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

| by

While reading posts on my Google+ account today I noticed defendants in various parts of the country facing stiff sentences for computer related crimes. Take for instance the case of Jared James Abrahams, a nineteen year old California man and college student who recently pleaded guilty to a computer based extortion scheme. Abrahams was accused of taking over webcams by infecting computers with malware, then capturing the victims disrobing and extorting them for more photos under the threat of publishing the photos. It was also alleged that Abrahams demanded victims get onto Skype and do as he requested, again under the threat of exposing the illicitly accessed images. Abrahams is looking at thirty-three months in federal prison for the commission of these crimes. Victims identified on Abrahams computer equipment, one of whom was a minor, were from all over the world.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Extortion Defense Law Firm

In another case, known computer hacker Jeremy Hammond could end up with a ten year sentence for hacking into computers and stealing tens of thousands of credit card numbers. The financial losses calculated by the government directly attributable to Hammond’s actions could be reach two and one half million dollars. Hammond’s lawyers claim that his efforts were part of his social activism, not for personal gain and not initiated maliciously. Rather, it was part of a nonviolent protest that should be punished as such. The government is seeking a sentence of ten years for Hammond, significantly more than the twenty months being requested by his legal team.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer

So what does this tell you about the state of computer crimes right now? Well obviously they are being taken very seriously by prosecutors. Both of these unrelated cases are being prosecuted by the federal government. The sentences being requested are staggering regardless of the motive or sensitivities of the defendants. Abrahams suffers from a documented case of autism for which he has been treated for over ten years. Hammond is motivated by social forces and has not profited from his actions. Nevertheless, prosecutors want blood. They want lengthy sentences. This trend is consistent not only in federal courts but in state courts including Massachusetts. The message district attorneys want to send is clear; virtual trespassing, no matter what the motive will not be tolerated and deserves sever punishment.

So how are these cases defended? Usually by challenging the validity of the search warrant the permits the police access to your electronic/computer equipment. Fight to show an absence of probable cause and improper issuance of the search warrant. Additionally, you might be able to defend these cases by showing that the government has failed to establish that you are in fact the person who committed the acts, regardless of what is on the computer.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that a Methuen man is being sought by authorities for charges stemming from an incident that allegedly began in Lawrence, MA. According to the Tribune, the thirty year old man reportedly jumped into the minivan of an unsuspecting woman and held a gun to her stomach while threatening her family. The woman was taken to a hotel in Salem New Hampshire where she was allegedly assaulted and beaten until she lost consciousness. After regaining consciousness, the woman called the police and a search expanding over two states has begun to locate the alleged perpetrator. The woman’s stolen van was later located in Andover and she was treated at a hospital for injuries sustained during the incident. According to the Tribune warrants have issued from Salem and the suspect faces charges for kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, kidnapping, threats, violation of a protective order and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, it appears that he parties may have known one another because on of the charges is violation of a protective order. Assuming that the alleged victim was the complainant on the restraining order then it appears that the pair was known to each other.

In Massachusetts there are two types of Restraining Orders that a complainant can requests. One is referred to as a M.G.L. 209A Restraining Order and the other is a M.G.L. 258E order. In order to qualify for a 209A restraining order the parties must be related, married, roommates or have been in a substantial dating relationship. In order for a judge to issue an order the complainant must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in conduct that created a situation in which he or she was in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm. In most circumstances the defendant is not present during the initial issuance of the order and a date (usually within two weeks) is set for another hearing. During this time span the defendant should be served with the temporary order and informed of the new date for the extension hearing. The defendant can fight the extension of the order at this time.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune three Methuen Massachusetts people have been charged with trafficking more than thre-hundered grams of heroin, possession of a class A substance with intent to distribute and related gun offenses. The Tribune indicates that police responded to an apartment on Railroad Street in Methuen, MA due to a complaint of alleged domestic disturbance. Apparently, after the police entered the apartment they heard a “noise in the bedroom” and an occupant ran outside who was eventually apprehended and faces additionally charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

However, the authorities who stayed behind claim to have seen “in plain view” bags of heroin. Based on this observation the police applied for and apparently was granted a search warrant. Upon searching the apartment it appears that a substance believed to be heroin and two rifles were confiscated. The Tribune reports that in addition to the drug offenses three people are also facing charges for possession of a firearm without and FID card, illegal possession of a firearm without a license to carry, improper storage of a firearm, possession of a large capacity feeding device and unlawful possession of ammunition.

An aggressive and experienced defense attorney will carefully examine the circumstances surrounding the entry of the authorities into the apartment, into the bedroom and the alleged “plain view” observation of the alleged “heroin” in the “closet.” In Massachusetts, citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy on their person and in their homes, Thus, the police cannot enter someone’s home without probable cause or consent. Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, if the police have been in the apartment or the bedroom it may be a situation in which a motion to suppress the entry into the apartment and evidence seized as a result of that entry.

Continue Reading

| by

A Lowell, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer defending a man accused of a couple of drug felonies might get the charges dismissed. Just two days ago the lawyer complained that the prosecution was in violation of an order to produce potentially exculpatory evidence. According to reports the prosecution was given until Monday to produce information confirming that the informants used in this case were not the same informants previously publicly deemed unreliable. The prosecution did not produce the affidavits. Instead, the district attorney’s office passed blame to the police claiming that they never produced the requested and necessary affidavits. The judge extended the time for compliance until Thursday. If the documents ordered are not ready by that time then all evidence attributable to the informant’s efforts will be excluded at trial.

The underlying case here stemmed from a search warrant executed at a Lowell apartment. The affidavit in support of the warrant was predicated in part on information learned from two confidential informants. During the search officers located Oxycodone, and cocaine, a class B substance the quantity of which justified charges of possession with the intent to distribute, a felony in Massachusetts. The district attorney also charged with defendants with conspiracy. Drug paraphernalia was also found during the search. The informants in question were believed to have fabricated evidence in other instances that ultimately resulted in the dismissal of seventeen cases.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Drug Charges Defense Law Firm

This case demonstrates the value of having a persistent criminal defense lawyer. Here, the lawyer understood that cases in Lowell using dirty informants had been revealed. He also learned that several cases where those individuals were used had been dismissed. In this case, I am assuming that the fact of the case did not require the disclosure of the informant’s identity. So, the defense attorney kept fighting. He moved for confirmation that the bad informants were not used in this case. It is no wonder why the judge has threatened what will ultimately be a dismissal of this case. If the prosecution is unable to put together written confirmation under oath that these people were not involved in this investigation there is a strong suggestion that they were in fact somehow connected to this prosecution thereby warranting sanctions.

This case also shows how judges might hold the prosecution to a high standard of integrity. Compelling them to produce sworn statements showing that there is nothing illicit about this investigation promotes confidence in the system. And if these arrests came about as a result of tainted information the cases simply should be dismissed. The district attorney in this case should really be relieved by the judge’s order if he or she has any doubt about the credibility of these informants. Presenting dirty evidence creates the possibility of sanctions against the prosecutor, something that is entirely avoidable in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

Today’s Somerville Patch reports that a woman had been advertising her services over the Internet. Specifically, she offered sex for a fee. Her advertisement listed the Washington Street Holiday Inn in Somerville as her place of business. An undercover detective responded to the listing and met up with the woman in her hotel room. She requested one hundred twenty five dollars for one half hour of sexual services and two hundred dollars for a full hour. The woman, a sixty year old from Randolph, Massachusetts then took off her clothes, provided the undercover with a condom and laid out some rules for the encounter. She was then arrested and charged with sexual conduct for a fee, also known as prostitution.

Read Article:

Somerville, Massachusetts Prostitution Defense Lawyer

I get calls on cases like this one from perspective clients on a regular basis. Several of them ask me the same question: “Isn’t this entrapment?” The answer is no. People think that police officers conducting covert operations that result in an arrest is entrapment. It is not. Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges that focuses on the predisposition of the accused. It is not entrapment for police officers to entice a prostitute or drug dealer into performing or attempting to perform their services. If the person is predisposed towards the commission of a crime and the police simply facilitate their efforts entrapment has not occurred. Entrapment is a viable defense where the government or its agents overcome the will of a person and in some way coerce them to commit a crime.

On several occasions I successfully represented people accused of trafficking cocaine with an entrapment defense. On one occasion I represented a recent college graduate (Jim) who enjoyed smoking marijuana and sometimes snorting lines of cocaine. One of his “friends” would share with him a small amount of cocaine. Unbeknownst to Jim the “friend” was actually an informant, trying to work off a pending drug case. The informant had convinced his handler, a state trooper, that Jim was a major drug dealer. In order to work off his case the informant had to produce, or, in this case introduce the trooper to a drug dealer and to actually access drugs.

So one day the informant brought the trooper over to meet Jim. The trooper was introduced as a cocaine supplier. During the meeting the trooper pulled out a small quantity of cocaine, similar to the amount that the informant would share with Jim. Jim and the informant snorted a few lines. The next day the informant called my client and told him that the individual he had just met wanted a large amount of cocaine and that he wanted Jim to get it for him. Jim was confused and wanted to know why this person would think he could get him a large quantity of cocaine. Jim said that he had no interest in this proposition. Over the course of the next several months the informant badgered and threatened Jim. He convinced Jim that the person who had given him some cocaine, the trooper, was dangerous and that Jim owed him. A record of hundreds of telephone calls was produced from the informant to Jim. The calls were made at all hours of the night. The informant incessantly harassed Jim and had him fearing for his life. Consequently, Jim gave in and agreed to produce a large quantity of cocaine. The informant introduced Jim to a major drug dealer and a deal with the undercover was ultimately consummated. Jim was arrested and charged. We were able to show that the government’s harassment of Jim overcame his will and forced him into the drug deal. Jim was acquitted before a Suffolk County jury.

Continue Reading

| by

Although recently acquitted of first-degree murder, George Zimmerman has not been able to stay out of the police log or the public eye and was recently involved in an alleged case of domestic assault. The Washington Times reported that back in early September, 2013, Zimmerman’s wife accused him of stealing items, including a large flat screen television valued at over $2,000 and furniture, from the home the couple previously resided in. The former Zimmerman residence is owned by the wife’s parents. Apparently, things went down hill for the happy couple after she filed for divorce. The estranged Mrs. Zimmerman accused her husband of becoming violent during an argument, threatening her with a gun and smashing an i-pod.

This type of incident that occurs between family members is often referred to by law enforcement as a case of Domestic Violence. In this case, it appears that the police investigated the allegations of Mrs. Zimmerman and although George was initially taken into police custody he is not facing any criminal charges. According to the Washington Times, Mrs. Zimmerman recanted her initial story.

In Massachusetts, cases of domestic violence are taken very seriously by the police and the District Attorney’s office. It is the usual course that following a call to the police for any type of assault or argument to a home, someone will be arrested. The authorities preferred method of response in these situations is to separate the fighting parties, even if the complainant does not wish to have anyone arrested. In their minds this will avoid a tragedy of having someone severely injured or killed after they leave the scene.

In Zimmerman’s case, Mrs. Zimmerman made very serious allegations. Threatening an individual with a gun is the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon and stealing the described property is the crime of malicious destruction of property over $250.00. Both of these crimes are felonies and are punishable by possible state prison sentence.

It is not unusual for a spouse or family member to decide not to pursue charges against a defendant after an arrest has been made. Unfortunately for them, it is not their decision. Once there is an arrest the complaining witness is not a “party” to the case but a witness. The case is captioned Commonwealth v. Defendant, thus the final decision relative to how a case will proceed is up the the prosecutor NOT the victim.

In Massachusetts, the prosecution cannot force a spouse to testify against his or her spouse, unless certain conditions are present such as the safety of the children. In the event the the only two people that were present during the incident was a husband and wife and there is NO other evidence the exercise of the marital privilege can often result in the dismissal or nolle pross of the criminal case. However, it is important to note that this privilege can only technically be exercised on a trial date and not for a motions hearing or a grand jury presentment–as these are not considered “trials.” Furthermore, there is no privilege that prevents a mother or father from testifying against a child or a sibling from testifying against a sibling. The only privilege relates to the marital privilege and often the court will require that a marriage certificate be presented to the court.

The 911 call is closely examined in the event that a spouse exercises his or her privilege. The cases of Melendez-Diaz and Crawford counsels that a statement made out of course is hearsay and is inadmissible if it is testimonial and the witness was not previously subjected to cross examination. An exception to this principle in Massachusetts is if the police or 911 operator are responding to an “ongoing emergency” because the interview of the “victim” is not considered “testimonial.”

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier this week an article circulated via UPI talked about an evolving test that Massachusetts prosecutors will undoubtedly be using to help prove their cases. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, commonly referred to as XPS, looks at individual cotton fibers that contain distinct chemical traces on their surface. The chemicals are used in the treatment and manufacturing process of cotton garments. The XPS process helps to distinguish cotton fibers that through microscopic examination were thought to be indistinguishable. The chemicals in question are used to make the clothing article wrinkle free, resistant to staining or waterproof. Through XPS these chemicals can be identified on the surface of the individual fibers.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Using Expert Witnesses and Technology

I imagine that once XPS testing is “perfected” this science will become prevalent in Massachusetts courts, particularly in serious felonies being prosecuted in the superior courts. I say this even though I do not believe that using XPS experts will be beneficial to the district attorney. Here is why. Prosecutors will want to test fibers to see if a match can be made to clothing worn or owned by the accused. At least initially, if there is a match there will be an argument that this link to the defendant corroborates other evidence in the case. This strategy will ultimately appear desperate. In general the fibers we are talking about and their processing and manufacturing treatments are not typically unique. Clothing is mass manufactured. In many cities it is common for youth to be wearing the same or similar clothing made by a particular company. For instance, for years black hooded sweatshirts made by a particular sporting goods company were the wardrobe of choice in certain parts of Boston and other major cities. You could walk down the street and see scores of youth wearing the same articles of clothing, same make and same logo. So how then does this more effectively link a particular defendant to a crime scene? It probably doesn’t and defense lawyers will quickly pick up on this as a challenge to the significance of this evidence.

Then why would prosecutors get into XPS testing at all? The trend among prosecutors in Massachusetts for more than a decade now is to introduce evidence known to have little significance if they believe that the defense will comment on its absence otherwise. For example, in murder cases where DNA is not an issue a prosecutor may nevertheless call a DNA expert to testify that certain evidence could not be tested for DNA. The same logic applies to fingerprinting and testing blood samples. So, once XPS testing becomes a household term we will see prosecutors, through their expert witnesses discussing this process. This will apply whether or not XPS testing was done and regardless of the test results. Thus, it will be important for Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers to familiar themselves with this process whether or not they use it.

Continue Reading

| by

While following the Aaron Hernandez Massachusetts murder case I was struck by the prosecutor’s motion asking Judge Garsh to recuse herself. According to several news sources, Bristol County prosecutor William McCauley claimed that in 2010 Garsh displayed hostility towards him by accusing him of wrongfully excluding evidence. He further complained that this judge undermined his credibility before a jury. McCauley filed a similar motion in 2011 that was never argued. Instead, the case ended up before another judge. Garsh denied McCauley’s motion and will preside over the proceedings and perhaps the trial itself.

While there is nothing novel about asking a judge to recuse himself for cause in Massachusetts it is done sparingly. If the judge decides not to step down from the case the challenging party risks retaliation. Such actions will likely be subtle. Rulings may be less likely to go your way. The judge can use the inflection in his voice to undermine your efforts. Your opponent might be shamelessly embraced in a manner visible to the jury but not captured in the trial transcript. Simply put, if the judge wants to screw you for filing such a motion he can. Now of course retaliation is impermissible yet good luck trying to prove that it happened to you. In this particular case I sincerely doubt that McCauley will suffer consequences for trying to have Garsh remove herself from this case. As a matter of fact, given the media attention this case has been getting and will be getting it will be difficult for Garsh not to bend over backwards to prove that she has no bias towards the prosecution.

On the other hand, I cannot understand why a judge, being accused of bias would not simply step away from a case. Naturally, Judge Garsh’s words “I do not fear or favor the Commonwealth or the defendant” resonate nicely. But why stay on the case? Acceding to a recusal request is not an admission of fear. Nor does stepping away from this case acknowledge agreement that McCauley’s accusations of unfairness are true. There are literally thousands of other cases to sit on. The judge could simply step aside and before doing so rule that she has no bias. She would merely be avoiding any appearance of impropriety and she could then pass the case on to another judge.

Unlike some other states, there is no peremptory challenge of judges in Massachusetts. Alaska Statute 22.20.022 permits a peremptory challenge to a sitting judge if the challenging party files an affidavit alleging that with this judge a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained. California C.C.P. Sec 170.6 allows for the peremptory challenge of a judge without the need to give the court a factual basis for its belief that the judge is biased. These laws make a lot of sense. They tend to keep reminding judges of the need to be fair and respectful of the litigants. They promote confidence in the judiciary. They eliminate favoritism. If a party is uncomfortable with a perceived relationship between the judge and an opponent he can remove the judge from the proceeding. This is a nice check against judicial ignorance. Judges who are routinely victimized by peremptory challenges might modify their behavior. They might read the advance sheets. They might be nicer to the litigants. They might learn to act appropriately.

Continue Reading

| by

A couple of days ago the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v DeGennaro, a case involving theft, real estate fraud and embezzlement. As a factual backdrop the Court found the following:

In one instance, over a six week period the defendants received over forty eight thousand dollars in two installments from the victim. This money constituted the deposit for the construction of a new home. The defendants represented to the victims that the money would be kept in an interest bearing escrow account. Instead, the defendants deposited the money into their commercial checking accounts. They wrote checks from the account and depleted the money. None of the expenditures pertained to the victim’s home construction. The construction never took place. The money was never returned. No home was built.

In another transaction the victim tendered checks in an amount more than fifty-five thousand dollars. Again, the victim understood that the defendants would use the money as a down payment for the construction of a house. In less than two months that account too was depleted. As with the first case, construction delays were negotiated and yet again no construction took place. The deposits were never returned to the victim.

In another matter, DeGennaro hired a subcontractor to install plumbing and heating for homes that he had built. The first check tendered to this victim by the defendants bounced. A subsequent check cleared. The victim continued to perform services but was never paid. This pattern repeated itself relative to another property where this victim was providing the same services for the defendants.

It is no surprise to me that the defendants in these cases were convicted. What does surprise me is that these cases were prosecuted criminally in the first place. These cases almost never get presented to law enforcement. The reason for that is simple. If the victim is correct and he was actually defrauded by the contractor the sum of money taken from him will motivate the district attorney to look for jail time after a conviction. There are not many defenses to cases with these fact patterns. Money was moved from one shell LLC to another. The funds were depleted not for construction purposes but for the enrichment of the defendants. No work was performed. This was nothing more than a scam that was repeated several times with several customers. Yet victims in these cases who consult lawyers will realize very quickly that if they go to law enforcement with their complaints a prosecution will ensue, there will likely be a felony conviction involving jail time and restitution will never be made. The victim will never get back his deposit. So what happens? Usually the builder will continue with his scheme, paying off one victim with funds stolen from another. If he gets lucky, in a good real estate market he might get a windfall with a construction project or housing development and be able to pay everybody back. Rarely do the builders come to the end of their rope as happened with DeGennaro. In his decision, Justice Sikora put it best when he wrote “This appeal requires interpretation of a seldom litigated criminal statute”. It is seldom litigated because the victims know that they will never get paid if the defendant gets prosecuted.

Continue Reading

| by

Braintree, Massachusetts firefighters responded to an alarm at an apartment complex two days ago sometime around 2:30 in the afternoon. After finding and eliminating the material that triggered the alarm they entered an adjacent apartment to make sure that the occupants were okay. While going through the home the firemen noticed a large quantity of marijuana in a bedroom closet. They observed very little furniture in the apartment and notified the police. Officers responded to the home and applied for a search warrant. Once inside the home they found one hundred sixteen pounds of packaged marijuana and some drug distribution paraphernalia. The property was secured. Just prior to the search Mary Mei Chan and Dang Huynh arrived at the home. Both were detained and ultimately arrested. They, along with the lessee of the apartment have been charged with trafficking marijuana and conspiracy to violate the Massachusetts drug laws. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court but will likely be prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Cases like this one present an interesting challenge for criminal defense lawyers. Three people have been charged with trafficking, none of whom were present when the firefighters responded to the alarm. The two people who did show up at the home were not identified as tenants of the apartment. How then is the prosecutor going to prove that either of these individuals intended to traffic this marijuana? I am not sure they can. Drug trafficking in Massachusetts requires the prosecution to proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person 1) possessed the controlled substance, 2) that he did so with the intent to distribute that drug and 3) that the quantity exceeds the trafficking threshold, in this case fifty pounds. The only element that can easily be proven is the third element, the quantity of the substance. But establishing the elements of possession and intent to distribute for Chan and Huynh is not going to be easy. If both of them were smart enough to keep quiet and not talk to the police then proving the case against them will be difficult.

The same problem might apply to the lessee of the home. How can the district attorney prove that she had any involvement in drug trafficking activities. How long had she been the tenant? Did she actually live there at one time? Was she seen going in and out of the apartment building? Did she sublease this to someone else? Does she have a history of dealing controlled substances, particularly marijuana? I can certainly see where motions to dismiss might be viable in this case. Again, much of this depends on what if anything the defendants said to the police. Hopefully, for their sakes they said nothing.

Continue Reading