Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers Badge
Avvo Badge
Massachusetts Bar Association
Top-Rated Lawyer

| by

Several weeks ago DEA and Andover, Massachusetts police received information from a source that Jay Keough and Ryan Emmet were cooking up methamphetamine at Keough’s parents’ home on Lowell Street in Andover. Apparently Keough and Emmett had been buying cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine from drug stores in the Merrimack Valley towns of Andover, Methuen, North Andover, Lawrence and Haverhill. Various “cooking” techniques break the medicine down into ephedrine which in turn is used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine or “crystal meth”. According to reports Keough manufactured the substance every 4-5 days in a first floor room that was locked, chained and guarded by a Rottweiller. Both Keough and Emmet were charged in federal court with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Both men are being detained pending a hearing.

Read Article: Massachusetts Men Caught In Their Andover Meth Lab Charged In Federal Court

Both defendants have been charged with a violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 846 and 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1). 21 U.S.C. 846 makes it a crime to conspire to violate any of the laws of the drug abuse prevention and control act. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) makes it a crime to manufacture, distribute or possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. Methamphetamine is a controlled substance in accordance with Schedule II of the act. If convicted on these charges, Keough and Emmet each face up to 20 years imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release and a $ 1,000,000 fine.

Continue Reading

| by

On January 18, 2009, while at a Metallica concert Brewster, Massachusetts police officer Joseph Houston was throw out of the Boston Garden after urinating on another concertgoer. Houston then tried to get back into the concert by flashing his police badge. According to earlier reports Houston was told that if he did not leave the concert he would be charged with trespassing. Houston again tried to use his badge to regain entry to the Garden. Failing to heed the second warning Houston tried to again to go back into the concert. He was arrested. Later, the parents of the person on whom he urinated reported that incident to the Boston police and charges ultimately issued. Now, Houston in charged with assault and battery and open and gross lewdness.

Read Articles: Cape Cod Police Officer Suspended After Concert Incident

Brewster Police Officer Charged With Felony Stemming From Actions At Concert

The most serious charge Houston faces is the open and gross lewdness. In Massachusetts this is a felony in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16. There is a maximum three year state prison sentence that can be imposed if the case is prosecuted in the Superior Court. This case will most likely be handled in the Boston Municipal Court where Houston can be sentenced to no more than two years in the house of correction.

To convict someone of this crime the district attorney must prove five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 1) that the defendant exposed his genitals to one or more persons, 2) that this was intentional, 3) that he intended public exposure, 4) that the act was done in a way to produce shock and 5) that someone was in fact shocked by the act.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reported that a forty one year old Dracut, Massachusetts man has been charged with assault with intent to commit murder, assault and battery, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon after he supposedly stabbed his wife nine times with a large butcher knife in front of their two young children. According to the article the victim had recently moved out of the couple’s home with their children. The children were visiting with him and around 5:30 the victim went back to the house to pick them up. After a brief discussion the defendant threw the woman down on the ground, stabbed her with a butcher knife and threatened to kill her. The children ran to a neighbor’s house. The neighbor returned and pulled the defendant off of the woman. A district court held the defendant without bail pending a dangerousness hearing and a competency hearing. Charges are pending in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article: Lowell, Massachusetts Man Held In Domestic Violence Incident

Competence to stand trial in Massachusetts is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123 Section 15. The law states that at any time a judge may order an evaluation to determine whether a person is competent to stand trial. If possible, the examination is to be conducted at the courthouse or where the person his being held. After the examination, the judge may order the person committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital for a period of up to twenty days. The treating personnel at the hospital may request an additional twenty days, or up to forty days for observation and further examination. If the person is found competent the case will resume its schedule. If not, then the case is continued until the person becomes competent.

Competency evaluations are used primarily when people engage in irrational acts or behave in ways that are uncharacteristic. In this case it appears that the defendant “flipped out” possibly due to the deterioration of his marital situation. In almost every case a person is ultimately found to be competent. It may take several months or in rare instances years but trial or a resolution of the case is almost always inevitable.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lowell Sun, Eric Sideri, owner of Angela’s Coal Fired Pizza in Tyngsboro Massachusetts, is being held without bail after his arraignment in Lowell District Court. Sideri is charged with kidnapping and beating up a manager, Oliveira, whom he suspected stole $20,000 from the business. According to reports, after the restaurant closed on Saturday night, Sideri cornered Oliveira beating him up with a baseball bat and a stick. Sideri allegedly stuck a large gun in the manager’s mouth and threatened to kill him if he did not answer questions about the missing money.

According to prosecutors, Oliveira claimed that he was taken to the restaurant’s back door and shown “a white SUV with its tailgate open and blue tarp covered with trash bags inside.” Sideri then allegedly told him, “I will kill you and nobody will know.”

The defendant’s attorney painted a much different picture of the events. The defendant claims that a confrontation occurred after Sideri confronted Oliveira about the missing money. Sideri claims that he acted in self-defense during the incident and that Oliveira fabricated the kidnapping and beating story to offset any charges that Sideri would file against him.

Following bail arguments by both sides District Court Judge Michael Uhlarik ordered that Sideri be held without bail. Sideri returns to the Lowell District Court on Thursday when a “dangerousness hearing” will take place.

Continue Reading

| by

Eric Sideri owns Angela’s Coal Fired Pizza in Tyngsboro, Massachusetts. On Saturday night he and his manager Al Guevara pistol whipped and beat an employee Sideri believed stole twenty thousand dollars from the business. According to reports Sideri left the business sometime Saturday night seemingly in a bad mood. Guevara, who manages another one of Sideri’s stores came into the establishment. Shortly after the business closed Guevara told the cleaning crew to leave the property. Guevara started to count the evening’s take when Sideri re-arrived and began accusing the victim of taking his money. Sideri then proceeded to beat the victim with the bat. Sideri then tied the victim’s hands behind his back, withdrew two guns and threatened to blow his brains out. Sideri then stuck the larger of the two guns in the employee’s mouth and threatened to kill him. Sideri and Guevara then allowed the victim to leave the store. The victim called the police and his girlfriend and went to the hospital for treatment of his injuries. Sideri was arrested at his home. A warrant has been issued for Guevara’s arrest. Sideri has been charged in the Lowell Distict Court with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, threatening to commit the crime of murder, larceny of a motor vehicle and kidnapping.

Read Article: Pizza Restaurant Owner Charged With Kidnapping, A & B Dangerous Weapon

In the context of this case the most serious charges are the kidnapping and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Kidnapping is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 26. The maximum sentence after conviction is ten years in state prison unless a firearm was used in the commission of the offense or serious bodily injury resulted. Since no firearm was recovered it is impossible to prove the enhancement provision of this statute. Serious bodily injury is defined as “bodily injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ or substantial risk of death.” It does not appear that that provision is implicated in this case either. Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A. This too is punishable by up to ten years in state prison unless aggravating circumstances accompany the act. That is not the case here.

Continue Reading

| by

In Commonwealth v.Gomes the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a probationary condition requiring that the defendant submit to random testing relative to the use of drugs and alcohol was improper. On appeal, the defendant challenged the probationary condition that he submit to random drug and alcohol testing. He did not challenge the condition that he abstain from alcohol and drugs. The defendant was on probation as part of a sentence stemming from convictions for various firearm offenses. Although the defendant was under twenty-one years old at the time of his conviction, there was no indication that he had ever used drugs or alcohol and he had no criminal history that related to illegal drug or alcohol use. Furthermore, the use of drugs or alcohol were not implicated in the offense.

Massachusetts General Laws c. 276, § 87 permits a trial court to “place on probation … any person before it charged with an offense or a crime for such time and upon such conditions as it deems proper …” The primary goals of probation are rehabilitation of the probationer and protection of the public. Massachusetts Courts have recognized that the goals of probation are best served if the conditions of probation are tailored to address the particular characteristics of the defendant and the crime.

Relative to the requirement that an individual submit to random drug and alcohol testing, Massachusetts Courts recognize that random drug and alcohol testing constitutes a search and seizure for constitutional purposes under Article Fourteen of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Accordingly, the condition must be reasonably related to legitimate probationary goals in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny. In this case, the court found that an impermissible probationary condition was similar to an illegal sentence. Unless the Commonwealth can demonstrate that random testing was reasonably related to recognized probationary goals for this particular defendant, the impermissible probationary condition will be struck.

In local Massachusetts District Courts such as Newburyport, Peabody, Lowell and Lawrence many defendants do not go to jail as a result of the conviction. Often a defendant finds himself facing prison because he had violated a term of probation and the probation officer moves to surrender him. One possible outcome of this type of hearing is that the individual’s probation is terminated and a committed sentence is imposed. It is imperative that you have an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney representing you during a sentencing hearing to ensure that any imposed conditions are reasonably related to the conviction. This will often avoid a surrender hearing ftriggered from impractical and often unconstitutional conditions of probation.

Continue Reading

| by

Amesbury, Massachusetts police had their work cut out for them early Saturday morning when they stopped a 2002 Pontiac sedan operating erratically on Route 110. When Officer David Noyes activated his lights the car’s four occupants started behaving strangely. When he contacted the driver he noticed the smell of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle. Noyes quickly learned that the driver had a warrant out of the Newburyport District Court for an OUI conviction and that he was operating on a revoked driver’s license. The passengers had become unruly and Noyes called for assistance. The responding officers patted down the passengers and conducted a search of the car. During the search the police located a loaded semi-automatic firearm. A small bag of cocaine was found on one of the passengers and two additional bags were located in the car. All four had criminal records including cocaine distribution, larceny of a motor vehicle, robbery and possession of a dangerous weapon. Three of the subjects had pending criminal cases in other courts.

As a result of this incident several charges were filed in the Newburyport District Court including carrying a firearm, possession of ammunition, possession of cocaine, OUI second offense, driving with a revoked license, open container violation and minor in possession of alcohol. Bail for each was set at $25,000 pending arraignment.

Read Article: Boston Men Charged With Drug, Gun Violations, OUI Second After Routine Traffic Stop

Of all the charges these guys are facing the most serious is the gun possession charge. In Massachusetts possession of a firearm is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter Section 10. The law states that anyone who carries a firearm without being properly licensed to do so is guilty of a felony. There is a mandatory minimum eighteen month sentence that you must serve if you are convicted of this crime. The firearm charges in this case might be very difficult for the prosecution to prove. All four defendants are charged with possessing the gun. This is because the police were unable to determine who actually possessed the weapon. While there can be a joint venture theory used by the prosecution to attribute possession to all defendants the likelihood of getting convictions of this basis is slim.

Recently in Essex County the district attorney’s office has been fingerprinting firearms in cases such as this. If the prints match up to one of the occupants in the car a conviction against that person becomes more likely. Essex County has a gun court now held in Peabody. This might be where this case is ultimately prosecuted.

Continue Reading

| by

Brian Sewall is 58 years old and in 1992 he was convicted of sexually assaulting two boys. He was living on Main Street in Peabody, Massachusetts in September. Peabody and Salem police learned of his whereabouts in September and began looking for him after hearing that he was frequently observed in the company of a fifteen year old boy. Authorities found him on leaning into a car in what reports suggest was some sort of drug related activity. He was arrested for illegal possession of narcotics. When police learned that he had not registered as a sex offender he was charged with that crime too. The defendant was sentenced to six months in the house of correction for the sex offender violation. He has an outstanding warrant in New Hampshire for the same offense. Sewall has been charged with this crime at least four other times in Massachusetts. Other criminal convictions for the defendant include larceny, fraud, DUI and more.

Read Article: Peabody Sex Offender Sentenced In Salem Superior Court

The crime of failing to register as a sex offender in Massachusetts is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 6 Section 178H. The law states that anyone who fails to register after having been convicted of particular designated sex offenses is guilty of a crime. For a first offense the law requires a minimum six month jail sentence. For second and subsequent offenders the punishment is a minimum five years in prison.

Continue Reading

| by

In a 4-2 decision the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court judge’s decision to suppress a search made pursuant to a warrant. As a backdrop, the defendant in this case filed a motion to suppress cocaine, marijuana and drug related paraphernalia seized in his home during the execution of a search warrant. The search warrant was issued in reliance on a police officer’s affidavit. The affidavit stated:

1. That an informant told the officer that he had been buying cocaine from the defendant. The informant provided the defendant’s address. Police corroborated that this was the defendant’s address.
2. The informant told the officer that in order to buy drugs from the defendant he would call the defendant and arrange a location and time for the deal.
3. Using this information the officer set up a controlled buy. Surveillance watched the defendant leave his home and meet the informant at the predetermined location. Undercover officers witnessed the transaction.
4. The officer concluded that in his experience the defendant’s manner of operation was consistent with drug dealers’ tactics designed to evade law enforcement by changing times and delivery locations and that in these situations the drug dealers use their homes to store the narcotics.

Three days later the officer applied for and obtained the search warrant.

Citing earlier cases, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that when the target location of a search warrant “is a residence, there must be specific information in the affidavit, and reasonable inferences a magistrate may draw, to provide ‘a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s drug-selling activity and his residence to establish probable cause to search the residence.'” The Court continued that “Information establishing that a person is guilty of a crime does not necessarily constitute probable cause to search the person’s residence.” On these facts the Court concluded that there was no “particularized information based on police surveillance or otherwise, that would permit a reasonable inference that the defendant likely kept a supply of drugs in his apartment.” One single observation of the defendant driving from his home to the location of the drug deal was insufficient to establish probable cause in this case.

See Commonwealth v. Pina, Slip Opinion, SJC-10240 March 19, 2009.

A large majority of drug cases handled by criminal defense lawyers involve search and seizure issues. Motions to suppress can result in judges excluding evidence unlawfully seized by law enforcement officials. The result is often a dismissal of all charges in that the district attorney is unable to go forward without the items seized.

Continue Reading

| by

Stephanie Lighten and Jennifer Lighten are married. They live in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Last Tuesday in the late afternoon police responded to a call at the couple’s home. Jennifer Lighten told police that her wife Stephanie tried to forcibly inseminate her with a turkey baster and her brother’s semen. According to reports Stephanie threw Jennifer on the couch, grabbed at her clothing and threatened to impregnate her. Jennifer broke free and sought shelter in a bathroom. Stephanie broke down the bathroom door. Jennifer the fled the home followed by Stephanie. Witnesses saw the incident continue down the street. Domestic violence related charges have been brought against Stephanie. Right now charges of assault with the intent to commit rape have issued. Police seized the container of semen. The defendant was released on her own recognizance. a “refrain from abuse” order has issued as well. \
Read Article: Domestic Violence Charges For Woman Who Tried To Inseminate Wife

The Massachusetts Abuse and Prevention Act is codified under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A. The act defines abuse as causing harm, attempting to cause harm, threatening to cause harm or forcing someone into sexual relations. The act applies to family or household members; people who are related to one another by blood or marriage, or who reside together, or who have been in a substantive dating relationship. Acts of violence against people falling within this definition are commonly categorized as domestic violence. The underlying act can be a criminal act such as an assault and battery, with or without a dangerous weapon, rape, murder and more. This statute sets out the criteria for obtaining restraining orders in Massachusetts as well.

Here, the article is unclear as to what charges were brought against the defendant. Most likely she was charged with assault and battery. The maximum sentence for a conviction of this crime is 2 1/2 years in jail.

Continue Reading