Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

| by

CProducts30RoundInGun-5.jpg
Around 4:30 in the morning this past Sunday Massachusetts State Police responded to a call for a Motor Vehicle accident in the northbound lane of Route 24. The arrived to learn that Jason Ribeiro of Brockton, Massachusetts was driving a car the rear ended another vehicle. The victim called 911. The police investigation revealed the presence of a large capacity loaded firearm in Ribeiro’s car. Both of Ribeiro’s passengers, a juvenile and John Pires also from Brockton were charged with Possession of a Firearm. The case is currently pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Gun Defense Lawyer

It is extremely uncommon for multiple parties to get convicted for possessing the same firearm, particularly where the weapon is found in a motor vehicle. Unless one of the occupants is actually holding the gun or the weapon is tested for fingerprints there is simply no way to attribute Possession of the Firearm to one of the parties as opposed to the others. Now Massachusetts and most other jurisdictions recognize that someone can “constructively possess” an item. The law on constructive possession states that even without actual physical possession of an item a person can be legally responsible for possessing that object via constructive possession. To be convicted for possessing an item under that theory the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has knowledge of the object, the ability to exercise control over that object and the intent to exercise control over that item. As to constructively possessing a gun in Massachusetts one of the leading cases holds that you can infer constructive possession of the gun “from defendant’s proximity to gun in motor vehicle, where evidence that, when stopped by police, defendant ‘first leaned forward and to the right before complying with the order to raise his hands[,] . . . [and] [a] loaded handgun was found protruding from under the passenger seat in the vehicle he was operating'”. Conversely, one cannot infer constructive Possession of a Gun in Massachusetts where the gun is in proximity to a defendant’s personal papers. Proximity and knowledge do not show possession.

So how here does the district attorney sustain a prosecution against all three where there exists only one gun? They probably cannot. This is where the assistance of an Experienced Massachusetts Firearm Defense Lawyer becomes necessary. It is possible in some circumstances to succeed on a motion to dismiss in cases like this, at least as to two of the defendants. It might be possible for that motion to apply to all three defendants. To better assess this case it is necessary to know where the weapon was found in the car. What if anything did the defendants say. Is there any physical evidence on the weapon that links one or more of the suspects to the gun; i.e. DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence. What did the person in the other car see relative to the weapon. Where was the weapon found in the car? Who was the owner of the car?

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today four Massachusetts teenagers were being arraigned in Quincy District Court. All four are being charged with murder after a twenty one year old Randolph man was killed over the weekend. After the arraignment someone in the audience yelled out words of support to the defendants. The victim’s family took exception to that. A fight broke out requiring the Quincy District Court court officers and the Quincy police to intervene. In all, five people were arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct. None of the defendants were named in the report.

Read Article:

Quincy Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer

In order to prove someone guilty of Disorderly Conduct in Massachusetts the district attorney must prove three elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt. It first must that the accused either intended to cause alarm or that he acted recklessly thereby creating a risk of alarm. Second, the district attorney must prove that the defendant fought, threatened or engaged in tumultuous or violent conduct. Third, that the defendant’s actions created an offensive or hazardous condition which has no legitimate purpose to the defendant.

Not too long ago the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a disorderly person conviction. In that case, a Massachusetts state police officer drove up to a hotel parking lot and saw a man and a woman in a car. The was seemingly shaking his finger and yelling at the woman who was in the driver’s seat. The officer could hear the yelling but could not make out any words. Backup units arrived and the woman made clear that she did not want the man to be arrested. The officers told the man that he would be summonsed to court. He started flailing his arms telling the police that they were violating his civil rights. He was arrested and charged, among other things with disorderly person. In reversing the conviction the Appeals Court stated that the defendant’s conduct did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior”. Citing another Massachusetts case the Court held that “[t]o be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute.”

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I would be interested in reading the police reports in the Quincy cases. We have had countless disorderly conduct cases dismissed where the defendant was arrested for incidents involving his use of speech only. Many police officers do not realize this to be the law and they make arrests and file charges based on protected conduct. Also, this case took place in Quincy. If the alleged acts occurred in the first session courtroom they will be recorded. That court started a pilot program wherein the cases in that courtroom air live through a webcam. Some of these people’s defenses might be provable through the footage from that system. Here is one more thing to keep in mind. Many legal scholars believe that this statute is unconstitutional. While it has survived constitutional muster it has been suggested that a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defending one of these cases should challenge the statute to preserve any potential future appellate issues.

Continue Reading

| by

Social-Media-Collage.jpgBack on October 4, 2011 a robbery occurred in Westford, Massachusetts at a liquor store. The incident was caught on a security videotape. The culprit was seen attacking the store clerk and making off with hundreds of dollars cash. The videotape also captured a woman authorities believe to this man’s girlfriend in the store earlier. The Westford Police posted the videotape on Facebook. A few weeks later a forty one year old Beverly man, Michael Whitcomb was arrested by Peabody police for another crime, a Robbery and Stabbing. His girlfriend, Jennifer Avola of Danvers was also arrested. The Peabody police saw the Westford posting and were able to make a connection to the robberies. The Salem News reports that Whitcomb might be responsible for similar robberies in which liquor stores and convenience stores were targeted. These occurred in the towns of Rowley, Georgetown and Ipswich. Both defendants are facing felony charges in the Ayer District Court for Larceny Over $250, Unarmed Robbery and Assault and Battery. Whitcomb is also charged with similar crimes in the Newburyport District Court as well as Assault and Battery By Means of a Dangerous Weapon for stabbing the clerk.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Social Media And Criminal Law

What Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers are seeing quite a bit of these days is the use of social media to help prosecute crimes. Police departments throughout the state have websites, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts through which they post information targeting leads for unsolved crimes or the location of suspects in criminal cases. These agencies are also alerting the public to certain conditions to avoid being victimized. Various federal agencies are resorting to the social media to help with their investigations as well. It is working. Think back to game seven of the Stanley Cup Playoffs last year. Do you remember the riots? Many of the people responsible for the mele were identified through social media.

More and more of my clients find themselves in court as a result of some sort of investigation that involved social media outlets. Sometimes these people posted information that made them suspects. At times the source of the information is co-conspirators posting events and information that the police use to initiate their prosecution. This is why I tell my clients to be careful what they put in writing. Now not all of this is bad. As a matter of fact sometimes the social media helps the defense attorney more than the prosecutor. Our office has been able to discredit witnesses at trial through their social media postings. For instance, at one recent trial a witness testified that her life was ruined as a result of an alleged sexual assault committed by one of our clients. She testified that she could not go out or socialize. She claimed that she was unable to establish friendships as a result of the abuse and that she was constantly alone, scared and depressed. Her Facebook page and her MySpace pages suggested otherwise. There were hundreds of postings of her at parties, drinking, vacationing, socializing and living life in a manner that was entirely contradictory to her representations. Her testimony quickly became suspect.

Continue Reading

| by

Shortly after 7:00 a.m. Sunday morning Framingham, Massachusetts police received a call for a disturbance on Dinsmore Avenue. When they arrived they heard a woman screaming. The officers entered the home and found Marvin Alvarenga holding his ex-wife and her daughter against a wall. The ex-wife was bloodied and bruised. The daughter complained about having suffered some injuries as well. The ex-wife told police that she met with Alvarenga the previous night for dinner. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the woman having a Restraining Order against Alvarenga dismissed. Apparently the meeting did not go well. The woman told the police that Alvarenga then forced her to drive him to her Framingham home where he beat her. He did however permit her to contact her daughter who went to the home. Once she entered the property it is alleged that the daughter was not allowed to leave and was threatened with a beer bottle. Alvarenga is being charged with Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, Intimidation of a Witness and Violating a Restraining Order. Alvarenga has an open Assault and Battery case on which bail was revoked. Through his lawyer Alvarenga denied all allegations. The case is pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

Framingham Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Kidnapping, Violation of 209A Orders

Typically in cases involving Domestic Violence witness credibility becomes a critical issue. This is because the defenses to these cases implicate a history between the parties that is usually admissible as evidence at trial. Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers will tell you that very often the initiator of a Restraining Order makes his or her application to gain an advantage or control over someone with whom they are involved. Take this case for instance. Why would the “victim” want to meet with Alvarenga for dinner to discuss vacating the existing Restraining Order? Keep in mind that the issuance of the order contemplates a judge finding a substantial likelihood of an immediate danger of abuse. This is based on an affidavit and/or the testimony of the complainant who admits to being in fear of this person. It hardly makes sense for someone truly feeling this way to drive from Framingham to Boston to discuss terminating the order over dinner. This will hurt the woman’s credibility. Alvarenga should have known that the dinner meeting constitutes a violation of the order. I have seen many cases where the complainant contacts the defendant, usually by text, email or voicemail message. This action is naturally designed to elicit a response. The response constitutes a Violation of the 209A Order that is virtually indefensible. Most troubling about this is that this action is deliberate on the part of the “victim”. I have represented countless people who have responded to the unsolicited contact and found that to be the basis for the issuance of a complaint. Once again, the “victims” can use this tactic to gain a personal advantage over the accused or as a form of retaliation for some non-criminal issue with which they took issue.

While the ex-wife’s credibility might be questioned at least as to some of the counts, Alvarenga’s problems are going to come from the police officers testimonies. They heard the screams, witnessed some of the incident and saw the ex-wife in a bloodied condition. While the Kidnapping counts might easily be challenged the Assault Charges are going to be more difficult to beat.

Continue Reading

| by

gavel.jpgThe Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that Amy Moolic, a Chelmsford, Massachusetts resident has been charged with a Felony following an incident on Riverside Drive in Methuen. This occurred on Thursday. The night before Moolic was involved in car accident. Following that incident she stayed with family members. Her nephew, the victim, woke her up to check on her. She became angry and tried to strangle him. She then chase him and threw a glass vase at him. She missed. Subsequently she took hold of a couple of kitchen knives. She chased her nephew again. He locked himself in a bedroom and called the police. The police arrived and were able to subdue her however not before she bit one of the officers. At least initially this case will be prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court. The newspaper did not indicate what the charges will be however I imagine that Moolic will face charges of Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault With the Intent to Murder.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer – – Crimes of Violence, Assault and Battery, Dangerous Weapon, Intent to Murder

Incidents like this one occur more frequently than you might think. Each week you can read about some crazy family incident or event that ends up with criminal charges filed in court. This one however, at least in the context of the article is somewhat unique. There does not appear to be any particular catalyst triggering Moolic’s actions. Her nephew was checking on her, presumably to see if she was okay following a car accident from the previous day. For no apparent reason she took exception to this and became violent. When the police arrived she shouted: “suicide by cop, kill me and put me out of my misery.” As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I wonder whether there was some sort of underlying mental illness that caused this behavior. Or perhaps the Moolic suffered some sort of head injury from the accident the previous day. If there was a pre-existing mental health condition this is something that Moolic’s lawyer will investigate and possibly use in defense of the case. Prosecutors and judges are sympathetic towards people who suffer from mental illness particularly where the problem is one that is being address by professionals, can be controlled and the defendant is serious about getting the help needed. Cases like this one are also easier to work out if the victims, particularly victims who are family members, are in agreement with a favorable disposition, perhaps one that will not result in the accused having a criminal record. The article certainly makes this incident seem like aberrational behavior.

Keep in mind a few other things. If Moolic is charged as I expect she will be facing several felony counts. Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon carries up to ten years in state prison. Assault with the Intent to Murder is also a felony that carries a ten year state prison sentence. Both of these charges however can be prosecuted in the district court which is where I imagine these cases will remain.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Salem News, last week a Beverly, Massachusetts man went into a Tedeschi convenience store wearing a mask and a hoodie. The store clerk was arranging items in the store. He heard someone come into the store. He then saw a man carrying a large semiautomatic weapon demanding money. He complied with the demand and gave the robber between one hundred fifty and two hundred dollars. When he realized exactly how much money he got the defendant expressed disappointment and fled. No arrest was made that day. By the way, the store clerk never saw the face of the man. A few days later the clerk believed that he saw the person who had committed the Armed Robbery just outside of the store. The reason he thought this was the culprit: the man was wearing the same pants and had the same gait. The police obtained an arrest warrant and on Saturday the defendant was arrested. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Salem District Court. Bail was set in the amount of ten thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer – – Mistaken Identification

Armed Robbery.jpg

A central issue to many criminal cases in Massachusetts is the identification of the accused as the person who committed the crime alleged. In Massachusetts it is the obligation of the district attorney to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt. Mistaken identifications are not uncommon making your choice of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer one of paramount importance. Since the arrival of DNA testing there are many people who have been freed from jails and had convictions reversed. Many of these convictions were based on eyewitness identifications that were made in error. I sometimes wonder whether some of these convictions could have been avoided with a better attack on the identification testimony.

Jurors in Massachusetts are instructed on the issue of identification if it becomes a live issue at the time of trial. Judges tell jurors that the witness must have had an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant. Jurors can consider a lapse of time from the time of the commission of the crime until the identification was made. Similarities between the person identified and other people who might have been near the crime scene or had the motive to commit the crime can also be a factor that impacts jury deliberations. An initial failure to make an identification is a factor to scrutinize when deciding guilt or innocence in a case such as this one.

The defendant referenced in this article has a lot work with in terms of presenting his defense. His lawyer did an excellent job arguing mistaken identification issues. I am surprised that the bail was set so high in this case given the suggested weakness of the identification. It would not surprise me to see the bail lowered in this case. I have had cases like this one and tried them to an acquittal. Mistaken identification cases require the services of an Experienced Massachusetts Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

Shortly after midnight two men from Lawrence, Massachusetts entered a Park Street home. There, they assaulted, beat and attempted to rob the occupants. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune report that the victim and his girlfriend were at home watching television when Javier Fernandez and Eduardo Amill broke. The assailants demanded drugs and money. According to the man the accused threatened to Rape his girlfriend if he did not comply with their demands. Both victims were taken into the bedroom. The woman was sexually assaulted. The defendants then heard a knock on the door and tried to leave the home. They were met by the police who had been called for a “disturbance” at the home. The man was bleeding and bound. Both Fernandez and Amill were quickly apprehended. Both men will be charged with Armed Home Invasion. Amill had outstanding warrants for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. He is also going to be charged with Indecent Assault and Battery, Possession of a Firearm and Possession of Ammunition.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Lawyer

home-invasion.jpg

Armed Home Invasion in Massachusetts is one of the most serious felonies. Proving the crime requires the district attorney to prove beyond several elements, all of which appear provable at least from this article. Those elements are that the defendant or defendants entered the home of someone else without consent, that they did so knowingly, that they had reason to know that someone would be home, that they were armed with a dangerous weapon and that they used force or threats on the occupants. From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer it is going to be difficult for the defendants to simply sit back in this case. Rather, they are going to have to offer some sort of defense that either mitigates their actions or shows that what the “victims” are alleging here never happened.

The Massachusetts Home Invasion Cases that I have defended successfully typically involve some sort of drug deal gone bad. The deal itself usually takes place in the home and the accused were often invited in prior to the problems arising. This fact, if proven defeats the Home Invasion charge in that the defendants were in the home consensually. Factors that help with this defense are the criminal records of the victims, particularly for Drug Offenses. There are still the remaining allegations however once the Home Invasion charge is questioned the remaining indictments are not as strong. Jurors are suspect of witnesses who come into court with baggage. In many of these cases I have found the victims reluctant to come forward. Remember that in this case the police were called to the scene by what appears to be someone other than the victims.

The gun charges will likely be the biggest hurdle for these defendants. Amill has even bigger problems given the existence of outstanding warrants, one involving a Violent Crime. It would not surprise me to see him work some sort of a plea bargain to avoid having to go to trial and to wrap up all of his cases.

Continue Reading

| by

carjacking2.jpgThe Brockton Enterprise reports that Brandon Cain and Alberto Velasquez both from Brockton, Massachusetts have been indicted for Carjacking and Armed Robbery While Masked. The charges follow an incident alleged to have occurred this past August. The victims reported that they were meeting with a friend whom they owed five hundred dollars. On August 23, 2011 at approximately 1:00 p.m. the two arrived at the meeting place. Two men then approached their car brandishing firearms. One of the men fired. The victims were ordered out of their car. The defendants fled making off with about one thousand two hundred dollars. One of the victims reported that Velasquez wore a mask over the lower half of his face. The police found the car abandoned and then found the defendants in the woods. In the vicinity of the defendants the police found a .22 caliber rifle and a black BB gun. Charges of ammunition possession and firearm possession were filed against Velasquez in addition to the Armed Robbery and Carjacking indictments. The case will be prosecuted in the Plymouth Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Carjacking and Armed Robbery Lawyers

When evaluating potential defenses to a case Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers often look at the facts and ask a simple question. What is wrong with the picture? In this case it is a little strange that the victims would be sitting in a car to pay a debt rather than simply going up to the door of the creditor and making their payment. Keep in mind it is reported that the creditor is a friend. Why then wait in the car? Next, this occurred in the daytime in a densely populated middle class residential neighborhood. There is no mention of witnesses seeing a masked man walking up to a parked car. There is no mention of any witnesses hearing a gunshot. There is no mention of anyone seeing someone carrying a .22 rifle as the report states. Don’t you think that someone would have seen this? Finally, why would the defendants be “hiding” in a wooded area near the location of the abandoned car? This makes absolutely no sense. Oftentimes in cases like this it turns out that the “victim” knows the defendant and the actual facts are nowhere near as egregious as initially reported. Sometimes these types of accusations arise from disputes over ownership of the vehicle, arguments over debts or drug deals gone bad. I would expect much more than was initially reported is behind these accusations.

Carjacking in Massachusetts is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 21A. The law states anyone who steals a car by putting someone in fear is guilty of carjacking. The attempt does not have to be successful to satisfy the elements of the crime. Both the Massachusetts Superior Courts and the Massachusetts District Courts have jurisdiction over this crime. Nevertheless, Carjacking in Massachusetts is a felony. There is an additional aspect of this law that is pertinent to this case. If the accused uses a rifle a conviction mandates a five year state prison sentence. The district courts do not have jurisdiction over this portion of the statute. The armed robbery statute has similar language. There is a five year mandatory minimum for the masked portion of the offense as well as the use of the firearm in connection with the commission of the crime.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Tuesday shortly after the lunch recess a dangerousness hearing was being conducted at the Lawrence District Court. The courtroom doors opened abruptly and a police officer sitting in the courtroom observed Stephanie Urena trying to hold Keila Rodriguez to prevent her from testifying. Urena, a Chelsea, Massachusetts resident was grabbing the witness and pulling her back. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that Rodriguez was attempting to testify on behalf of her boyfriend. Urena and Rodriguez were separated by police officers. Officers then attempted to interview Urena and were interrupted by a lawyer advising Urena not to talk to the police. The report states that the lawyer represents Rodriguez’s ex-boyfriend, the defendant in the dangerousness hearing. Urena denied that the man was her lawyer and denied knowing the lawyer. Urena has been charged with Intimidation of a Witness and Assault and Battery.

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

This article brings up an interesting issue that Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers frequently face, that being conflicts of interest. So what exactly is a conflict of interest in the legal sense? Well, for one thing, representing more than on defendant in a criminal matter can in some instances create this problem. Both Massachusetts and United States Supreme Court cases have held that representing codefendants at the same trial can at times result in a detriment to one of the parties that constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment and warrants reversal of a conviction. These cases go on to say that both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions mandate that an attorney give his undivided loyalty to his client. If an actual conflict of interest is shown there might be no need to show a loss of a substantial defense and a conviction might be reversed.

Conflicts of interest might implicate problems for the lawyer as well as the client. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility make clear that an attorney’s loyalty to his client is essential to the lawyer’s relationship to a client. These rules further state that ordinarily a lawyer in a criminal case should decline to act for more than one codefendant. Common representation is permissible where interests are similar and the risks of adverse impact to one client are minimal. Representing codefendants is a somewhat of a slippery undertaking. Conflicting defenses often arise as defense preparation and investigative efforts develop. The better practice is not to represent codefendants and to suggest to one of the accused that he or she retain their own lawyer.

So where does that leave this case? From a purely legal standpoint it is difficult to find the existence of an actual conflict between the defendant and Urena. They are not actually codefendants. Rather, Urena is a witness on the defendant’s dangerousness matter and now she is a defendant on another criminal matter linked to the dangerousness matter. However, the fact that she denied that this lawyer represented her (if this is in fact what she said) might be problematic and could be viewed as an intention to obstruct the police officers’ investigation. Hopefully this person’s zealousness will not be viewed this as obstructive.

Continue Reading

| by

Back in 1993 Herbert Racine, now forty three years old, was convicted of one count of Rape. He was ultimately classified as a Level 2 Sex Offender by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board. It is now alleged that Racine committed an Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person Over the Age of Fourteen and that he has committed the crime of Enticing a Minor. The details of the incident as reported in the Lowell Sun are scant. The victim is between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and the gender of the victim was not identified. Racine is also being charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender and an unrelated Assault and Battery case. The cases are pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Racine.jpg

The laws in Massachusetts for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender are very strict. In essence, anyone who after 1981 was convicted of a designated sex offense must register. The word conviction included adjudications of delinquent and adjudications of being a sexually dangerous person. The offenses triggering the requirement of registration include rape, assault with the intent to rape, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping a child, enticing a minor into prostitution or for sexual intercourse, drugging persons for sexual intercourse, inducing a minor into prostitution, sharing or living off of the earnings of a minor prostitute, possession and distribution of child pornography, engaging in unnatural acts and more. Level two and level three sex offenders are obligated to register at the police department in the city or town where they live.

The penalties for violating this law are severe. For first time offenders, there is a minimum six month house of correction sentence and up to five years in state prison. For second and subsequent violators of this law there is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence. Hiring an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer is always advisable for anyone who is charged with a crime, particularly where there is a minimum mandatory sentence associated with the crimes charged.

So what exactly does this mean for Racine? Well, the article does not provide much detail however I would expect that the minor victims in this case have been and will continue to be cooperative with the district attorney. If not then the case probably would not have gotten this far to begin with. Also, since this case is being prosecuted in Middlesex County I expect an indictment to issue and the prosecution to be handled in the Superior Court in either Woburn or Lowell. While at times Massachusetts prosecutors might exercise restraint in terms of the aggressiveness with which they pursue the accused, they are less likely to do so when the defendant is a repeat offender and the victim is a minor. Also, the fact that Racine failed to register as a sex offender and has an outstanding complaint for a Massachusetts Violent Crime leads me to believe that this case will not be prosecuted in Ayer for very long.

Continue Reading