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

| by

A fifteen year old girl was crossing Waverly Street shortly after 9:30 p.m. Wednesday August 20th when she was strike by a white Jeep Cherokee.  The vehicle stopped briefly but the operator never got out of the car.  According to Framingham Police the driver who was identified as Jose Cartagena was arrested about forty minutes later after a witness provided the police with the car’s plate number and a description of the driver.  The victim was taken to a locan hospital.  The status of her condition was not released.  When questioned by police Cartagena denied driving the car tried to blame his brother. The brother told officers that he never permitted Cartagena to drive the car.

Cartagena was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, use without authority and operating without a driver’s license.  He was arraigned in the Framingham District Court where he entered a plea of not guilty.  He was released on personal recognizance.

To find Cartagena guilty of using the car without authority the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:  1) that Cartagena used the vehicle; 2) that he did so on a public way; 3) that he lacked permission to use the vehicle; and 4) that he knew the use of the car was unauthorized.  The first two elements will be easily met by the prosecution.  That third element might present them with some problems.  It is not uncommon for siblings not to testify favorably for one another.  While Cartagena’s brother initially told the police that he did not permit the defendant to use the car his story might change; he might deny that he provided police with that information or he might tell the prosecution that while he did not give specific permission for Cartagena to use the car that night he regularly allowed him to use it.  This would give Cartagena a legitimate defense to this charge in that he had a valid belief that his use of the car was permitted.

Continue Reading

| by

A third victim in just one week has come forward to identify Peter Pearson as her assailant in a rape case dating back to 2005.  The facts follow a pattern similar to what has been alleged in the first two incidents.  Pearson pretended he was a police officer, solicited a prostitute, kidnapped her and forced her to perform oral sex acts on him.  On at least two occasions women have alleged that Pearson brandished a firearm.  Pearson flashed a badge and a large police flashlight during one of these incidents.  He told the victims that he was an undercover state trooper.  Pearson was arraigned on an initial set of charges last Tuesday and a second set yesterday.  Some of the crimes are said to have taken place as far back as five years.  Brockton police have stated that no less than ten other women have made similar accusations against Pearson.  All of the victims in these cases have worked as prostitutes in the past.  The first victim said the rape occurred in July.  The second said it happened sometime in 2003.  The third dates the acts back to 2005.  The second and third accusers came forward after seeing Pearson’s picture in the news. 

Pearson is being held without bail pending a hearing on dangerousness scheduled for tomorrow.  Dangerousness hearings in Massachusetts were established by G.L. c. 276 sec. 58A.  By law, people are held in custody pending the hearing on dangerousness.  This statute requires that a hearing be held immediately.  The defense if it elects may continue the case for up to seven days.  Typically continuances for dangerousness hearings are requested by the defense when time is needed to round up witnesses and records that will support a request for release from custody.  The prosecution is permitted to request a continuance for up to three days.   A judge cannot release a defendant pending a dangerousness hearing if the prosecution demonstrates that there was probable to arrest the defendant. 

Read Boston Globe Article August 26, 2008

Continue Reading

| by

For the second time this week Boston Deputy Fire Chief Peter Pearson was arrested for allegedly raping and kidnapping a woman while impersonating a police officer.  On Monday Pearson was arrested by Brockton Police and charged with kidnapping, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, rape and impersonating a police officer.  According to the Brockton Enterprise Pearson posed as a state trooper and ordered a prostitute into his car.  He drove her to a park and forced her to have oral sex with him.  It was also alleged that Pearson stalked the prostitute for weeks prior to committing these acts.  These allegations initially surfaced when a woman being held on suspicion of prostitution told police that she had been raped by a state trooper weeks earlier.  The victim later saw the car and was able to identify Pearson as her attacker.  He was arraigned in the Brockton District Court and released on fifty thousand dollars cash bail. 

Just yesterday, Pearson was arrested at his home in Bridgewater after another woman came forward and claimed that he committed the same crimes in Bristol County.  He is facing charges in Bristol County for aggravated rape, kidnapping for sexual intercourse, impersonating a police officer and assault with a dangerous weapon.  If convicted Pearson faces a possible sentence of life in prison. 

Pearson was arrested in 1996 for soliciting a prostitute and his case was continued without a finding in the Brockton District Court. 

Continue Reading

| by

Salem Massachusetts Police reported that a concerned citizen’s call prompted the arrest of a Salem man on drunk driving charges.  Apparently the caller followed the driver for several miles and stayed with the car until police were able to catch up to the parties.  The witness related that the driver had run over a traffic island, gone through a stop sign and driven the wrong way down a one way street.  The witness detailed the driver’s route in great detail.  When the police stopped the suspect he admitted to drinking too much and stated that he just wanted to go to bed.  He refused a breath test and refused to take field sobriety tests.  The man was charged with drunk driving in the Salem District Court. 

Read Full Artricle, Salem Daily News August 23, 2008.

Drunk driving in Massachusetts is governed by G.L. c. 90 sec. 24 and G.L. c. 90 sec. 24D.  The penalties for a conviction of drunk driving vary.  Multiple offenders received sentences more severe than first time offenders.  If there is an accident or if someone is injured the penalties for first time offenders can be of great consequence as well. 

Continue Reading

| by

The Lynn Item reported that Ruben Ramos pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine, heroin and marijuana as part of a plea bargain agreement that will require him to serve at least three years on state prison.  During the guilty plea hearing the prosecutor told the judge that based on information that the defendant was selling drugs in the Lynn area police began an investigation.  An undercover police officer and Ramos agreed to meet in January during which an arrangement was made whereby the officer would receive from the defendant one gram of heroin.  The deal was completed in January.  Three similar deals followed later that month and in February.  The total amount for all four deals was one thousand eight hundred forty dollars.  After the last transaction was consummated Ramos was arrested.  Police found marijuana, marked “buy” money and a cell phone in his possession.  The cell phone was used to arrange the deals. 

Plea bargaining is part of any good criminal defense lawyers’ arsenal.  Not all cases are triable.  When people sell to undercover police officers the chances of success at trial are slim.  Typically cases involving hand to hand sales are tried only when the prosecution fails to negotiate a favorable agreement.  In other situations people accused might opt to go to trial where the actions of the police amount to entrapment.  Entrapment does not mean that a person was “tricked” into selling to an undercover police officer.  Rather, it involves law enforcement’s illicit efforts to compel someone otherwise not disposed to sell or provide drugs by breaking down that person’s will.  Attorney Stephen Neyman has successfully tried three cases involving hand to hand sales to undercover officers, each time using an entrapment defense.  By clicking on the link above you can go to our website and view specific case results.  Each of these defendants was acquitted of the trafficking indictments. 

If you have been charged with a drug crime in Massachusetts contact our office right now.  We are prepared to fight your case. 

Continue Reading

| by

A Norfolk County Superior Court jury found Keely Johnson, a former Stoughton Court Officer guilty of two counts of distribution of Vicodin and violating the Massachusetts School Zone statute.  The prosecution alleged that in July 2006 state police began investigating Johnson for selling Vicodin inside and outside the Stoughton District Courthouse where she served as a Court Officer.  On July 28, 2006 Johnson sold 50 tablets of Vicodin to an undercover police officer.  She did so while her seven year old son sat in her car in a parking lot adjacent to the location of the transaction.  On August 3, 2006 Johnson sold the undercover officer more Vicodin tablets, this time at the courthouse which sits within one thousand feet of an elementary school.  A Superior Judge sentenced Johnson to the mandatory two years in jail for the school zone conviction and to an additional three months in jail for the distribution convictions. 

The Massachusetts School Zone statute makes it a crime to distribute, possess with the intent to distribute or traffic controlled substances within one thousand feet of a school zone.  Anyone convicted of violating this statute must serve at least two years in jail.  The maximum sentence for a conviction of this law is fifteen years in state prison.  The school zone statute also makes is a crime to commit these acts within one hundred feet of a public park or playground.

In spite of the mandatory sentence connected with school zone violations, experienced criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts often succeed in getting the prosecution to agree to dismiss the school zone offense in exchange for a plea to a lesser offense.  This is done in cases where the person does not have a remarkable criminal background and there are circumstances that mitigate the criminal act.  Trying the case is also an option.  Our office has proven that the similar crimes were not committed within one thousand feet of a school zone thus eliminating the mandatory sentence that the prosecution sought to have imposed.  On other occasions we have proven that our client did not commit the act regardless of what the police and prosecutor told the jury. 

Continue Reading

| by

In a ruling published today the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that victims of assault and battery in Massachusetts must be people when charged under G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A.  Commonwealth v. Wilson, slip opinion August 21, 2008.  In connection with a drug deal the defendant in Wilson was chased by police.  The chase ended when the car the defendant was driving hit a police car.  One of the counts charged the defendant with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The prosecution claimed that the weapon was the car.  The victim was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as owner of the police car that was damaged.  The defendant pleaded guilty to this count in the complaint.  Years later through a motion for a new trial he moved to vacate his conviction.  The trial judge denied the motion.  On appeal the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed.  It held that Massachusetts General Laws c. 265 establishes “Crimes Against the Person”.  The section under which Wilson was charged, G.L. c. 265 sec. 15A requires that the victim be a person.  The conviction violated Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the defendant’s right to due process.  As such it was vacated and the count was dismissed. 

Vacating criminal convictions is one of the services that the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman routinely provides to its clients.  Sometimes people are convicted of committing crimes that are not supported by law or fact.  This can happen when the defense lawyer or prosecutor or judge are unfamiliar with the law.  It can also happen when people are simply not paying close attention to the details of the case.  Criminal defendants unfamiliar with their rights often acquiesce to resolutions of their case that on the surface appear reasonable.  In doing so they are establishing a criminal record that likely will have an adverse effect on their lives later on.  The conviction can effect employment opportunities, require sex offender registration or be used to enhance the sentence for a conviction of another offense. 

If you have been wrongly convicted of a crime in Massachusetts or anywhere else you should contact our office now.  We have been representing people on post conviction matters for years with great results.  It is never too late to demand justice. 

Continue Reading

| by

A thirty one year old Billerica man pled guilty in the Lowell Superior Court to two counts of statutory rape of a fifteen year old girl.  According to the Lowell Sun, the two met through a chat room on the internet.  In October 2006 the two met for the first time near the girl’s home in Billerica.  The defendant would pick the girl up from her bus stop and drive her home.  Eventually the defendant brought the girl to his parents home where they had consensual sexual relations.  For the next nine months the relationship continued.  In June 2007 the two went to Salisbury beach for the day.  When the girl returned home her mother questioned her about her sunburn.  She admitted going to the beach with an older man.  The next day the girl’s mother got the defendant’s license plate and contacted the police.  The defendant was charged with two counts of statutory rape.

There are two forms of rape of a child in Massachusetts.  One is the rape of a child with force and the other is rape of a child without force, more commonly known as statutory rape.  In this case the defendant was convicted of statutory rape.  Massachusetts law specifically states that if the person is under the age of sixteen, the fact that he or she consents to the act or willingly enters into the act does not constitute a defense.  Thus, even though the defendant in this case was involved in a relationship with the fifteen year old girl for nine months and the sex acts were entered into voluntarily he was still guilty of a felony.  He will also have to register as a sex offender with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). 

It is important to note that even a good faith belief that the person with whom you are having sex is sixteen or older is not a defense to this crime.  Even if you tried to ascertain the person’s age and were convinced that the person was at least sixteen years old you can be convicted of this crime if it is proven that he or she had not yet attained that age. 

Continue Reading

| by

Saturday night, as a result of a surveillance, Methuen police officers arrested three men for violating the controlled substances laws.  According the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, the Methuen Police Drug Unit was conducting a surveillance at the intersection of Lowell Street and Wheeler Avenue.  Around 5:00 p.m. officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction.  When they attempted an arrest one of the subjects, Jose Mercedes-Leon fled on foot into the woods.  After a forty five minute chase Mercedes-Leon was apprehended.  He was charged with subsequent offense distribution of heroin, conspiracy, disorderly person, resisting arrest, providing a false name to police and trespassing.  Mercedes-Leon was also charged with being a fugitive from justice for defaulting on charges of aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Rhode Island. 

Two other men, Walter Zachary and Blair Despres, were also arrested in connection with this incident.  They were both charged with trafficking heroin and conspiracy.  Fifteen grams of heroin were found in their possession.

Attorney Stephen Neyman represents people accused of drug crimes in Massachusetts and throughout the country.  Cases such as the one discussed above are routinely defended by our office.  In this case, since both Zachary and Despres were charged with trafficking heroin it is likely that the prosecution will proceed against one of them as a joint venturer and the other as a principle.  There is a simple distinction that separates those theories.  Principles are those who actually commit the act.  The person directly distributing or selling the substance is the principle.  A joint venturer is someone who is “(1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement is willing and available to help the other if necessary.”  In Massachusetts the penalties for the principle and joint venturer are the same. 

Continue Reading

| by

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008) the United States Supreme Court held that under the Eight Amendment to the United Stated Constitution the death penalty cannot be imposed where the crimes did not result in the death of the victim and where death was not an intended result of the crime. 

History of the case:

The defendant Patrick Kennedy was charged with the aggravated of his eight year old stepdaughter.  He was convicted.  The jury voted to sentence him to death under a Louisiana statute that permitted executions for raping a child under the age of twelve.  Kennedy appealed the conviction to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  That court affirmed the conviction.  In doing so it held in part that fourteen other states authorize the death penalty in cases other than homicide cases and that this is a trend representing a “direction of change”. 

Continue Reading