Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

| by

This past Saturday Vincent Bencivenga of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Josette Osorio of Haverhill and Mark Hatch of Methuen made a fake video of a stabbing during the Feast of the Three Saints festival in Lawrence. The trio used video cameras and a cell phone camera to record the event. Not realizing that the act was a spoof, people attending the festival called the police after observing Osorio wearing a black trench coat and carrying a machete that appeared bloody. When the police arrived Osorio and Bencivenga identified Hatch as the ringleader claiming that the fake stabbing video was his idea and that the intention of the three was to put it on YouTube. Hatch was apprehended a short time later after initially evading the police. Hatch was charged with Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, Making a False Police Report and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. Osorio and Bencivenga were charged with Making False Reports to the Police and Disturbing the Peace. The cases are pending in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Criminal Charges in Lawrence
It is not often that I blog on the Crime of Disturbing the Peace in Massachusetts. While every Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer has at one time or another defended such accusations the crime is relatively minor and in my opinion used when the conduct of the accused is more of an annoyance than a crime. The punishment for a conviction of this crime supports this suggestion. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53 provides for a maximum punishment of a fine of one hundred fifty dollars for a first time conviction of this crime. The proscribed behavior contemplates a person’s “purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof. There is a tremendous amount of subjectivity associated with the Criminal Charge of Disturbing the Peace in Massachusetts. This in and of itself often prompts prosecutors to voluntarily dismiss these charges or to permit a resolution that does not involve a criminal conviction. This is particularly true where the defendants do not have criminal records and their actions or more consistent with a lack of judgment than with a criminal intent. All of this appears to be fitting for the defendants in this case.

The crime of Making a False Report to a Police Officer has a more sever potential punishment, one year in jail. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 13A contemplates such actions as an obstruction of justice. I have never seen this great a sentence imposed for a conviction of this crime. Usually, this charge is resolved by a dismissal or something less than a conviction if properly defended.

Finally, Resisting Arrest and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer have become relatively transparent criminal offenses in Massachusetts. Judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys all accept that often times police get a little aggressive when apprehending suspects. This is more so when flight or a chase is involved. The police get physical with the accused and then to protect themselves from a Civil Rights Lawsuit they accuse the defendant of Resisting Arresting and Assaulting them. Police officers need to be more careful in making these accusations these days. Everywhere you look there are surveillance and security video devices and a thorough Massachusetts Criminal Attorney will get the footage and mount his defense.

Continue Reading

| by

Boston police were in the South End investigating a case the other day. While doing so they saw someone get out of his car and start shooting. This occurred on Shawmut Avenue just around 9:30 two days ago. Officers chased the man and saw him get rid of his gun. They caught up to him just a few blocks away. The suspect was identified as Kevin Washington from Brockton, Massachusetts. Washington has been charged with Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder and Carrying a Firearm. The case in pending in the Dorchester District Court but will likely be prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

Officers also made another arrest related to this case. They saw Graciano Aponte of Boston put Washington’s discarded gun in his pocket. Aponte then tried to conceal the Firearm a few blocks away. Aponte is being charged with a Firearms Offense. He is also facing a charge as a Level 3 Armed Career Criminal. His case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court as well.

Read Article:

Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Assault Defense Law Firm

Lawyer Defending Gun Cases in Boston

The Armed Career Criminal Act in Massachusetts provides for a very severe punishment. Prosecutions under this statute are becoming more prevalent. The law itself, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G(a) states that anyone who gets convicted of carrying a firearm and has been convicted of a Violent Crime or a Serious Drug Crime shall be punished by a state prison sentence. The sentence is a minimum mandatory three year prison sentence and up to fifteen years in jail. The prior offenses must be convictions, not cases that were “Guilty Filed” or “Continued Without a Finding”. The term “Serious Drug Offense” is defined as any Federal Drug Crime where the permitted sentence is a maximum of ten years in jail or for any Massachusetts Drug Crime where a maximum prison sentence of ten years is allowed.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer here is what I find factually interesting about this case. If the police saw Aponte picking up the gun why didn’t they stop him right away and seize the weapon? Why let him carry the gun to another location where he supposedly tried to conceal it? Also, how were they able to make these observations while at the same time chasing and apprehending Washington? It really does not make much sense. The shooting occurred at 620 Shawmut Avenue. Aponte was seen hiding the gun at the intersection of Washington Street and Melnea Cass, about one thousand feet away. This is a significant distance to permit someone Carrying a Firearm to travel without making a stop.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed a first degree murder conviction in the case of Commonwealth v. Santos. Santos had been convicted on a felony murder theory. The Court found the following facts:

On July 26, 2005 shortly after 5:30 in the evening the victim was robbed and shot in the chest on a busy downtown Lowell street. Despite the presence of many witnesses no one was able to identify those involved in the crime other than to state that they were young Hispanic males. Santos’ flight from the scene was aided by and individual who eventually testified for the prosecution. That witness, Jesus Antonio Marquez told the jury that he was the getaway driver and the Santos and co-defendant Jose Luis Claudio Benitez knew the victim to be a heroin dealer from whom they had purchased heroin on multiple occasions. On the day of the crime Benitez arranged with the victim to buy a small amount of heroin. Benitez later changed the plan suggesting that he, Santos and Marquez rob the victim. Marquez drove. Benitez handed a gun to Santos. There was an expressed intention not to shoot the victim. Near the crime scene Santos and Benitez exited the car. Marquez heard a shot fired. The two defendants got back into Marquez’ car several minutes later. Benitez asked Santos why he shot the victim. The three went to Benitez’s sister’s home. Benitez told his sister that he told Santos not to shoot the victim and that “the other guy shot someone” notwithstanding his protestations. One of the victim’s drug customers testified to purchasing heroin from the victim shortly before the shooting and that he also saw Santos in the area. He identified Santos from prison photographs. Santos was arrested. He asked the police what for. After receiving a response he asked “is that it?”. Santos denied knowledge of the crime and admitted that he had been incarcerated for drugs. Marquez told the police about the robbery, the crime and the escape. Benitez and Santos were tried together.

On appeal Santos argued that the statement he made while in police custody was taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. At one point during the interrogation Santos told the police “I’m not going on with this conversation” and “I want a lawyer…”. The officers left the room. They returned, failed to honor the request for counsel and continued their questioning. The Court found this to be violative of Miranda and held that Santos’ statement should have been suppressed. The invocation of the right to counsel must be honored. The admission of the statement further introduced, improperly, multiple references to Santos’ prior bad acts. Finally, the statement contained police accusations that Santos was lying as well as references to unnamed witnesses who knew that the defendant shot the victim. All of this required a reversal of the conviction.

Santos’ appeal also challenged the admissibility of Benitez’ statements to his sister that he “told [Santos] not to do it” and that “[Santos] shot the kid”. The Court held that such statements should not have been admitted as evidence. The statements were self serving and designed to distance Benitez’ involvement from Santos’. Furthermore, the statements were not part of the joint venture and should have been excluded. Benitez’s post arrest statements implicating Santos in the crime was also error. The statements were made after the joint venture had ended and after a joint venturer had been apprehended thus making the statements inadmissible. Admission thereof required reversal.

Continue Reading

| by

Haverhill, Massachusetts Jose Reyes was sought pursuant to a warrant for Carrying a Firearm, Possession of a Firearm, Possession of Ammunition and Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder. All of these charges against the twenty one year old are pending in the Lawrence, Massachusetts District Court. There is also an Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon case pending in the Haverhill District Court. In Lawrence it is alleged that Reyes shot Pedro Valentin near the intersection of Dorchester Street and South Union Street. The article mentions nothing about the facts of the Haverhill case.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Firearms Defense Law Firm

Haverhill Assault and Battery Lawyer

Obviously the more serious case is the case pending in the Lawrence District Court. Anytime someone shoots someone else the district attorney will charge the crime of Armed Assault With the Intent to Murder. The reason stems from the general belief that anyone who shoots someone else did so trying to kill that person. While that is not always the reasons behind the shooting the case will be charged as such. Additionally, the crime of Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon will be filed as well.

The crime of Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder in Massachusetts requires the district attorney to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the accused did commit an assault on someone. An assault is the act of threatening to commit a battery and a reasonable fear on the part of the victim that he or she was going to be hit; 2) that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon and 3) that the accused had the specific intent to murder the victim. As I have mentioned in past posts, this crime is nearly impossible to prove. Consequently, the prosecution tends to ask for the judge to instruction on the lesser included offense of Armed Assault with the Intent to Kill. With the latter crime there is no need to prove malice.

Getting away from the legal aspects of the crimes, here is where the prosecution tends to have problems with successfully prosecuting Violent Crimes cases such as this one. People are reluctant to come into court and testify against someone who shot someone else. Victims are especially reluctant to come into court and identify the shooter for a many reasons. They are not always afraid of the consequences of their testimony. In fact, they might have something to hide. What specifically occurred between the two that caused the shooting? Did the victim have a gun? Or perhaps the weapon used by the defendant was initially produced by the victim. Was there some sort of illicit activity that preceded the shooting that the victim wants to distance himself from? Often this is the case. Regardless of how these cases appear, they are not that easy to prove.

Continue Reading

| by

This past weekend a fight erupted at the Surfside 5, a bar in Salisbury, Massachusetts. According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune a Methuen, Massachusetts police officer, Shawn Tardif and his wife were at the bar with friends. Also at the bar was a group of women celebrating a woman’s pending engagement. Interaction between the groups became contentious. Two versions of the events have been reported. One version suggests that the wives from Tardif’s group were jealous after women from the bachelorette party started to flirt with their husbands. At one point Tardif’s wife was hit with a drink thrown by a woman named Nicole Morrison. Tardif tried to help his wife as did one of his friends. Morrison then bit the friend. Another version supported by other patrons at the bar have Tardif and his friend flirting with the women attending the bachelorette party and being asked to leave by these women.

Regardless of the origin of problem it is alleged that Tardif grabbed Morrison, threw her to the floor of the bar and dragged her by the hair. One of her earrings was ripped out as well. Responding police officers saw what was described as a “clump of hair” Tardif ripped out of her hair. The article also states that a security guard trying to stop the melee was struck in the mouth by Tardif. Disc jockey equipment with a value of over two hundred fifty dollars sustained damage as well. There might be a security videotape that will show how the incident unraveled. Tardif has been charged with Malicious Destruction of Property Over $250, a felony in Massachusetts as well as Assault and Battery. The case is pending in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Newburyport, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Salisbury, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney

So what is going to happen to Mr. Tardif? That depends on several factors. The footage on the surveillance or security video might be supportive of the affirmative defense of “defense of another”. If Tardif was properly defending his wife and used no more force than necessary to accomplish that goal this defense might be asserted at trial. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will want to interview the patrons present at the bar during the incident. Does their version of the events support Tardif’s or Morrison’s? Will a complaint against Morrison issue? If one does, she might choose to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent thereby making proof of criminal activity against Tardif more difficult to prove. If the Salisbury police do not apply for a complaint against Morrison Tardif certainly can and probably will. How credible are the people in Morrison’s group? Do any of them have criminal histories that bear on the issue of their credibility?

Continue Reading

| by

Just a few days ago police officers in Lynn, Massachusetts went to a home on a report of a dispute involving Domestic Violence. They arrived to find the victim bleeding from his head. Officers arrested Wallace Jones, a twenty one year old from Franklin Street in Lynn. Jones’ mother told the police that her son and her boyfriend got into a fight after she and the victim were arguing. She further stated that the defendant was attempting to defend her. Jones’ mother denied seeing Jones use a weapon to cut the victim. She believed that the injuries might have been sustained when her boyfriend hit his head on a table during the dispute. The charges Jones faces are not mentioned in the article but there it appears that either Assault and Battery or Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon or both will be considered.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Essex County Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I never promise results for clients. No one can predict the outcome of a criminal case. Rather, criminal lawyers gage the likelihood of success on experiences they have had with similar cases in the county where the particular charge lies. The facts of this case suggest that a dismissal or even an acquittal are on the horizon for Jones. There was no weapon associated with the victim’s injuries. The only witness to the crime has told the police that Jones was defending her. This is indicative of an affirmative defense known as the Defense of Others. It permits someone to come to the aid of someone else provided he or she acts within certain parameters. In essence, the law in Massachusetts permits someone to use force if he reasonably believes that someone else is in imminent danger of sustaining bodily injury, that he reasonably believed that force was necessary to defend the person being attacked and that he use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend against the danger. Absent the use of a weapon it appears from the facts revealed in this article that Wallace Jones can avail himself of this defense.

Also, in this case it is unlikely that the victim, who was also a combatant will testify against the defendant. He has a privilege against self-incrimination and his testimony will open him up to a potential prosecution for Assault and Battery against Wallace Jones. Additionally, very few juries will convict someone who stands up to defend his mother against abuse from her boyfriend. I would be extremely surprised to see this case go to trial or to see anything short of a dismissal of these charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Dossantos.jpgJust before 4:30 a.m. Monday, Brockton, Massachusetts police received a phone call from a man stating that he had been held captive at gunpoint. The “victim” stated that he went to the home of Emanuel Dossantos. Once he attempted to leave the home Dossantos held him at gunpoint. He was able to escape and call the police. He did not need or seek any medical attention. While the responding officer was interviewing the victim Dossantos came out of a nearby apartment. He was arrested. The police then applied for an obtained a Search Warrant. Later that day a search of Dossantos apartment was conducted. Inside the police found two guns and some cocaine. Dossantos was charged with Armed Robbery, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of Ammunition and Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court. That nature of the charges permits the district attorney to prosecute this case in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Drug Defense Lawyer

Criminal Defense Law Firm in Brockton, Massachusetts

Any Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer reading this article will tell you the same thing. There is something incredible about the victim’s allegations. It is highly unlikely that the events as described by the victim unraveled as suggested or even at all. This looks very much like a drug deal gone bad or someone making allegations against a competitor or enemy. Now how do we know that? Consider the following questions. What was the victim doing out at the defendant’s home at 4:30 in the morning? Why didn’t anyone see any injuries on the victim? How was the victim able to escape from Dossantos while being held captive at gunpoint? Does the victim have a record for violence? Does the victim have a record for drugs? Are there any phone records showing the victim making calls at or near the time of the alleged illegal activities?

Here is something else to consider. If Dossantos had roommates the district attorney might have difficulty establishing Dossantos’ possession of the drugs and guns as opposed to someone else’s possession. I would imagine that for many reasons the victim in this case will not testify. He likely has a Fifth Amendment privilege that will enable him to avoid having to testify. That leaves only the Possession With Intent case against the defendant and absent some corroborative links between Dossantos and the substance a Motion to Dismiss or a dismissal on a request for a required finding of not guilty might work here. The case against Dossantos might not be nearly as bad as one might think at first glance.

Continue Reading

| by

Lawrence, Massachusetts police broadcast information that two individuals involved in a firearm incident were in a grey Jeep somewhere in the area. Haverhill police hearing the description saw the vehicle at a gas station and arrested Franklin Gary and Cam Vitalone, both from Haverhill. It is reported that two defendants approached two men who were standing near their car in Lawrence. They then threatened the two with a handgun. The victims were able to get into their car and leave the area. The defendants, riding in the grey Jeep followed them onto a highway. Ultimately the victims called the police and gunshots were heard in the background during the call. Both Gary and Vitalone have been charged with Possession of a Firearm, Assault with the Intent to Murder, Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Building. The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court. Vitalone has a pending Gun Case in Massachusetts in another court.

Read Article:

Gun Case Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts

Essex County Robbery Attorney

When I read an article like this one it is difficult for me to believe the victim’s account of the incident. They want the police to believe that they were simply standing by their car when all of the sudden Vitalone and Gary arrive in their Jeep, approach them and one of the defendants brandishes a black revolver. They then get into their car, drive across the City of Lawrence, get onto Route 495, travel to the other side of Lawrence and call the police while Vitalone and Gary are shooting off a gun in the background. Of course, no one gets shot, no one’s property gets shot and no evidence of a discharged firearm is located.

If anything the victims say is true here is what a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer would expect to see develop. One of the defendants would be found in possession of a gun. A gun would be found in the Jeep. A gun would be found in one of the defendant’s homes. One of the defendant’s fingerprints would be found on the gun. A gunshot residue test would reveal the presence of powder on the defendant’s hands. Witnesses would have seen the car chase. Witnesses would have seen one of the defendants brandish the gun on Dorchester Street. Witnesses would have seen someone reaching out of the Jeep firing a gun. The victims would be able to make an identification of the defendants and attribute to each their individual actions. The victims would have made their 911 call early in the chase at which time police could have initiated their efforts and apprehended the suspects in the act. It is doubtful that any of this happened in the manner in which the victims said it did.

Continue Reading

| by

Eufemia Abrego was at the Lawrence District Court yesterday showing support or her brother who is facing a Domestic Violence charge involving his wife. The forty five year old Lawrence native approached the victim, her sister-in-law who was sitting on a bench outside of the courtroom. It is alleged that there Abrego told the victim to drop all charges against the accused if she knew what was good for her. This conversation took place twice, the second time in front of a Spanish interpreter. The interpreter however admitted that she never heard the conversation but was told by the victim what Abrego had said. The district attorney’s officer was alerted to the conversation. They contacted a police officer who escorted Abrego out of the courthouse and arrested her. Abrego was charged with Intimidation of a Witness.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Who Defends Intimidation of a Witness Cases

Massachusetts Threatening to Commit a Crime Defense Attorney

The Massachusetts Witness Intimidation Statute is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B. The statute says that anyone who deliberately threatens a witness in a criminal case is guilty of witness intimidation. This crime is a felony and is punishable by up to ten years in state prison. Witness intimidation is taken very seriously in Massachusetts and Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers are seeing more and more of these cases being prosecuted. The Abrego situation is different from the majority of cases that my office has recently defended. Abrego’s alleged activity took place in a courthouse and was witnessed, at least in part by someone not related to the litigants. The more common Witness Intimidation case in Massachusetts now involves threats made through Facebook or texting, especially among teenagers and younger people. Social media preserves the threats or perceived threats and makes the district attorney’s decision to prosecute much easier than it had been in the past. The problem however still lies with proving that the accused is the person who sent the threatening message. Sharing cell phones, smart phones and computers tends to complicate the prosecutor’s efforts of establishing who in fact sent the unlawful communication. We have successfully defended countless cases where the threats came from someone other than the defendant but who had access to the defendant’s device.

Witness Intimidation charges are often associated with Domestic Violence cases such as here. These cases are highly charged emotional matters that can lead to an unfortunate lack of self-restraint. Where there are witnesses to the incident accompanied by a confession such as with Ms. Abrego, efforts at resolving the case short of trial will likely be sought. Cases like this one can be continued without a finding or pretrial probation can be imposed so Abrego will be best served by having an experienced lawyer represent her.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that around 4:30 yesterday afternoon Billerica, Massachusetts police were called for a shooting near a new convenience store on Boston Road after a man entered the store, bleeding and complaining that he has just been shot at. The victim stated that the defendants, Jose Jusino and Joshua Ruiz, both from Haverhill, Massachusetts kidnapped him at gunpoint demanding money. The defendants drove to the Billerica convenience store where a struggle ensued and gunshots were fired. The victim’s injuries were not likely from the gunshot. Based on police broadcasts of the suspects descriptions Jusino and Ruiz were detained in Lowell, Massachusetts where a show up identification procedure confirmed that both were the assailants. Ruiz and Jusino are being charged with Kidnapping and Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Assault Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Attorney

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18(b) sets out the law for Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder in Massachusetts. In summary, anyone who, with a firearm commits an assault on someone else with either the intent to rob that person or to murder the person is guilty of a felony. The case can be prosecuted in either the district court or the superior court. There is a maximum twenty year state prison sentence for a conviction of this offense. The district attorney’s decision as to where to prosecute this case is largely dictated by the underlying facts. If this was an actual abduction of an innocent person who was fortunate enough to escape his captors then I would imagine that this case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court in Woburn. If however there are some facts suggesting that this was some sort of dispute that evolved into a quasi-violent episode then the case might be prosecuted in the district court. Obviously the defendant’s criminal history will factor into that decision as well.

So what can a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer do to get started on the defense of Jusino or Ruiz. I imagine they will try to identify the location from where the victim claims to have been kidnapped and see if there are surveillance or security cameras in the area. If available, the video footage will either support or contradict the representations of the victim. It is also sometimes helpful to locate and interview anyone who lives or works in the area where the alleged abduction supposedly took place. See what if anything people saw. See what is on the videotape from the convenience store cameras and match that with the victim’s complaints. Check cell phone records to see if the victim and defendants have some sort of relationship that precedes this incident. Find out if the victim has a history of violence and a criminal record. Locate the gun to see whose fingerprints are on it, if any. Interview the victim’s friends and family to see if his account of these events differs from the statements he made to the police. There appears to be more to this case than was initially reported to the police.

Continue Reading