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

| by

James Routenberg of Westford, Massachusetts has been charged with motor vehicle homicide stemming from an incident that occurred on February 26, 2009.  According to reports, Routenberg lost control of an SUV he was driving on Worcester Road when he struck a tree.  His passenger, a 36 year old man from Maynard was killed in the crash.  Police stated that the defendant’s blood alcohol was a .20, two and one half times the legal limit.  In addition to motor vehicle homicide Routenberg is being charged with negligent operation.

Read Article:  Massachusetts Firefighter Charged With Motor Vehicle Homicide
 
Motor vehicle homicide in Massachusetts can be either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on how it is charged.  The article quoted above states that the defendant in this case faces up to fifteen years on state prison.  If the article is accurate this is considered a felony.  The Massachusetts statute making this act a crime is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24G.  The felony aspect of the law has a mandatory minimum one year jail sentence. 
 
If the blood alcohol reading is accurate this case might be difficult to try.  There are ways to suppress blood alcohol results and have them excluded at trial.  Typically this occurs when a blood sample it taken from the defendant without his consent and without the appropriate legal authority.  Hospitals often take blood from drunk driving suspects when they have been injured and need medical care.  There are times however where this is unnecessary and suppression of the results is required. 

Continue Reading

| by

A two count felony complaint issued charging rhythm and blues singer Chris Brown with assault and criminal threats on a person referred to as “Robyn F.” “Robyn F.” is believed to be fellow singer and girlfriend Rihanna. According to news reports, Brown briefly appeared in a Los Angeles Court House and the arraignment was postponed until April 6, 2009. It has been reported that an affidavit has been filed indicating that Brown repeatedly puncehd “Robyn F.” and that during the altercation her mouth filled up with blood that spilled over into the car. Many sources reported that the physical altercation took place after Rihanna read a text message from a former girlfriend on Brown’s phone. Although Rihanna was not in court it was reported that she did not want a restraining order to issue that would prevent Brown from contacting her.

As a result of the incident Rihanna apparently received serious injuries including bruises to her face. Rumors have been circulating that the couple may have recently become married. In Massachusetts one spouse cannot be forced to testfiy against another spouse. This is commonly referred to as the marital privilege. The privilege belongs to the witness and not the defendant. Therefore, if the victim wants to testify he or she can waive the privilege and the Commonwealth can call him or her to testify at trial. Furthermore, even if a witness invokes the marital privilege if there is other evidence that the state can present during a trial the case can still go forward.

In Massachusetts, cases involving domestic violence often are prosecuted without the cooperation of the alleged victim. The prosecution may collect evidence from other sources. For example, if a search warrant was executed, evidence [such as bloody clothing or in some cases weapon(s)] may have been collected to support the government’s case. Also, the 911 tape may provide some evidence that the prosecution can use.

In Massachusetts, the use of the information on the 911 tape is not always admissible because the defendant has a right to confront witnesses. However, in certain situations the Massachusetts Courts have held that the state can use the tape. If you are facing criminal charges and the prosecution is attempting to use a 911 tape it is imperative that you contact an experience Massachusetts defense attorney to move to have the tape excluded from evidence. The exclusion of this evidence often destroys the Commonwealth’s case and results in an acquittal or a dismissal.

Continue Reading

| by

After a two month investigation law enforcement officials in Norfolk County Massachusetts seized 340 pounds of marijuana at homes in Quincy and Canton.  In all three men were arrested and charged with trafficking marijuana.  The men have been identified as Tuan Ngoc Pham of Quincy; Jeffrey Falcone of Boston; and Alexandros Kostopoulos of Abington.  In addition to the drugs authorities seized $355,000 in cash.  The street value of the drugs are estimated at more than $1,000,000.  Bail was set on all men at the arraignment.

Read Article:  Massachusetts Men Arrested In Drug Raid

Certain thoughts come to mind when reading this article.  It is highly likely that the searches of the homes were conducted pursuant to search warrants.  This typically implicates confidential informants or controlled buys or both.  The validity of the search warrant might be challenged.  If successful the fruits of the search, in this case the drugs get suppressed meaning that they cannot be introduced in court.  Often times this terminates the prosecution.  If the search is found to be lawful there are other defenses that might apply to one or more of the defendants.  These are predicated on what the investigation disclosed prior to the search, what happened at the time of the search and whether or not the defendants spoke to the authorities after they were arrested.

If convicted, the defendants in this case face a minimum mandatory 3 year state prison sentence.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a fifty six year old North Andover resident Craig Bogosian was arraigned in the Lawrence District Court and charged with larceny by a single scheme of over one million dollars. It is alleged that Bogosian accepted millions from a friend and business associate, also from North Andover, under the guise of expanding his business which sold promotional items to companies that printed the company’s name or logo on shirts, hats and pens. The North Andover Police Department believes that Bogosian’s former friend is out $1.3 million and the police do not know what Bogosian did with the money. According to the Tribune, the funds wired to Bogosian from his former associates company were to be used to finance an expansion of Bogosian’s company. The transferred funds were never used for the business and Bogosian landed himself in the Lawrence District Court answering to these charges.

A person convicted of the felony charge of larceny by scheme faces up to five years in state prison or two years in jail. In Massachusetts, larceny is defined as the unlawful stealing of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the person of the property permanently. See, M.G.L.A. 266 § 30. Conviction of larceny by false pretenses requires proof that: (1) the defendant knowingly made a false statement of fact; (2) defendant intended that the person to whom the false statement was made would rely on its truth, (3) such person did rely upon the false statement, and (4) person parted with personal property based upon such reliance. Here the government is alleging that Bogosian improperly told his colleague that monies he provided would be used for business purposes and the colleague relied on this representation and provided the cash. However, it is alleged that the funds were not used for the proper purpose and the victim is out over one million dollars. What Bogosian did with the monies apparently remains a mystery. Bogosian is currently scheduled to return to court on April 10, 2009.

Continue Reading

| by

In February 2008 31 year old Elias Efremidis was arrested and charged with trafficking cocaine after police found 2 kilos of cocaine in his hotel room.  Also found in the room was $4,000, an electronic scale, a beeper and individual packages for the cocaine.  The defendant posted $25,000 bail and fled, defaulting on his pending case.  Recently, the Massachusetts man was found in Virginia where he was arrested on unrelated charges.  He is now 52 years old and he will be brought back to Massachusetts where he will have to defend against the 1988 cocaine charges as well as a charge of failing to appear after release on bail.  Efremidis is charged with trafficking over 200 grams of cocaine. 

Read Article:  Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defendant Apprehended In Virginia

Drug trafficking is the most serious drug charge you can face in Massachusetts.  To prove someone guilty of cocaine trafficking the prosecution must show that the defendant possessed an illegal substance, in this case cocaine, that the person had the intent to distribute the cocaine and that the amount of cocaine exceeded a certain threshold.  In this case the defendant was charged with trafficking more than 200 grams of cocaine.  This is the most serious cocaine charge in Massachusetts.  There is a mandatory minimum 15 year state prison sentence that must be imposed on anyone who is convicted of this crime.  Sometimes in old cases such as this the drugs have inadvertently been lost or destroyed.  If that is the case the defendant might have a chance at defending against these charges. 

Continue Reading

| by

Dung Van Tran, 38 from Boston was convicted by a Suffolk County jury yesterday of arson, home invasion, assault with intent to murder and aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The prosecution alleged that as a result of an abusive relationship the defendant’s wife left the marital home in October of 2006.  She rented an apartment for herself and the couple’s infant daughter.  The day of the incident Tran entered the apartment bringing with him a gasoline can and a lighter.  While inside he doused the 14 month old girl, himself and a live-in babysitter with gasoline.  The defendant then set himself and the other on fire.  All were injured.  The young child was burned over thirty percent of her body requiring several surgical procedures.  After a five day trial Tran was convicted.  Sentencing is scheduled for March 11th. 

Read Article:  Jury Convicts Man Who Burned Baby, Caretaker, Self

All of the charges Tran was convicted of are serious felonies.  Perhaps the most serious in this case is the home invasion.  Home invasion in Massachusetts is a felony in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18C.  This law states that anyone who enters someone else’s home knowing that someone is present and does so while armed with a dangerous weapon, and uses force or threatens the use of force on someone in the home is guilty of home invasion.  A conviction of this crime carries a minimum twenty year sentence. 

Continue Reading

| by

From December 2007 through May 2008 several banks were robbed in the towns of Natick, Newton, Watertown, Quincy, Belmont, Boston and Arlington.  Each time the robber wore a disguise and passed a note demanding 50’s and 100’s.  In that six month period the robber stole more than $48,000.00.  Law enforcement got a break in these cases when they received an anonymous note that Christopher Politis might be their man.  Following up on the tip the FBI placed a GPS device on Politis’ car.  That led them to a bank robbery at the Village Bank in Newton.  Politis’ accomplice during the last bank robbery was Donald Gillis who was also charged and convicted.  Both men pleaded guilty in federal court and face up to twenty years in federal prison.  In total, Politis pleaded guilty for his role in fourteen bank robberies. 

Read Article:  Two Plead Guilty To Bank Robbery In Boston Federal Court

Politis was most likely charged with violating 18 United States Code Section 2113(a).  This law states that anyone who forcibly or violently or by intimidation steals from a bank, credit union or any savings and loan faces up to 20 years in federal prison, or a fine or both.  Going into banks disguised and making demands for money satisfies the elements of this offense.  As with most cases in federal court the facts in this case were overwhelmingly favorable to the prosecution.  In cases such as this plea bargaining is the best way to minimize the defendants’ sentence, particularly where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines assign credit to anyone who accepts responsibility for his actions. 

Continue Reading

| by

In July of 2007 a Quincy Police officer saw William McKinley “acting affectionately” with a teenager in the lobby of a hotel.  After an investigation the officer learned that the subject had been “red flagged” by a federal agency for possible sex crimes involving a minor.  Subsequently McKinley’s hotel room was raided.  A laptop containing pictures of child pornographic material was found on its hard drive.  Also in the room was the teenager who the officer observed earlier, later identified as a sixteen year old boy.  The boy told the police that McKinley gave him a drink, showed him pictures of naked boys and that the two had sex.  No charges were brought against McKinley for having sex with the boy but he was charged with possession of child pornography and distributing obscene material to a minor.  He was sentenced to three years in state prison.  McKinley has already served time for cocaine charges and indecent assault on a child. 

Read Article:  Massachusetts Man Convicted of Violating Child Pornography Laws

It is likely that the child pornography statute under which McKinley was prosecuted is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29C.  That law makes it a crime to possess child pornography and permits a sentence of up to 5 years in prison for the first offense.  There is a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years on second offenses.   

Continue Reading

| by

As I am sure most people involved in the criminal justice system are aware the legislature recently changed the law relative to an individual charged with possession of marijuana that is one ounce or less. Possession of an ounce or less of marijuana had been decriminalized. The new section changes possession of an ounce or less of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil infraction. For adults, this offense is now punishable by a $100.00 fine and forfeiture of the substance. Under the new law, an individual found to be in possession of marijuana simply receives a citation.

Experienced and successful defense attorneys must strongly argue that an odor of marijuana, whether burnt or fresh, does not provide probable cause for the police to search an individual, a car or a home. An experienced attorney would file a motion to suppress any marijuana and related evidence i.e., a scale, baggies and money, that the police confiscated at a result of search a person, car or home because of an odor of marijuana. Although prior to the decriminalization of marijuana, in certain situations the Courts held that the odor of fresh marijuana provided reasonable suspicion to search, that rule does not comport with the proposition that marijuana citations should function like traffic citations. See Commonwealth v. Garden, 451 Mass. 43 (2008).

If you have been arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, trafficking marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in a school zone and/or distribution of marijuana and the search was based on an odor of fresh or burnt marijuana, an experienced Massachustts defense attorney must file a motion to suppress evidence. A reasonable line of argument is that similar to the fact that evidence of a traffic violation provides a basis to issue a civil citation not to search, even if the court believes that a police officer possessed the training and experience to smell marijuana, that would not provide a basis to search a car, a person or a home. Clearly, an amount of marijuana cannot be determined based on a smell of the substance. Therefore, an odor of marijuana is more likely to be indicative of a non-criminal infraction of possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. Accordingly, the police must not be permitted to presume a criminal offense based simply on an odor of marihuana. The smell of fresh or burnt marihuana, without more, does not suggest that a person is committing or about to commit a crime and does not provide probable cause to search under the new law.

| by

Somerville, Massachusetts police were investigating prostitution in their city and set up a sting operation.  An undercover officer responded to an advertisement and met with 24 year old Natasha Janvier, a prostitute, in her Somerville apartment.  Services and fees were discussed after which backup officers stormed the apartment to make their arrest.  In the process of doing so they smelled marijuana in an adjacent room.  Upon entering the room they located Michael Martinez, 27 from Boston and two juveniles.  While identifying Martinez the officers found six individually package bags of cocaine in his wallet.  Janvier was charged with sexual conduct for a fee.  Martinez has been charged with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and a school zone violation. 

Read Article:  Boston Drug Dealer, Somerville Prostitute Arrested

Engaging in sexual conduct for a fee in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53 states that anyone who offers to engage in sexual conduct for a fee or anyone who pays another to engage in sexual conduct with him or her is guilty of this crime.  There is a maximum sentence of 1 year in jail for a conviction of this offense. 

If the reports in this case are correct then Janvier’s actions constitute a violation of this law.  She established prices of $130 for 30 minutes and $175 for a full hour of her sexual services.  She also had a list of dos and don’ts for having sex with her.  The extent of her sentence will likely be predicated on her criminal history.

Continue Reading