Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

Today’s Lawrence Eagle Tribune report by Douglas Moser shows just how powerful a tool Social Media can be to law enforcement and to me as a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer. Moser wrote about a fight that broke out two nights ago at a basketball game between Methuen and Haverhill. Apparently the catalyst for the incident was texting and tagging following last Saturday’s Methuen, Haverhill hockey game. One Haverhill player took credit for hitting a Methuen player during the game. The incident may or may not have happened but nevertheless this person apparently followed up by “tagging” the Methuen student with threats. That same night a Haverhill girl claimed to have been struck by a Methuen girl at that game. Following the game tweets started to fly. Threats of retaliation targeting the Methuen, Haverhill basketball game were tweeted. Haverhill police got wind of the potential for problems and responded by beefing up their presence at the game. Sure enough, as the game progressed the tweeting exchanges intensified culminating in fights behind the school in a parking lot. In all, seven arrests were made. Six of the people arrested were charged with Disorderly Conduct. The seventh defendant was charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. The cases are pending in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Massachusetts Lawyer Who Defends Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon Cases, Disorderly Person

It seems like any time I open a newspaper I read about someone using the Social Media in a manner that lands that person in trouble. This article perfectly illustrates just how stupid aggressive texting can be. Take for instance the Haverhill hockey player who was tagging the Methuen student with threats. That action in and of itself is a crime in Massachusetts known as Threatening to Commit a Crime or Threats. The flurry of threats of retaliation are criminally actionable in Massachusetts as well. I am willing to bet that there are several people attending these schools who have tweeted material constituting an admission to involvement in the fights. That could land them in hot water. People, especially younger people just don’t get it. A screen shot of the inculpatory tweets can suffice to launch a criminal investigation. As I have said on numerous occasions, don’t put anything in writing. Nothing good comes from it and at times your own written words can spell doom for your criminal case.

So what’s going to happen to the defendants in this case? Probably not much if they are properly represented. A dismissal with courts costs, pretrial probation or diversion prior to arraignment are all possibilities. None of this however would have happened had it not been for the nonsense tweeting/texting that followed the hockey game.

Continue Reading

Last week in Commonwealth v. Scott, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discussed the concept of Serious Bodily Injury in connection with the crime of Assault and Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury. See Commonwealth v. Scott.

The facts of the case are as follows:

In 2006 the defendant and the victim had two children together. The couple did not live together. On October 23, 2006 the defendant went to the victim’s home. He accused her of seeing someone else. She admitted to doing so. The defendant punched the victim in the face and stomach. Neither that night nor the next day would the defendant permit the victim to leave her home. During that time the beatings continued. Eventually the police were called to the home. The defendant fled. The victim was taken to the hospital where it was determined that, among other things she had sustained a “grade II” lacerated liver. At trial the prosecution advanced the theory that the defendant’s punches to the victim’s stomach caused the damage to the liver. The district attorney drew authority from Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 13(b)(i) which makes it a crime to commit an Assault and Battery that causes Serious Bodily Injury. Under this statute Serious Bodily Injury is defined as causing loss or impairment of an organ. Of applicable significance to Commonwealth v. Scott is the word “impairment”. The court reasoned that impairment of an organ, therefore, occurs when damage to the structure of the organ is significant enough to compromise its ability to perform its function in the victim’s body.” Absent expert testimony explaining the nature and extent of the liver injury, or medical records identifying the same, the jury could not have found, without speculation the presence of this element. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been allowed. The verdict as to this indictment was reversed.

The use of expert witnesses in Massachusetts Criminal Cases is often necessary for the accused to succeed in defending his or her case. Our office has used expert witnesses for all types of criminal cases; OUI cases, Rape, Drug Offenses, Theft Crimes and more. Sometimes experts are used to provide reports that assist a judge in determining how someone who is convicted or pleads guilty should be sentenced. Expert witnesses can educate jurors, corroborate defense theories, counter prosecution experts and help to exclude evidence that should not be presented to a jury. In this case the fact that the Commonwealth’s case could not survive without an expert does not mean that their engagement of an expert would have resulted in a successful prosecution. It might have been the other way around. A doctor’s testimony might have shown that there was no impairment and just maybe this is why the district attorney did not call an expert to trial.

Continue Reading

Gordon Lagstrom of Middleboro, Massachusetts was arraigned at the Wareham District Court yesterday on charges of Animal Cruelty, Possession of a Firearm While Intoxicated and Discharging a Firearm Within Five Hundred Feet of a Building. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Lagstrom brought his dog to a veterinarian for emergency help after the dog had sustained a gunshot wound. Lagstrom asked for help for the animal. A police officer responded to the veterinary clinic and formed the opinion that Lagstrom had been drinking. After some questioning the defendant admitted to shooting the dog accidentally believing that someone was trying to get into his home. Officers continued to investigate and found a trail of blood starting in the yard, leading to the defendant’s home and ending in Lagstrom’s living room floor. Officers then found two guns, one loaded and neither properly stored. If indicted, this case will be prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Wareham, Massachusetts Firearm Possession Defense

Massachusetts Gun Crimes Lawyer

The Animal Cruelty statute in Massachusetts is broad. The law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 77 prohibits the following acts: overworking animals, beating animals, killing animals, starving animals, torturing them, mutilating them and more. A conviction for the commission of this offense carries a possible five year state prison sentence. I have seen many of these cases prosecuted in Massachusetts for the past twenty years. Massachusetts district attorneys take these matters quite seriously and often request jail time for someone found guilty of this crime. At least as suggested in this article Lagstrom will have some problems. He will first have to show that the police officer’s theory about where the dog was shot was incorrect. Either that or the defendant will have to adduce facts that support his statement that someone was trying to get into his home when he accidentally shot the dog. The blood trail and forensic evidence, i.e. gunshot residue, location of any shell casings and items of that nature will have to match up with his statement. A firearms expert and/or perhaps a blood spatter expert will be useful if the defendant continues with this defense.

The firearms cases are somewhat different in terms of a defense. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10H prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The standard for “under the influence” is the same as for OUI cases. A conviction for this crime carries a potential two and one half year house of correction sentence. This crime is not often prosecuted. As a matter of fact, as of today Lexis shows that there are not reported decisions dealing with this crime.

Continue Reading

Jose Davilla of Lawrence, Massachusetts was arrested yesterday at his home. He has been charged with Intimidation of a Witness. They are still looking for Rafael Rodriguez, also being charged with the same felony offense. It is alleged that the accused posted the photos of two witnesses to a murder case through the social media Instagram and attaching to their pictures the word “snitch”. The pictures were posted on Rodriguez and Davilla’s accounts. The defendants were friends of Jose Ruiz, the defendant in a murder case that concluded in the Essex County Superior Court yesterday. Right now this case is being handled in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm, Intimidation of a Witness Charges

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Violent Crimes, Felonies

The crime of Intimidation of a Witness is Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B. As you might expect, the law makes it a crime to in any way threaten a witness or someone who has information about a criminal case in Massachusetts. This crime is a felony. Anyone convicted of this offense can be punished by up to tow and one half years in the house of correction or up to ten years in state prison. A fine of up to five thousand dollars might also be imposed. These cases can be prosecuted in either the county where the defendant committed the act or in the county where the criminal proceeding is taking place.

These cases are getting prosecuted much more frequently these days than they had been in the past. This is largely due to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, texting and now Instagram. It is all too easy to trace the origin of threatening messages. In addition to being illegal, using the social media for such conduct is downright stupid. It is basically like sending a signed letter in your own handwriting. This is however often the best defense to cases like this one. An experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer might ask the jury to consider whether it was the defendant who posted the message or someone else. People often have access to other people’s media devices. Desktop computers, laptops, smartphones and ipads all have the capability of transmitting this material. People share these devices regularly and absent some additional evidence the mere publishing of intimidating words or photos does not mean that the owner of the sending device is guilty. If the defendant in this case did not admit to this act then perhaps he has a viable defense to these charges. Regardless, the one lesson anyone should take from stories like this is “Don’t put anything in writing”. That action, like talking to the police, can only worsen the problems that you might be facing.

Continue Reading

Today’s Brockton Enterprise reports that Patrice Moorer, a Taunton, Massachusetts woman has been indicted on allegations that she lied to a Plymouth County Grand Jury in a Murder Case. The alleged misleading information provided by Moorer relates back to a November 2009 murder in Brockton. In the early morning hours four people were shot at a Hess Gas Station. One of the victims succumbed to his wounds. A day after the shooting Moorer was interviewed by the police and summonsed to testify before a grand jury. She provided testimony at that proceeding. Subsequently, in 2010, Moorer spoke with state police again. This past September she was again summonsed to testify before the grand jury. She did only this time her testimony changed. Authorities then charged Moorer with Perjury and Intimidation of a Witness. Her case is pending in the Brockton Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton, Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Law Firm

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Perjury, Intimidation of a Witness

The Massachusetts Witness Intimidation statute, M.G.L. c. 268 Section 13B includes what is commonly known as the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Among other things this statute makes it a crime for anyone to lie to a police officer who is investigating a case or to lie to a grand jury. This crime is a felony. It is punishable by up to ten years in state prison and a five thousand dollar fine. It is not clear from this article whether the basis for the charges against Moorer stem from allegations that she lied to the state police investigating the murder or lies to the grand jury or both. What is clear however is that she has some tremendous exposure.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I see cases like this one becoming more prevalent. District attorneys now indict this conduct more frequently. They do so for several reasons. They want to send a message to people that misleading an investigation, particularly one of this magnitude will not be tolerated. Perhaps more importantly these cases get filed to “squeeze” the witness into providing more accurate information regarding their knowledge of the crime. I would imagine that law enforcement believes that Moorer has some significant knowledge either of the events or people who might have been involved in the crime. The threat of ten years in jail looming over her might be incentive enough for her to cooperate in exchange for some sort of leniency in her pending case. This again however is a perfect example of how speaking to the police without hiring a lawyer can get you into big trouble. Always err on the side of caution and consult with a lawyer before talking to the police. Some basic advice can save you the problems that Moorer is facing.

Continue Reading

According to a report in the Metrowest Daily News, Donald Williams, a fifty six year old Massachusetts man is being charged with Attempted Murder. It is alleged that late last week police were called to a Worcester County address where they encountered Williams in the garage. Williams told the officers that the “victim” had attacked him with a baseball bat. In response, Williams stabbed the man. The home to which the police responded belonged to neither of the combatants. Williams was initially charged with Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, the same charged alleging the additional element of serious bodily injury and Assault. The charges were amended to add Attempted Murder. The case will likely be prosecuted in the Worcester Superior Court. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars. The “victim”, a man named John Cortez is also being charged with a Violent Crime, specifically Assault and Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon.

Read Article:

Worcester County Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Crimes in Worcester Courts

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer two things dart out at me when reading this article. One is the defense of self-defense. The other is the issue of the mutual invocation of Fifth Amendment privileges.

Self-Defense
Here are some things to consider when evaluating self-defense as a means of defending charges like these. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams did not act in self-defense. To do this the district attorney must show that the defendant did not reasonably believe that he was being attacked or was about to be attacked and that and that he was in danger of great bodily harm or death. The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams did everything reasonable to avoid the fight. Finally the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force Williams used was not reasonably necessary. This might be a difficult obstacle for the prosecutor to overcome. Williams was attacked by Cortez. The article suggests that he was permissibly at the location where the fight occurred. It is unclear whether Cortez was there with the homeowner’s consent. Cortez also used a baseball bat to strike Williams. Williams may not have been able to avoid defending himself and perhaps the only way he could do so was with a weapon. Also keep in mind that Williams never fled the crimes scene. This is evidence that works in his favor. Similarly, if Williams called the police the suggestion that he was the victim rather than the aggressor might prevail. The question is what would a reasonable person sitting in Williams’ shoes do? Massachusetts law states that retaliation is not a defense so the timing of the stabbing vis a vis the attack with the baseball bat becomes important here.

Fifth Amendment Privileges
Anytime someone does something that can be construed as being criminal he has the right to invoke his Fifth Amendment Privilege and refuse to testify. Oftentimes fights never get prosecuted as a result of this right. People who get charged with committing a crime either hire a lawyer or get a lawyer appointed for them. In situations like this one, where both combatants are charged with crimes of violence both will have a lawyer. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will probably tell his client to invoke the privilege and remain silent. In other words, the person will not testify against the person against whom he fought. Absent an independent witnsess’ the case will likely get dismissed.

Continue Reading

William Kotowski and his wife Joanna were driving home in separate cars after meeting for dinner late last week. Another car being driven by an unnamed individual was being operated in an aggressive manner, one that appeared threatening to the Kotowski’s. That man pulled off of the road to enter and establishment. William Kotowski followed the man into the parking lot. While he was in his car the other man approached him and started to scream at Kotowski. This individual claims that Kotowski then brandished a firearm, pointing it at his face. Kotowski then left. The police arrived at his home, conducted a search and found the Firearm. Joanna Kotowski arrived home during the arrest. Incensed at the fact that the other person was not arrested she went back to the store to confront the man. She too was then arrested. William Kotowski has been charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and a Massachusetts Firearms Crime. Joanna Kotowski has been charged with Assault and Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The case is pending in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapons Defense Law Firm

Newburyport, Massachusetts Assault and Battery Lawyer, Gun Charges Attorney

The best way to see what might have happened in the parking lot is to check for security video cameras. More and more establishments have installed some sort of security device over the past decade. The cost of installation is cheap. Parking lots and entryways to today’s establishments often have this equipment to prevent thefts and to identify suspicious patrons. A diligent Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will usually visit the crime scene on his case to see what evidence might exist to help exonerate his client. One such piece of evidence is the presence of video equipment. I recently had a Drunk Driving (OUI) case in a Middlesex County Court where the police officer failed to secure a videotape of the parking lot at a convenience store where he supposedly had the defendant perform Field Sobriety Tests. During cross-examination the officer was shown pictures of the structure, the parking lot and the cameras. He was asked whether or not efforts were made to secure the videotape. His answers were evasive. It was clear to the jury that the officer was either lying or that he did not adequately do his job. This resulted in a successful outcome for my client. A videotape might support Kotowski’s defense that the “victim” was the initial aggressor in this case.

The Kotowski’s complaint about the victim not being arrested is a valid one. However, not all is lost simply because this person was not arrested. The defendant’s can certainly apply for a complaint against this person at the courthouse if they feel aggrieved.

Continue Reading