Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

| by

In Broward County Florida a criminal charge issued in large part due to texting between defendants and Facebook posts that detailed their plan. The text messages discussed what to do with the victim’s body. The Facebook posts were more detailed and accompanied by photos and entries that offered law enforcement a nice timeline of the defendants’ activities. If this was not enough one of the defendants told a friend how he strangled the victim and where he left her body. This admission continued with complaints about how bad the decomposing body smelled followed by texts to the co-defendant repeating this concern. The defendant then went to visit with a drug counselor where he once again confessed to having killed a named and missing woman. The drug counselor contacted the police. The police responded and gave the man his Miranda warnings. He then spoke to the police and provided them with a statement.

Read Related Article:

Getting Confessions Suppressed in Massachusetts

Any Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell you what I have repeated countless times to prospective clients, existing clients and through this blog. Nothing good can ever happen when you talk to the police. Nothing good can happen when you text about having committed crimes. Nothing good can happen when you post details of your criminal activities on Facebook. I cannot find any crime statistics in Massachusetts or other parts of the country that identify how many indictments or complaints would not have issued had the accused not opened his or her mouth. I am confident that the number is much more than one half. Another statistic that I am interested in is how many criminal convictions are directly attributed to the accused opening his mouth, or taking out a pen or entering text into some sort of electronic device. That number must be staggering. In my practice alone I see way too many people who have talked, texted or posted prior to calling me for advice.

So how do Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers handle this issue. Well, filing a Motion to Suppress is always prudent. If the police took the statement without following proper constitutional requirements the case may be dismissed. Similarly, at times text messages or Facebook posts can only be properly accessed through Search Warrants and a failure to get one validly issued can be fatal to the district attorney’s case. Where the post or text is published in a public forum suppression is not that easy and the accused may have to resolve his case without a trial to get the best result. Social media and electronic communications make prosecuting much easier these days. That is why it is necessary for the accused to Hire an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

Roberto Jordan of Haverhill, Massachusetts was arrested last night and charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and other related crimes. The crimes are both felonies and misdemeanors in Massachusetts. The incident started around midnight. According to reports Jordan and his girlfriend got into a fight. Jordan was hit in the head. When the police got to the scene they noticed him covered in blood. Jordan then allegedly charged at the officers, apparently striking at least one of them in the process. There were several other people in the area, some of whom might have witnessed the events. Jordan was taken to the hospital. He is being arraigned today in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer

Boston Criminal Lawyer, Assault and Battery Crimes

So here is the first thing that sticks out to this Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer. The police show up and see Jordan “covered in blood”. He then gets charged with Domestic Assault and Battery. Why? What about the person who delivered the blows who put him in this position? Why was this person not charged? The article says that the “victim” was Jordan’s girlfriend. I can see a couple of reasons why Jordan was charged and not the girlfriend. The first is that law enforcement has a bias when investigating domestics against males. The belief is that it is the male rather than the female who was the aggressor and the woman needs protection. This is not always the case but the trend is to err on the side of protecting the woman, removing the man from the home and charging him with the crime. The second reason Jordan might have been charged rather than his girlfriend might have to do with the other charges. As I have mentioned in past blog posts, police officers are sometimes very aggressive when arresting or subduing suspects in criminal cases. Some officers have a tendency to “over do it” and end up injuring the suspect unnecessarily. When they do this they tend to charge the person with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. While this is not always the case I find the most charges of A & B on a PO are reactive charges.

In this case it is reported that there was a crowd that gathered to watch the events. A Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will embrace this as an opportunity to locate witnesses who might be able to provide evidence that will exculpate the accused, in this case Jordan. My office uses private investigators to go out and interview percipient witnesses. At times we get written statements from these people so that their observations are preserved for trial. Other times we find it more prudent not to get written reports as Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure now require Defense Lawyers to surrender copies to the prosecution. Perhaps some of these people will be able to help out with Mr. Jordan’s defense.

Continue Reading

| by

Edward Armstrong and William Scott, both from Framingham, Massachusetts were arraigned earlier this week and charged with Home Invasion. It is alleged that this past Sunday just after 10:30 p.m. both defendants forced their way into an apartment by their home. Present were a man and a woman. Scott held the woman against the wall. Armstrong punched the male occupant in the face several times. He also hit him with a crowbar. Prosecutors have stated that the male victim has suffered significant facial injuries and remains hospitalized. Both the defendants and the victim live on Grant Street. The defendants took the case that was in the man’s wallet. Earlier in the day the male victim boasted about having won five hundred dollars from a scratch ticket. If fact, the ticket was only for five dollars. Neighbors were aware of the five hundred dollar windfall and it is suggested that through them the defendants believed that the victim had money. In addition to the Home Invasion charge both men face counts of Larceny Over $250, Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle, Armed Robbery and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Both defendants have prior criminal matters. Right now the cases are being prosecuted in the Framingham District Court. I would imagine that these matters will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Framingham Armed Home Invasion Defense Lawyer

Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Massachusetts Home Invasion statute is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18C. This law makes it a crime for anyone to enter someone else’s home, knowing or believing them to be home, with a dangerous weapon and threatens and uses force on the occupant or occupants. This is a life felony and there is a minimum twenty year sentence associated with a conviction for this crime. There are some pretty interesting aspects to this statute. The district attorney has no obligation to prove that the accused had knowledge that people lived in the dwelling. All that they have to prove is that while in the dwelling the defendant remained there “knowing or having reason to know” that someone was in the property. Also, there can be no affirmative defense of “self defense” in Home Invasion Case in Massachusetts where the occupant of the dwelling uses force to repel the defendant. Even though there is a twenty year minimum sentence someone convicted of this crime can be placed on probation. However, if a sentence of incarceration is to be imopsed it must be for at least twenty years.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can tell you that very few of these cases are supported by the facts that the statute was intended to punish. Cases that are charged as Home Invasions initially have facts similar to those set out above. Sometimes the facts are in fact more egregious. The victim or victims will report that they were simply in their homes when someone broke in and beat them. Often times their complaints contain allegations of theft. In reality, many of these cases involve drug ripoffs or drug deals gone bad. The physical beating might be significant enough to warrant medical attention and during the course of treatment the “innocent” victim will state that he was robbed. Other times the victim reports the “crime” in retaliation for the failed drug deal. With the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer the accused might be able to fight these charges successfully at trial. Explaining these facts to the district attorney during plea negotiations is sometimes an option however this can unnecessarily alert them to defense strategy or theory. The “victims” in these cases are reluctant to testify. They often have exposure themselves either for drug dealing or some other type of illegal activity. Very few of these cases go to trial and if handled properly can result in a verdict of not guilty or a dismissal.

Continue Reading

| by

A forty year old Foxborough, Massachusetts man was charged with Threatening to Commit a Crime in the Wrentham District Court. According to reports, the defendant told a Foxborough selectman that he was “a dead man” if he did not change his position on casino development in the town. The defendant was arrested and a stay away order was placed into effect. A judge sitting in the court ordered bail set at five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Criminal Defense Lawyer

Wrentham Court Criminal Lawyer

The crime of Threatening to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts is established through Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 275 Section 2. The law states that “[i]f complaint is made to any such court or justice that a person has threatened to commit a crime against the person or property of another, such court or justice shall examine the complainant and any witnesses who may be produced, on oath, reduce the complaint to writing and cause it to be subscribed by the complainant.” The elements of this offense include an expressed intention to commit a crime on someone coupled with “an ability to do so in circumstances that would justify apprehension of the recipient of the threat”. This crime is limited to cases where the accused actually causes fear to the victim. The victim’s fear must be justifiable a justifiable fear. This crime is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. There is a maximum six months jail time for a conviction and a fine of up to one hundred dollars.

This crime is one of the most common in the Massachusetts district courts. Massachusetts Courts have set a broad interpretation of what constitutes a threat and certainly in this case the prosecutor could make out his case if the witness testified as the reports suggests. These cases are usually dismissed on court costs. Sometimes pretrial probation is offered as a disposition. Rarely do you see these cases going to trial. Prosecutors are not usually adamant about an imposition of guilty on Threats cases. The charge of threats is often ancillary to a much larger charge encompassing more serious conduct. This case is the first time I can remember a judge setting bail on a charge of Threatening to Commit a Crime without additional charges being brought. A bail of five thousand dollars is particularly high and I imagine that the complainant’s status as a selectman had something to do with this. Regardless of the bail situation however, on cases charging Threats only a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney should be able to resolve this case in a way that does not leave the accused with a criminal record.

Continue Reading

| by

Last year Joel Pimental of Lawrence, Massachusetts was arrested after he allegedly sold drugs to an undercover officer last year. He was charged with Trafficking Heroin. He posted fifty thousand dollars cash bail. He then defaulted. Yesterday, police officers observed Pimental going into a Weare Street apartment in Lawrence. He was arrested. The police then obtained a Search Warrant. When the warrant was executed officers found enough heroin to charge Trafficking Over 28 Grams of Heroin. They also found a gun. It is further alleged that Pimental has used at least four aliases and was charged with Drug Trafficking using at least one of these names. He is in default in several court in which he has been charged not only with Trafficking Heroin but Trafficking Cocaine, Drug Conspiracy, Assault and Battery and some Motor Vehicle related crimes. Pimental’s cases are pending in Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn, the Lowell District Court, the Essex County Superior Court in Salem and the Lawrence District Court. Following yesterday’s arrest Pimental was charged with Trafficking Heroin, Felon in Possession of a Firearm and multiple other charges.

Read Article:

Experienced Massachusetts Drug Lawyer

Essex County Drug Trafficking Defense Counsel

Usually, when someone defaults on a large bail they return to their native country to avoid prosecution and possible prison time. The accused, being cognizant of the risks associated with defending the case flees the jurisdiction. They realize that if they later return to Massachusetts and get caught they will probably be held without bail until the underlying case in resolved. So they make the decision to stay clear of Massachusetts. Thus, I am always amazed when I read an article disclosing activity such as that attributed to Pimental. This is because getting caught often means that the defendant is going to get convicted and likely serve a long prison sentence. Obviously Pimental was confident that he would not get caught. His use of fictitious names in the past apparently served him well and he was able to post bail when necessary and continue his enterprises under another name. Now however he will not be given bail. He will be held without bail pending trial. He will be taken from county to county to have his cases resolved. Unless his Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Attorney is able to win these cases he will probably have to serve at least fifteen years in state prison. The inclusion of the gun charge might increase this number. Apparently the temporarily successful use of the aliases and the ability to post large cash bails gave the twenty five year old Pimental a sense of invincibility and enabled him to continue with his Massachusetts Drug Activities. It appears that right now he is in for a big fight.

Continue Reading

| by

ShotSpotter.jpgThe first degree murder trial of Dwayne Moore and Edward Washington is in progress in a Boston, Massachusetts Superior Court courtroom. Civilian witnesses have recently testified and the jurors have been told that fourteen shots were fired during the killing of two Boston men, a woman and her two year old child. All fourteen shots were allegedly fired in a ninety four second period. Twelve initially, one more a minute and ten second later and the final shot was fired twenty four seconds later. An expert witness from SST Inc. a, California company that manufactures the ShotSpotter System testified today about the times when the shots were fired and the time lapse between shots. This is a unique way for prosecutors to corroborate the testimony of civilian witnesses. This type of evidence is becoming more prevalent nationwide. It is something that criminal defense attorneys will have to prepare for more frequently as it is expected to be a staple in proceedings involving gunshots.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Firearms Cases, Gunshots, Shooting Cases

There are several gunshot sensor systems on the market right now. The one used in this case is ShotSpotter. This system relies on acoustic sensors that can pick up the gunshot sounds and triangulate them with GPS devices. A series of sensors are placed in designated spots within each square mile of the section of the city it is covering. The sensors coordinate with the GPS system and identify the location of the shooting.

Here is a simplified explanation of how the system works. Once a shot is fired one of the sensors picks it up. The sensors have a range of two miles meaning that the shot was fired within two miles of the sensor that picks up the sound. A second later a second sensor picks up the sounds of the gunshot waves. Subsequently a third sensor will pick up the sounds. The system uses the locations of the sensors with the time it takes for the sound waves to reach each one and comes up with a configuration that shows the gunshot location in terms of distance from the sensors. The GPS device converts this point with latitude and longitude coordinates that ultimately translates this information to addresses and intersections. The systems calls 911 and identifies the location of the shooting. ShotSpotter’s accuracy is estimated at about eighty two feet.

From my perspective this type of evidence benefits the accused as much as the prosecution. Oftentimes I confront witnesses at trial who lie about the location and positioning of my clients and the co-defendants at or near crime scenes. This will factor into the decision of whether or not my client will testify. Sometimes they feel that they have to in order to refute the lies of the witness. The problem with this is that at times denials seem self-serving to jurors. Evidence produced by a system like ShotSpotter can be used to impeach that witnesses’ testimony and save the defendant from having to testify. Or, this evidence might simply support the testimony of the accused while showing that the witness was not telling the truth.

Continue Reading

| by

Kenneth Tozier of Methuen, Massachusetts was charged with Kidnapping a thirty four year old Lawrence woman. The woman made a call to police on Sunday around 5:30. It is alleged that the man and woman who have a child together were arguing about their relationship. The victim’s call alerted the police to the make of the car Tozier was driving as well as its location. The woman told the police that the couple had travelled from Lawrence to Boston and that Tozier would not let her out of the car. Tozier was apprehended in South Boston where he was arraigned yesterday morning. Bail was set at seven hundred fifty dollars. The district attorney recommended a bail of one hundred thousand dollars. The case will likely be prosecuted in the South Boston District Court.

Read Article:

Methuen Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer

Lawrence Massachusetts Kidnapping Lawyer

It is likely that the defendant was charged under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 26. That statute makes it a crime for anyone to forcibly seize a person or confine someone against the person’s will. The crime is a felony and is punishable by up to ten years on state prison. If a Firearm is used during the commission of this crime there is a ten year minimum mandatory sentence that the defendant must serve.

Despite the purported seriousness of the allegations, the factual underpinnings of this case suggest that the prosecution will take place in the district court where there is a maximum house of correction sentence of two years. Here is why. The couple have a child together. According to the police the defendant admitted that for a moment he just “lost it”. This is not the type of conduct that warrants a state prison sentence or a prosecution in the superior court. I would imagine that once the dust has settled the woman will not want to see Tozier incarcerated. If he does not have a criminal record the possibility of a continuance without a finding exists. Sometimes an anger management class will accompany the cwof. If the woman remains fearful of the defendant perhaps a Restraining Order will issue or the Court will require the defendant to stay away from the victim. It does appear however that this case can be resolved favorably to the defendant. Clearly the judge realized this when he set a bail ninety nine thousand two hundred fifty dollars below that the district attorney was requesting. This is a perfect example that not all crimes are as serious as initially reported. This makes it necessary that anyone charged with a crime immediately contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Here, Tozier’s lawyer did a great job for him, getting a reasonable bail set at his arraignment.

Continue Reading

| by

Two days ago the Massachusetts Appeals Court handed down its decision in
Commonwealth v Renaud, 11-P-382. The facts in Renaud are as follows:

There was a breaking and entering in Falmouth, Massachusetts. No one was home. Television sets and a DVD player were stolen. The police arrived to investigate and found an electronic bank card bearing Renaud’s name on it. Renaud was not known by the victims. Renaud lived in Falmouth, a fact known to the police. The police called him the next day and told him that someone found his bankcard on the side of the road. He was further told that he could pick it up at the police station. Renaud responded that he did know that it was missing. He elected not to go to the police station. The case went to trial. Renaud was convicted based almost exclusively on the fact that his bankcard was found in the victim’s home. Reversing the conviction the Massachusetts Appeals Court stated that “ownership of [the bankcard] cannot allow a factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner of the card was in possession of it during the commission of a crime”. As to the bankcard itself, the court made the observation that “[i]dentification cards are common currency of everyday life. They are also portable objects that can be lost, stolen, or transplanted by others.” In the circumstances of this case the trial judge should have allowed the defendant’s Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty and entered a verdict of Not Guilty.

The standard in Massachusetts for sustaining a prosecution is whether the evidence introduced up to the time the Commonwealth rests its case, “viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer the existence of each essential element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt”. Thus, when reviewing claims for sufficiency of the evidence Massachusetts Appellate Courts pay no attention to any evidence that follows the Commonwealth’s case. For instance, if the defendant puts on evidence that evidence has no bearing on the challenge for insufficient evidence provided that the defendant has moved the Court for a Required Finding of Not Guilty after the district attorney rests his case.

In this case Renaud’s trial lawyer did a great job preserving this issue for appeal. The trial judge should have entered the required finding of not guilty after hearing the motion. The appellate attorney then did a fantastic job articulating the basis for the appeal to the Appeals Court. This case demonstrates the importance of hiring an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to represent you at both the trial and appellate levels. The defendant here should be pleased with his decision to hire two excellent lawyers.

Continue Reading

| by

escape-3d-the-jail-100-1.jpgAllison Avagianos and Tricia Mendez were both in custody and serving sentences for criminal convictions in Essex County. Avagianos was serving her sentence for Larceny Over $250 and Reckless Operation of Motor Vehicle. Mendez, a Lynn, Massachusetts resident had been sentenced for Assault and Battery, Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle and Attempting to Commit a Crime. Avagianos, from Salisbury, was due to be released in April of this year while Mendez was scheduled to be freed next week. Both were serving their sentence at the Essex County Sheriff’s pre-release center in Salisbury. Three days ago, the women left the institution and walked to a local shopping center. There, they met up with a man who brought them to his apartment. Early Wednesday morning the women were arrested at the man’s apartment. The man in whose apartment Mendez and Avagianos were found, Byron Isbell was arrested as well. He has been charged with Aiding and Abetting and Escape. The two women have been charged with Escape. The cases are pending in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Salisbury, Lynn, Newburyport Crimes

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 2769 Section 16 covers the Crime of
Escape in Massachusetts. The law states that anyone who is incarcerated and escapes or attempts to escape from a penal institution in Massachusetts, or from any courthouse, or from the custody of an officer of a courthouse or penal institution can be punished by up to ten years in state prison. This law also applies to someone who is temporary released from custody but required to return and fails to do so. The crime is a felony. Anyone who harbors an escapee is guilty of being an accessory after the fact and can be sentence to up to seven years in state prison. Since all of these crimes are being prosecuted in the Newburyport District Court the maximum sentence for all defendants is two and one half years in the house of correction.

The crime of Escape from jail or prison is significantly on the decline. One report has this crime declining from 2,583 to 660 in a ten year period nationwide. Some suggest that that the reason for the decline is the construction of more modern facilities built with technology that makes the crime more difficult to commit. Another report states that prison escapes have decline from two percent to one percent over a ten year period. The vast majority of escapes are known as “walk aways”, people serving sentences at community corrections facilities or minimum security jails. Mendez and Avagianos would fall into that category. People convicted of escape in Massachusetts usually serve their sentences in more secure facilities to prevent the repeated commission of the crime. There is also a tendency to sentence escapees to higher sentences as a punitive measure. It is critical that anyone charged with this crime consult with and hire an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. These crimes can be defended successfully.

Continue Reading

| by

Just a couple of days ago a Massachusetts State Trooper stopped a car that he witnessed run a stop sign. His intention was to issue a citation to the driver. When he approached the car the passenger made a furtive movement towards his legs. The officer asked him to get out of the car. The passenger, Jesus Silva-Santiago complied. Then, according to reports Silva-Santiago punched the cop in the face. A chase followed. The trooper caught up with the defendant and the fighting continued. The trooper was able to subdue Silva-Santiago with the help of some Brockton police officers who responded in support. Jesus-Santiago was transported to the police station for booking. There, officers located eighteen bags of heroin tucked in his buttocks cheeks. Jesus-Santiago was charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class A, Heroin, a Second and Subsequent Offense, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Disorderly Conduct. The case is currently in the Brockton District Court however it will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I really enjoy defending cases like this one. Like many Drug Crimes in Massachusetts, the strength of the district attorney’s case lies in the legality of the police officer’s actions. The stop of the motor vehicle will probably survive a challenge however the Exit Order may not. Exit Orders, ordering a driver or passenger out of a car, have become the source of considerable litigation in Massachusetts. The success of Silva-Santiago’s defense will hinge on the validity of the trooper’s actions in forcing the defendant to exit the car.

Federal Courts have embraced the rule that under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution police officers may order both the driver and passenger out of a car. There is not need to show facts warranting the officer to be reasonable apprehensive. However, as is often the case, the Massachusetts Courts and Constitution provide more protection. A 1999 Massachusetts set out the rule for exit orders as follows: “art. 14 requires that a police officer, in a routine traffic stop, must have a reasonable belief that the officer’s safety, or the safety of others, is in danger before ordering a driver out of a motor vehicle.” The test is whether or not a reasonably prudent person in the police officer’s position would be justified in believing that his safety or the safety of others was in danger.

The officer contends that Silva-Santiago “reached down below his legs”. This gave him concern for his safety. So here is the question in this case. Did he have a reasonable belief that his safety or the safety of others was in danger based on what he saw Silva-Santiago do? The analysis for this challenge is done on a case by case basis viewing the totality of the circumstances. I would be interested in seeing the police report for this incident to see what if anything, in addition to the defendant’s movements led the officer to fear for his safety. A successful Motion to Suppress might result in a dismissal of all the Drug Charges.

Continue Reading