The following story was reported by the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on November 11, 2008:
‘A city man faces criminal charges in Lynn after he allegedly
impersonated a police officer claiming to be conducting a fundraiser
Earlier today, a jury in the Peabody District Court acquitted one of our clients of a second offense drunk driving charge. The case was tried by Attorney Stephen Neyman, an experienced Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyer. The facts of the case as reported by the arresting police officer are as follows:
On Sunday, March 16, 2008 shortly after 1:00 a.m. a Peabody Police Officer was
on patrol on Andover Street when he observed a pick-up truck being
Earlier today, a jury in the Peabody District Court acquitted one of our clients of a second offense drunk driving charge. The case was tried by Attorney Stephen Neyman, an experienced Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyer. The facts of the case as reported by the arresting police officer are as follows:
On Sunday, March 16, 2008 shortly after 1:00 a.m. a Peabody Police Officer was
on patrol on Andover Street when he observed a pick-up truck being
The Malden Observer, through Wicked Local Malden reported
that on Monday, October 20, 2008 seven people were arrested and charged
with having committed crimes. Omitting the names of the defendants,
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 Section 33E permits
the Supreme Judicial Court to “(a) order a new trial or (b) direct the
entry of a verdict of a lesser degree of guilt, and remand the case to
The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office released
a statement stating that a 38 year old Allston man is being held
without bail pending his arraignment tomorrow in the Suffolk Superior
The Metrowest Daily News reported
Tuesday that a twenty one year old Marlborough man was arrested Sunday
and charged with beating a pregnant woman. The man was charged with
The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported on Saturday that an Andover couple was arrested during their morning jog yesterday on charges of criminal harassment, conspiracy, identity fraud, and filing a frivolous report of child abuse. It is alleged that the defendants, William and Gail Johnson, made fabricated reports to the state Department of Social Services and phony online advertisements containing personal information used to target James Lyons Jr., a resident of 12 High Vale Lane and a neighbor of the Johnsons. The prosecution contends that the motive for the crimes was an existing land dispute between the defendants and Lyons, their neighbor. Nominal bails were set in this case. $2,000 for William Johnson and $1,000 for Gail Johnson. A third defendant, Gerald Colton of Lowell was arraigned in June on related charges. The charges stem from the following facts. In March of 2008 Lyons contacted Andover police after postings on the Web site Craigslist.org listed his name, address and phone numbers. The initial posting, an advertisement for the sale of nine used golf carts, attracted potential buyers to Lyons’ home. After the posting was taken off the Web site, it appeared again the next day, along with a new post advertising the sale of a 1973 Harley-Davidson motorcycle for $300. The posting claimed the motorcycle belonged to Lyons’ “late son,” a statement Lyons believed was a threat directed at one of his two sons, ages 13 and 14. Emails referencing the golf cart and motorcycle sales were were linked to Colton’s computer which was seized after his arrest. Also on his computer was personal information pertaining to Lyons and his family. In March, Lyons reported to police that someone had attempted to open up bank accounts using his personal information. He also reported that someone had signed him up as a member of the Florida-based American Association for Nude Recreation. Also in March 2008, social service workers appeared at Lyons home to speak with his 14 year old son regarding fabricated criminal sexual assault allegations. Additional fabricated allegations directed to Lyons were also reported to the Department of Social Services. The harassment continued into April of 2008. Then, Lyons received a letter from BioGift Anatomical Inc. stating that he had already expressed his interest in “donating his body for medical science when he passes away,” a statement Lyons considered a “direct threat on his life”. Also in April, false allegations regarding Lyons’ businesses prompted a visit from the board of health. Again in April 2008 Lyons was sent a letter implicating him in a past case of molestation by a fictionalized former employee. Read entire article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, October 18, 2008.
Harassment in Massachusetts is a criminal act in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43A. The statute states in part that “[w]hoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Such conduct or acts described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications or facsimile communications.” The harassment statute tracks the stalking statute, except that the stalking statute contains the additional element of making a threat to induce fear of death or bodily injury. Here, the prosecution contends that reference to one of the victim’s “late” sons’ was a threat to one of the sons where both were in fact alive. The threat to Lyons himself stemmed from the letter concerning him donating his body to science.
Our office has handled stalking and harassment cases successfully for years. Typically these cases are prosecuted in the district courts in Massachusetts. In cases where someone who has already been convicted of this crime is found guilty again a state prison sentence is permitted. Making sure you have an experienced Massachusetts harassment defense lawyer is important. Call our office to discuss your case now.
On April 24, 2008, while on patrol in the area of Route 95 southbound a State Trooper saw a gray Mercedes-Benz, traveling approximately five feet from the car in front of it. The Trooper’s “attention was drawn” to the “very short distance” between the cars. According to the police report, “as the Mercedes traveled along in the left lane it drew closer and closer to the Ford. The Ford pulled into the middle lane and the Mercedes travel past it. The Mercedes was subsequently stopped.” The Trooper requested the operator’s license and registration. The operator produced his passport and informed the Trooper that he did not have his license in his possession. At that time, the Trooper asked the defendant to step to the rear of the Mercedes. According to the police report, the defendant stated that another police department took his license when he was arrested the previous week. The Trooper then asked the defendant what he was arrested for and he allegedly stated that he was arrested “for distribution of Oxy.”
According to the report, when the defendant was “at the rear of the vehicle,” the Trooper “pat-frisked” the defendant. During this procedure, the Trooper felt what he believed was a “round vile” in the defendant’s right front pocket. The Trooper asked the defendant what he was feeling and the defendant allegedly stated, “It’s a bottle of Oxy and Suboxone in it.” The Trooper retrieved the glass vile from the defendant’s pocket and claimed to visually confirm that the tablets were Oxycontin. During the search of the Mercedes the Trooper located a silver screen/grater with “white powder residue” along its edges. The Trooper asked the defendant what the metal screen was and he allegedly responded that it “was a screen . . use[d] to shave Oxy into powder . . . to snort.”
The Commonwealth often questions a suspect and acquires inculpatory statements that are used against him or her at trial. A defendant’s statement can be the most compelling evidence used by the Government to secure a guilty verdict. In any case where the police have secured a statement of the defendant, a motion to suppress the statement MUST be filed. It is well established that in order for a defendant’s statement to be introduced at trial the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the statement was given freely, voluntarily and intelligently. Before the police question a suspect they must inform him of rights commonly referred to as the “Miranda Warnings.” These warnings include that a suspect be told of his or her right to remain silent, that anything that is said can be used against him or her and the right to an attorney and if he or she cannot afford one the state will appoint one.
The Waltham Daily News Tribune reported that a man charged with torturing and holding his estranged wife hostage will be released after posting $1,500 bail. According to the article, the defendant appeared in Waltham District Court today for a dangerousness hearing before Judge Gregory Flynn. After the hearing Judge Flynn stated that there was not enough “clearly convincing” evidence presented by Assistant District Attorney to warrant holding the man. Apparently the wife told police she went to the defendant’s home Sunday to ask for a divorce. The two argued and the defendant beat and kicked her. The defendant also grabbed a semi-automatic handgun from beneath a pillow and struck his wife in the head and threatened to kill her. The alleged abuse continued into the next day. The wife fled the house when the defendant went to the bathroom and flagged down a car for help. The driver then drove her to New Bedford. Waltham police detectives obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home and were unable to find the gun. The victim never appeared in court and told the investigating police officers that she suffered from mental health issues. The defendant has been charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, four counts of assault and battery, intimidation of a witness, kidnapping and threats to commit a crime. Read entire article, Friday, October 17, 2008.
Dangerousness hearings in Massachusetts are also known as 58A hearings. These hearings are governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58A. The relevant law reads “[t]he Commonwealth may move, based on dangerousness, for an order of pretrial detention or release on conditions for a felony offense that has as an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or any other felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result”. The standard judges must use is “clear and convincing evidence”. When the prosecution moves for detention on dangerousness grounds the judge must hold the person until the hearing is held. The prosecution is permitted 3 days to prepare for the hearing. These hearings are often used by prosecutors in Massachusetts in domestic violence cases such as this one.
The defense lawyer representing the defendant in this case was Arthur Kelly. Attorney Kelly is considered one of the best criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts. He has tried countless cases including some very high profile murder cases. Getting the defendant in this case a reasonable bail exemplifies his expertise and success.
Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
