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

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that the police arrested four Lawrence teenagers and charged them with a number of property offenses after the stolen car they were driving was located using a LoJack tracking device. After finding the stolen car, the police determined that the local youths stole the car, a license plate and a battery from another car before leaving the tow lot located at 24 Medford Street, Lawrence, MA.

According to the Tribune, after the police located the car on Smith Street, they monitored it and ultimately recovered more stolen items including a computer tower, keyboard, monitor and an amplifier that was taken from the trunk of another car. The police arrested four teenagers who were all charged with a number of offenses based on their involvement. The charges included breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, larceny of a motor vehicle, driving without a license, receiving stolen motor vehicle, malicious destruction of property, attaching improper plates, theft of the license plates and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

Continue Reading

| by

The Harvard Crimson reported today that third year Harvard Law student Charles Simpkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conducting and resisting arrest.  According to the article, on January 24, 2009 Simpkins left a bar drunk and entered a parked Boston Police cruiser.  He told the officers to give him a ride and offered that he worked for the district attorney’s office.  Apparently the defendant was an intern at the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office, working at the Dorchester District Court.  The district attorney’s office terminated Simkins’ employment shortly after the incident. 

Read Full Article at

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526274
Continue Reading

| by

A Beverly, Massachusetts man pleaded guilty to his 5fh drunk driving charge and will spend the next three to three and one half years in state prison.  Gary Lee was first convicted of OUI in Massachusetts back in 1975.  He picked up his second DUI in 1982 in Alaska.  Two more convictions in Massachusetts followed, one in 1985 and the other in 2004.  The plea took place in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts. 

This case resulted from an incident in June of 2008.  Beverly Police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle crash where they found the defendant being treated by ambulance personnel.  The medical attendants detected alcohol on the man’s breath and alerted the police.  Once it was clear that the man had no injuries the police conducted field sobriety tests which the defendant failed.  A breathalyzer test was administered.  The defendant blew a .24, three times the legal limit. 

Massachusetts OUI laws require someone convicted of a 5th offense drunk driving charge to serve at least 2 years in jail.  There is also a fine of at least $2,000 associated with a conviction as well a lifetime loss of license.  The case can be prosecuted in either the district court or the superior court.  In this case the Essex County District Attorney’s Office chose to prosecute the defendant in the Superior Court.  Massachusetts District Courts can sentence to no more than 2 1/2 years in a county house of correction.  Judges in Massachusetts Superior Courts can sentence people to state prison.  The maximum sentence for a 5th offense OUI in Massachusetts is 5 years in prison.

Continue Reading

| by

Assistant United States Attorney Suzanne Sullivan’s reputation took a severe blow last week when Jonathan Saltzman from the Boston Globe reported that Chief District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf threatened sanctions for Sullivan’s failure to provide exculpatory evidence to defense counsel.  According to the article, the veteran prosecutor failed to disclose that a Boston Police officer offered testimony in court that was contradicted by what he told Sullivan beforehand.  In a lengthy memorandum Wolf wrote that “The court assumes that her failure to disclose material, exculpatory information was not intentional, in part because Sullivan produced her notes for the court’s in camera inspection,” Wolf wrote. “Nevertheless, the violations were clear and inexcusable. If the error by an experienced prosecutor was inadvertent, it seems only to be explained by ignorance of, or utter indifference to, the constitutional duty she repeatedly claimed to have understood and obeyed.”  In another part of the memorandum Sullivan’s actions were referred to as an “egregious failure” to disclose materially exculpatory evidence. 

This notwithstanding, the arrest and evidence obtained against the defendant was found to be made in a constitutional manner.  The defendant is charged with firearms related activity. 

Read Entire Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/27/judge_chastises_federal_attorney/?page=full

About two to three years ago I had a case against Suzanne Sullivan.  At that time she was an assistant district attorney in the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office.  The case involved multiple counts of sexual abuse of several children.  I was the second defense lawyer on the case.  Ms. Sullivan had inherited the case from another prosecutor who had just left the district attorney’s office to join the United States Attorney’s Office.  I personally found Ms. Sullivan to be extremely professional.  She promptly provided me with all discovery materials.  She even went so far as to invite me down to her office to view her file.  I accepted her invitation.  She gave me a couple of large boxes full of police reports, grand jury minutes, witness statements, exhibits and more.  She even left her notes of interviews with witnesses in the box for me to review and photocopy.  I was permitted to view this material in a private room, unsupervised.  Ms. Sullivan gave me access to a copy machine and made sure that I was able to obtain copies of all materials I wanted.  We later tried the case.  Suzanne Sullivan’s hospitality and professional congeniality continued in the same manner.  She never personalized the case, prosecuted with a passion and conducted herself in a dignified manner.  That case was and remains my only contact with this prosecutor.  Her ethics and professionalism are, in my opinion unparalleled.   

The rule in federal courts is similar to that In Massachusetts state courts as they relate to prosecutorial misconduct.  Dismissal with prejudice “is a draconian sanction that must be reserved for cases manifesting egregious prosecutorial misconduct or a serious threat of prejudice to the defendant.”  Even dismissals without prejudice are rare and not used absent “some demonstrable prejudice to the defendant.”  Our courts prefer alternative sanctions such as a fine or a report to the Board of Bar Overseers.  On appeal there are times when prosecutorial misconduct results in a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. 

Continue Reading

| by

This past Saturday, armed with a search warrant Quincy police officers went to search the third floor apartment at 40 Bradford Street in Quincy.  One of the defendants, Alexander Fainer pulled up in his car just as the search was about to commence.  He gave the officers the key to the apartment and when they entered the other occupant, Deidre Reilly came to the door with a dog.  Rather than securing the dog Reilly let it go and one of the officers was attacked sustaining injuries requiring stitches.  During the search officers located about 42 grams of heroin, 9 ounces of cocaine, some pills and counterfeit money.  The defendants are being charged with trafficking in heroin, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of Suboxone and possession of counterfeit currency.  The defendants were arraigned in the Quincy District Court.  The case will likely be indicted by a grand jury to the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham. 

Read Entire Article, http://www.patriotledger.com/

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x941718544/Detective-bitten-searching-Quincy-apartment-for-drugs

The heroin trafficking charges carry a minimum mandatory 7 year state prison sentence.  If there was a school zone within 1,000 feet of the apartment there is an additional 2 year mandatory prison sentence that must be added on to these charges.  Possession with the intent to distribute cocaine carries no minimum sentence.  Probation can be imposed or in some circumstances with a good lawyer you might be able to get that charged continued without a finding.  That is unlikely here in that other substances of a large quantity were involved. 

The search warrant and subsequent seizure of drugs always requires scrutiny to see if certain constitutional requirements were met.  Lawyers will file motions to suppress searches if they believe that the warrant never should have issued or if there is some evidence that the police lied to the judge or magistrate who issued the warrant.  In this case it would be interesting to see who was the target of the warrant, Fainer, Reilly or both.  Another issue that might arise is whose drugs were these.  Did they belong to one occupant or both.  Motions to dismiss are often successful in situations where someone was merely present at the scene but had no involvement in the drug crime. 

Continue Reading

| by

On New Years’ Eve a Framingham woman contacted the police to report that her former boyfriend, Josue Gonzalez telephonically threatened her and her and her three children.  Specifically, he told her that if she did not give him money he would burn her house down.  A restraining order was in existence at that time.  A police officer told Gonzalez to stop calling. Gonzalez ignored the request and the victim again sought out police assistance.  Police again tried to intercede to no avail.  Four days later Gonzalez called the police to report that the victim was neglecting her children and asked that the children be taken away and placed into state custody.  Gonzalez added that one of the children was being raped.  Officers investigated the complaint and found no evidence of neglect and made Gonzalez aware of their findings.  Gonzalez then threatened to blow up the Framingham Police station.  Police then obtained a warrant for Gonzalez’s arrest.  He was located and apprehended last week. 

Gonzalez was charged with stalking, threatening to commit a crime, making annoying phone calls, violating a restraining order and making a false police report.  All charges are pending in the Framingham District Court.  Gonzalez is being held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing. 

Let’s take a look at some of the more serious charges; violating a restraining order and stalking.

1.  Violating a restraining order.  This is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209 Section 7.  The law specifically states that”[a]ny violation of such order or a protection order issued by another jurisdiction shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” 

2.  Stalking.  This is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43.  The Massachusetts stalking law states that anyone who willfully and maliciously engages in a pattern or series of acts directed towards someone which seriously alarms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and threatens that person with the intention of placing them in immediate fear of bodily injury or death is guilty of stalking.  There is a possible 5 year prison sentence.  If the case is handled in a Massachusetts district court the maximum sentence is 2 1/2 years in jail.  If this crimes is committed in violation of a restraining order there is a mandatory minimum 1 year jail sentence you must serve if convicted. 

Continue Reading

| by

Lawrence, Massachusetts police responded to an apartment on South Broadway Thursday night in response to a domestic assault and battery 911 call.  During the call police were able to hear the couple arguing.  When they arrived they found the defendant and his girlfriend both of whom denied making the call and any abuse.  The police told the defendant to leave the apartment.  He complied only to return later in the evening.  At 9:35 p.m. the girlfriend called 911 to report that the defendant had returned and threatened her with a knife.  When the police returned to the apartment they found the girlfriend waiting for them outside.  She reported that the defendant had returned drunk, picked up a kitchen knife, pointed it at her and threatened to cut her throat. Officers entered the apartment after which a struggle with police ensued.  The defendant was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, trespassing, disorderly conduct and threatening to commit a crime.  Charges are pending in the Lawrence District Court. 

Assuming the case remains in the district court, a likely scenario, the defendant is looking at the following:

1.  Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  This is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15A.  The law provides a district court sentence of up to 2 1/2 years in jail and a $5,000 fine.  An assault and battery is the intentional and unjustified use of force upon the person of another however slight.  It may be proved by showing the intentional commission of a wanton or reckless act.  It must be something more than gross negligence and it must cause physical or bodily injury to another.  The district attorney must prove both the assault and the battery.  Here, to prove this case the prosecutor must show that the defendant touched the knife to his girlfriend.  Many objects suffice to establish the element of dangerous weapon.  It should be no surprise that a knife is considered a dangerous weapon.

2.  Assault and battery on a police officer.  This act is prohibited by Massachusetts General  Laws Chapter 265 Section 13D.  That law states verbatim that “Whoever commits an assault and battery upon any public employee when such person is engaged in the performance of his duties at the time of such assault and battery, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ninety days nor more than two and one-half years in a house of correction or by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars.”  This crime is almost always charged in cases where police officers use force, particularly severe force in the course of an arrest or investigation.  The large majority of times that I am retained on one of these cases my client appears in my office with bruises, cuts and sometimes broken bones.  Almost always the bruises are on parts of the body that are usually covered by clothing.  The story is typically the same.  The police arrive at an alleged crime scene and conduct an investigation.  The defendant argues with them or “challenges” them by requesting a badge number, threatening to sue them or report them to their superiors.  The officers respond with unlawful and unnecessary force, many times excessive force and they arrest the person.  Now, to protect themselves they charge the individual with assault and battery on a police officer. 

Continue Reading

| by

Three Springfield, Massachusetts men were charged in Federal Court with a civil rights violation stemming from an arson purportedly committed on November 5, 2008.  Authorities stated the men poured gasoline inside and outside the church and set fire to the structure “because it was a black church”.  The act took place hours after the presidential election.  The men were detained pending a hearing and on January 21, 2009 all were released subject to specified conditions.  The fire caused an estimated two million dollars to the church. 

The investigation into this crime took just over two months to complete.  It was conducted by Massachusetts State Police, the Springfield Police, the FBI, the ATF, the United States Attorney’s office, the state fire marshal and the Hampden County District Attorney’s office.  According to reports one of the defendants boasted about having committed the crime and in doing so attributed the actions of the three to hate. Arson was not charged as one of the crimes.  It was reported that on November 9, 2008 police received information from an informant who stated that two of the perpetrators bragged about having set the fire.  In January of this year an undercover officer solicited one of the defendants to set a fire for insurance money.  In the course of discussions one of the defendants boasted about having burned down the church as well as several arsons that he supposedly committed. 

Read Full Article, Boston Globe, January 17, 2009

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/17/church_arson_tied_to_racism/

See also United States Attorney Press Release, January 16, 2009

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20Press%20Release%20Files/Jan2009/ComplaintPR.html

It appears that right now all defendants are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 241 which states that “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same” that person can be punished by up to 10 years in prison. 

For some reason not explained in the new reports the defendants were not charged with arson.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 2 makes the burning of a church a crime.  The law states in part that anyone who willfully and maliciously burns a church can be sentenced to 10 years in prison if convicted.  There is a federal arson statute that may not have had applicability to this case.  See 18 U.S.C. Section 81. 

Continue Reading

| by

A Georgetown Police Officer was charged with domestic assault and battery and intimidation of a witness in the Haverhill District Court last week.  The defendant is Garrett Barber of Groveland, Massachusetts.  Barber spent thirteen years as a reserve officer before becoming a full-time policeman one year ago.  As a condition of his release Barber has been ordered to stay away from the victim.  The Haverhill Court judge also required him to surrender all weapons and permits to carry firearms.  The defendant is on paid leave from the police department pending the disposition of the case and a Georgetown Police Department internal affairs investigation. 

Read Full Article at http://www.wickedlocal.com/georgetown/news/x743984721/Officer-arrested-on-domestic-assault-charge. 

Here is a look at the charges:

Domestic Assault and Battery.  The name itself is somewhat misleading.  The law makes it a crime to assault or assault and beat anyone.  There is a potential 2 1/2 year jail sentence if you are convicted of this crime in Massachusetts.  There is an aggravated form of this crime that gives rise to a potential 5 year prison sentence if the assault and battery 1) results in serious bodily injury, 2) is committed in a pregnant person or 3) is committed in violation of a restraining order or a “no contact” order.  Barber now has a “no contact” order imposed against him.  It is the third subsection of the aggravated form of assault and battery that is directed towards domestic violence yet the charges Barber faces have no application to this section in that prior to the incident there was no such order against him.  Regardless, it is now commonplace in Massachusetts to refer to any assault and battery on a domestic partner as “domestic” assault and battery. 

Intimidation of a Witness.  This law is virtually self-explanatory.  If you threaten, convey a gift, harass, mislead a witness in connection with a criminal matter and you are convicted of this crime you face up to 10 years in state prison.  What is not stated in the reports yet apparent is that Barber in some way threatened the victim that if she reported the incident or testified against him in any way there would be consequences. 

Continue Reading

| by

Bail in the amount of $25,000 was set for a former Boston Police Officer accused of unlawful possession of a firearm.  At 1:30 a.m. on January 4th of this year Boston Police reponded to a Dorchester bar after a 911 caller claimed to have overheard the defendant stating that he would shoot a cop.  Officers arrived to find the defendant outside the Dublin House in Dorchester.  The man, 43 year old Isaac Thornton was pat frisked at which time the police found a loaded 9 millimeter handgun.  A violent struggle followed after which Thornton was arrested.  A total of 30 rounds of ammunition were found on the defendant.  Among the charges are unlawful carrying of a gun and possession of ammunition. 

 

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1143227

 

So here is what the defendant faces if charged as reported by the article.

 

1.         

Carrying a firearm.  This is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 §10(a).  The law prohibits you from carrying a gun whether or not the gun is loaded unless you are properly licensed to do so, or you are in your residence or place of business.  A conviction for this offense carries a mandatory minimum 18 month jail sentence.   

2.         Possession of a firearm.  This is also a violation of G.L. c. 269 but under subsection 10(h).  This law is similar to 10(a) however there is no minimum mandatory jail sentence.   

3.         Possession of ammunition.  This activity is proscribed by subsection 10(h) as well.  There is a maximum sentence of 2 years and a fine of up to $500.

 

As you can see gun laws in Massachusetts are very tough.  There are however many situations where these charges might seem unfair.  For example, several years ago a jeweler came into our office after being charged with carrying a firearm.  At that time the minimum mandatory sentence was 1 years in jail.  Our client had no criminal record and lived in New Hampshire.  He legally owned a gun in accordance with New Hampshire law.  As a protective measure he carried the gun when he was transferring jewelry to and from his store.  He would keep the gun under the seat of his car while driving with his merchandise.  One night he drove into Boston to meet with some friends at a nightclub on the waterfront.  Before he valet parked his car he removed the gun from underneath the seat so that no one would access it and get hurt.  He then attempted to give the gun to a bouncer to store for him while he was at the nightclub.  The bouncer immediately called the police and the man was arrested.  Fortunately, the man came to our office.  We presented the case to the district attorney’s office with appropriate documentation supporting our defense.  We were successful in getting the mandatory 10(a) charges dismissed at the request of the prosecution. 

Continue Reading