer or prosecutor or judge are unfamiliar with the law.  It can also happen when people are simply not paying close attention to the details of the case.  Criminal defendants unfamiliar with their rights often acquiesce to resolutions of their case that on the surface appear reasonable.  In doing so they are establishing a criminal record that likely will have an adverse effect on their lives later on.  The conviction can effect employment opportunities, require sex offender registration or be used to enhance the sentence for a conviction of another offense. 

If you have been wrongly convicted of a crime in Massachusetts or anywhere else you should contact our office now.  We have been representing people on post conviction matters for years with great results.  It is never too late to demand justice. 

The Lowell Sun reported that a forty two year old Lowell man withdrew $62,000.00 from his bank account, placed it in a duffel bag and went out to get drunk.  After accomplishing his goal he decided to solicit a prostitute.  He succeeded in finding Jessica Garcia, 30 of Aiken Street in Lowell.  The two settled on a fee of thirty dollars and went into the basement of 143 Westford Street to complete their transaction.  Garcia saw the cash when the victim Chanthen Pho went to pay for the services.  She then took the unsuspecting Pho’s belt to bind his ankles, pushed him over and made off with the money. 

Pho managed to get himself to the police station to make out his complaint.  Officers searched local hotels eventually finding Garcia in the Double Tree Hotel.  Police entered the room and found Garcia and a friend scratching lottery tickets.  Police then found $42,521 in the room.  Aside from the lottery tickets it is unclear where the remainder of the money went.  Garcia was charged with unarmed robbery.

Read Article, Lowell Sun August 12, 2008

Charges of assault and battery issued against prize fighter Micky Ward after a clerk’s hearing held in the Lowell District Court.  The victim, Ward’s wife’s stepfather alleged that on May 28, 2008 during a confrontation Ward punched him in the face.  The alleged victim Kevin Nolette claims to have sustained a split lip, a broken nose and lost some teeth as a result of the punch.  Ward maintains that he acted in self defense when Nolette was poking him in the chest and raised his hand in a threatening manner.  An arraignment date has been set for September 4, 2008 in the Lowell District Court.

Clerk’s Hearings in Massachusetts are governed by G.L. c. 218 sec. 35A.  In the case of many misdemeanors, a clerk magistrate will hear evidence to determine whether there exists 1) probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and 2) that the person accused was the person who committed the crime.  The threshhold for the issuance of the complaint is low however good Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers are often able to convince the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. 

Our office has represented people accused of committing crimes in Massachusetts at clerks hearings on countless occasions.  Many times we have succeeded in convincing the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint.  We encourage you to visit our case results page to read about some specific examples of our victories at these proceedings. 

On August 5, 2008 police arrested two Beverly men identified as suspects in an early morning robbery.  The victims claimed that as they were walking in downtown Beverly they were approached by a group of four men.  One of the men brandished a knife and held it to one of the victim’s neck.  The assailant then stole money and a cell phone from the man.  He then made the other victim surrender his wallet. 

With the victim’s identifications two of the four men were apprehended.  They were arraigned in the Salem District Court and held without bail.

Armed robbery in Massachusetts is a felony.  It is punishable by anything from probation to a life sentence.  In order for you to be found guilty of armed robbery Massachusetts law requires the prosecution prove four elements: 

In September of 2004 at 9:45 p.m. a Mashpee police officer observed the defendant driving down Route 151.  The officer knew that the defendant’s license had been revoked and attempted to stop the vehicle he was driving.  In an attempt to avoid apprehension the defendant drove thirty to thirty five miles per hour over the speed limit.  The defendant continued his flight, driving his car over an embankment and two to three hundred yards into the woods.  The vehicle was located unoccupied and a K-9 officer and his dog tracked the defendant further into the woods.  The defendant was found lying on his back with his three year old child lying on his chest. 

Among other things, the defendant was charged with violating G.L. c. 265 sec. 13L.  The defendant proceeded with a jury waived trial and was convicted of reckless endangerment of a child.  This law became effective in 2002.  The defendant challenged its application to him under the circumstances of this case and its constitutionality on the grounds of vagueness. 

In the context of this case G.L. c. 265 sec. 13L required that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that 2) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.  The constitutional challenge required the Supreme Judicial Court to resolve whether the statute provides a person of ordinary intelligence the opportunity to know what type of conduct is prohibited and whether the statute provides comprehensible standards that limit prosecutorial and judicial discretion.  The Court held that this statute did in fact meet these requirements and the challenge was rejected.  Commonwealth v. Hendricks, slip opinion 7/31/2008.

G.L. c. 268 sec. 13D(d) was passed by the Massachusetts Legislature in March of 2006.  The law was passed in part as a response to claims that criminal defendants were disseminating grand jury testimony as a means of intimidating witnesses, particularly in murder cases.  The law permits prosecutors to request a hearing for a court ordered protective order prohibiting defense lawyers from distributing grand jury transcripts to their clients.  The law requires the prosecution to demonstrate that 1) the defendant is accused of a violent crime and 2) based on “specific and articulable facts” the defendant presents a threat to the witness.  In assessing the viability of these motions judges are to consider the defendant’s history of violence, the nature of the charges against him and the existence of the threat to the witness.  A prerequisite to the order is that the defendant be permitted to cross-examine the witness. 

Recently, lawyers in Massachusetts have been confronted with prosecutor’s motions for protective orders under this law as a matter of course, especially in murder cases.  Rather than order an evidentiary hearing that permits cross-examination of the concerned witness, judges are often times endorsing the motions. 

There are challenges that can be made in opposition to these motions that stem directly from basic constitutional guarantees in both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions.  Our office has been engaged in a challenge to this law for several months now.  It stems from a prosecutor’s blanket request that our client not receive certain grand jury testimony transcripts except in redacted form.  The judge allowed the motion never requiring the prosecutor to demonstrate the “specific and articulable facts” required under the statute.  The order was also issued without regard to our client’s right to cross-examine the witnesses to ascertain whether or not the client did in fact pose a threat to these witnesses.