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

| by

Legislators and law enforcement officials are pushing for a tougher Massachusetts wiretap law to crack down on gun violence, the Boston Globe reported January 28, 2013. A bill has been filed that would dramatically expand the scope of the law, which is presently limited to cases involving organized criminal activity, to cover drug and gun crimes, child pornography, money laundering and human trafficking. The law would also extend wiretap duration from 15 days to 30 days and would expand the definition of “wire communication.” Police and prosecutors claim that the law is necessary because they need more “muscle” and due to the fact that organized crime is “outdated.” Attorney General Martha Coakley referenced the Newtown tragedy in support of her position that the wiretap law needs to be changed.

There is a reason, clearly set forth in the preamble to G.L.c. 272, § 99 (the Massachusetts wiretap law) why such intrusive electronic surveillance is limited to cases involving organized crime: “[O]rganized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy… Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.” Massachusetts courts have said that there are certain “signatures” of organized crime, such as discipline. In other words, organized crime is often sophisticated, whereas regular crime is usually not. This rationale, that normal investigative procedures do not work well in the investigation of organized crime, does not apply to cases involving “garden variety” criminal activity. This law should not be changed simply because police and prosecutors don’t want to do their jobs. The law currently provides that a warrantless interception violates G.L.c. 272, § 99 where the requisite organized crime connection is not shown. The law already encompasses a huge range of criminal activity, including possession and sale of drugs, provided that these types of crimes are connected with organized crime. Wiretapping may also violate article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fourth Amendment. Our courts have cautioned that wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance are a serious threat to privacy because this type of surveillance is “peculiarly adapted” to search of emotions and thoughts. The Supreme Judicial Court has held that electronic surveillance of conversations taking place in private homes, in the absence of evidence that the participants intended the conversations to be public, violates article 14, which provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment in some circumstances.

The current definition of “wire communication” is broad, covering any communication made by cable, wire, “or other like connection,” whether in whole or in part. The new law would, absurdly, re-define “wire communication” to include wireless communications.

Continue Reading

| by

Gordon Lagstrom of Middleboro, Massachusetts was arraigned at the Wareham District Court yesterday on charges of Animal Cruelty, Possession of a Firearm While Intoxicated and Discharging a Firearm Within Five Hundred Feet of a Building. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Lagstrom brought his dog to a veterinarian for emergency help after the dog had sustained a gunshot wound. Lagstrom asked for help for the animal. A police officer responded to the veterinary clinic and formed the opinion that Lagstrom had been drinking. After some questioning the defendant admitted to shooting the dog accidentally believing that someone was trying to get into his home. Officers continued to investigate and found a trail of blood starting in the yard, leading to the defendant’s home and ending in Lagstrom’s living room floor. Officers then found two guns, one loaded and neither properly stored. If indicted, this case will be prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Wareham, Massachusetts Firearm Possession Defense

Massachusetts Gun Crimes Lawyer

The Animal Cruelty statute in Massachusetts is broad. The law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 77 prohibits the following acts: overworking animals, beating animals, killing animals, starving animals, torturing them, mutilating them and more. A conviction for the commission of this offense carries a possible five year state prison sentence. I have seen many of these cases prosecuted in Massachusetts for the past twenty years. Massachusetts district attorneys take these matters quite seriously and often request jail time for someone found guilty of this crime. At least as suggested in this article Lagstrom will have some problems. He will first have to show that the police officer’s theory about where the dog was shot was incorrect. Either that or the defendant will have to adduce facts that support his statement that someone was trying to get into his home when he accidentally shot the dog. The blood trail and forensic evidence, i.e. gunshot residue, location of any shell casings and items of that nature will have to match up with his statement. A firearms expert and/or perhaps a blood spatter expert will be useful if the defendant continues with this defense.

The firearms cases are somewhat different in terms of a defense. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10H prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The standard for “under the influence” is the same as for OUI cases. A conviction for this crime carries a potential two and one half year house of correction sentence. This crime is not often prosecuted. As a matter of fact, as of today Lexis shows that there are not reported decisions dealing with this crime.

Continue Reading

| by

As Massachusetts continues to grapple with the Annie Dookhan scandal, a second crime lab chemist has been arrested and will face charges relating to evidence tampering and drug possession. Sonja Farak, a 35-year-old Northampton woman who worked at the Amherst lab, allegedly substituted real drugs with counterfeit drugs to support a suspected drug habit. The lab will close temporarily.

According to Attorney General Martha Coakley, the “drugs were tested, they were tested fairly. The certificates were not impeached in any way, but we allege… that the drugs were then taken and in her possession.” Coakley claims that this case is not connected with the Dookhan scandal because the “motives are completely opposite” and because Dookhan and Farak exhibited different behaviors. Prosecutors believe that the drugs were for personal use and that there was no distribution or intent to distribute. Supervisors at the lab discovered a discrepancy in inventory and contacted state police. Farak previously worked at the Jamaica Plain lab. She will be arraigned in Eastern Hampshire district court. District Attorney David Sullivan issued a statement on Sunday indicating that his office is assessing the number of cases that may have been compromised by the chemist’s wrongdoing.

Police interviewed Farak in connection with the Dookhan scandal on September 12, 2012. Police reports indicate that Farak worked with Dookhan in Jamaica Plain before Farak started working at the Amherst lab. Farak told police that they worked on some cases together and found Dookhan to be friendly. She told police that she never noticed Dookhan doing anything improper and that she had no knowledge of anyone in the lab performing analytical procedures improperly. Farak never reported any wrongdoing in the lab during her career.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise Paul Perelli met up with defendant Eddy Monteiro, a Brockton, Massachusetts resident at Perelli’s home in Marshfield. It is alleged that Monteiro owed Perelli one hundred fifty dollars and wanted to settle the debt. Monteiro and Perelli, along with Michael Capps and Stephen Burton smoked some marijuana together. Shortly thereafter, two unknown men arrived, bound Perelli, Capps and Burton and pistol whipped Capps. Monteiro allegedly participated with them as well. Perelli called the police. When they arrived they found “an elaborate indoor marijuana-growing operation, complete with hydroponic tanks for growing plants”. Monteiro was arrested and charged with Home Invasion with a Firearm and several counts of Armed Assault in a Dwelling. His case is pending in the Plymouth District Court. Perelli and/or his friends may have problems as well. The article reports that the police seized two pounds of pot and several thousand dollars cash.

Read Article:

Plymouth Home Invasion Defense Law Firm

Brockton Violent Crimes Defense Lawyer, Gun Cases, Marijuana Distribution

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer reading this article is going to ask why Perelli called the cops. Either Perelli, Capps or Burton or perhaps all three have exposure for Cultivating Marijuana or Possession With the Intent to Distribute stemming from their marijuana growing operation. The penalty for a conviction of these Massachusetts Marijuana Crimes pales in comparison to the sentence Monteiro and his cohorts face if convicted of the Home Invasion. Yet you have to wonder why Perelli made the call. Was this in fact the drug rip that is portrayed in this article? Or was this a drug deal that went bad? On several occasions I have defended cases that look at the outset like the accused was trying to rob a known dealer. However every time these cases get more closely investigate I learn that not to be the case. There is usually some sort of mutual dispute that escalates. Someone then tries to get the upper hand by making an accusation about something like a Home Invasion. The person making the report wants the police to believe that he is the victim and does what he can to get that person in custody as a way of getting out of the dispute. This tactic doesn’t always work. An experience criminal lawyer can expose the false accusation. Text conversations between Monteiro and Perelli can shed some light on what really happened here as can text messages between Monteiro and has unidentified “friends”. Perhaps these people too had memorialized conversations with Perelli thereby suggesting that they were not unknown to him. All of this will rear its head during the discovery process and might serve Monteiro’s defense well.

Continue Reading

| by

Patrick O’Neill of Weymouth, Massachusetts was arrested last week and charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Oxycodone, Distribution of Oxycodone, a School Zone Violation and Drug Conspiracy. An investigation into O’Neill’s activities started several weeks. Neighbors complained to the police that they believed O’Neill was dealing drugs. Following up on their leads the police watched O’Neill and his home. They applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. Then, last Thursday afternoon police stopped O’Neill as he left his apartment. They searched him and found him in Possession of Oxycodone and cash. They then searched his home. They found more pills. All charges are pending in the Quincy District Court. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Oxycodone Drug Offenses in Massachusetts

Every Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who defends drug cases is seeing more and more cases like this one. The anonymous “complaining neighbor” is becoming a fixture in Massachusetts drug detective’s police reports. From a legal perspective, the complaining neighbor takes on the status of an anonymous informant. This person’s veracity must be established in order for the district attorney to survive a challenge to the issuance of the Search Warrant. To satisfy the veracity requirement, this type of information must be supported by precise detail and police corroboration of that detail. So what happened here? Assuming the police did actually receive the information from an anonymous neighbor they probably started watching O’Neill’s apartment. Their subsequent observations must have led them to conclude that O’Neill was dealing drugs. They probably stopped and interrogated people they saw meeting with O’Neill and used this information to enhance their investigation. They may have used an undercover officer or known informant to engage in a controlled buy from O’Neill. If this happened the officer’s observations would be provided in detail in their Affidavit in Support of the Application for a Search Warrant. Much of this can be confirmed or contradicted by O’Neill’s lawyer if an attack on the Search Warrant is considered. If the police observations are simply general and conclusory suppression might be in order.

Sometimes the anonymous “complaining neighbor” does not exist. He is a fiction used by the police to help ensure that their Search Warrant Application is approved. Pretrial discovery motions and/or a private investigator can help to determine whether or not these people actually exist. Suspicious Search Warrant Affidavit can result is a dismissal of a criminal case or suppression of the drugs seized. It is a criminal defense lawyers’ job to dig and challenge the information set out in these documents.

Continue Reading

| by

The principal of the Rockport, Massachusetts middle school last week reported that a student had come forward with information regarding a New Year’s Eve incident at the Cape Ann Marina. Gloucester, Massachusetts police investigated and ultimately charged Justin Todd of Pleasant Street in Gloucester with Rape of a Child. It is alleged that Todd bought alcohol for some teenagers and had sex with one of them four times that night. The girl with whom Todd purportedly had sex was fourteen years old. He was arraigned in the Gloucester District Court and held on twenty thousand dollars cash bail. Four charges of Rape of a Child and one count of Providing Alcohol to a Minor is pending at this time. This case will probably be indicted and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Gloucester, Massachusetts Rape Defense Law Firm

Essex County Sex Crimes Lawyer, Rape, Statutory Rape, Indecent Assault and Battery

Massachusetts has a broad definition of the term Rape. It encompasses penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ with or without emission. It also includes anal intercourse, oral intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, digital penetration and penetration by objects other than body parts. The age of consent in Massachusetts is sixteen, meaning that regardless of the intent or will of the minor a Rape charge can be successfully prosecuted. The element of penetration can be satisfied by showing contact with the labia, vulva or vagina. Statutory Rape in Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23. A conviction for this offense is a felony. There is another Massachusetts Statutory Rape Statute that addresses aggravating factors that is not applicable to this case. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23A states that if there is a five year age difference between the defendant and the victim and the victim was under twelve at the time a conviction mandates a ten year state prison sentence. Consent is not a defense to Statutory Rape in Massachusetts. Nor is a mistaken belief in the victim’s age a valid defense. This again shows why anyone being investigated for a crime should not talk. All too often people admit to having sex with someone because the act was “consensual” and they believed the person to be old enough to consent. However, when they admit to having sex with the underaged person they are essentially admitting to having committed Rape. In Massachusetts you will be prosecuted for Statutory Rape. There are defenses to these charges making it important for anyone accused of a Sex Crime in Massachusetts to contact an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer at once.

Continue Reading

| by

Police in Weymouth, Massachusetts had been investigating Brandon Runge for several months. Complaints from neighbors led them to believe that the twenty year-old Runge had been involved in criminal activities. Late last week, armed with a Search Warrant police went to Runge’s home on Oakdale Street. At the time of the entry of the police officers Runge leapt out of a window and fled. The search of the apartment continued. Officers located a significant quantity of Cocaine, Oxycodone, a Firearm, Ammunition, Bath Salts and a large amount of cash. Late Monday night Runge was located in Hull where he was apprehended. He now faces charges of Trafficking Cocaine, Trafficking Oxycodone, Possession With Intent to Distribute Bath Salts, Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of a Firearm and more. Runge had several outstanding warrants at the time of his arrest as well. Right now the cases are pending in the Quincy District Court but will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Drug Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Dedham Criminal Lawyer, Drug Trafficking, Gun Cases

Perhaps the most serious charge Runge is facing is being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. This statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G provides for much more severe penalties than the statute prohibiting Gun Possession in Massachusetts. The felon in Possession statute in essence states that anyone in possession of a gun and having a single conviction for either a crime of violence or a drug crime is to be punished by a minimum mandatory three-year state prison sentence. Two such prior convictions mandates a ten year prison sentence after a conviction for being a Felon in Possession. Thus, Runge may have some steep exposure for a conviction of this offense if his criminal record contains any of these predicate convictions.

So what are the defenses to an indictment charging this crime? Beyond the ordinary, i.e. invalid Search Warrant, affirmative defenses, attribution to another, Runge may want to try to get his prior convictions vacated. That can sometimes be done through a new trial motion attacking either the predicate convictions or pleas. Ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence or constitutionally infirm pleas serve as a basis for the collateral attack. This approach is often taken in cases where the concerns focus more on sentencing than with defending the underlying Felon in Possession Charge. Runge’s Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will probably take a look at this issue. Vacating prior convictions will usually result in a lesser sentence no matter what the outcome is on the primary criminal charge.

Continue Reading

| by

Jose Davilla of Lawrence, Massachusetts was arrested yesterday at his home. He has been charged with Intimidation of a Witness. They are still looking for Rafael Rodriguez, also being charged with the same felony offense. It is alleged that the accused posted the photos of two witnesses to a murder case through the social media Instagram and attaching to their pictures the word “snitch”. The pictures were posted on Rodriguez and Davilla’s accounts. The defendants were friends of Jose Ruiz, the defendant in a murder case that concluded in the Essex County Superior Court yesterday. Right now this case is being handled in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm, Intimidation of a Witness Charges

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Violent Crimes, Felonies

The crime of Intimidation of a Witness is Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B. As you might expect, the law makes it a crime to in any way threaten a witness or someone who has information about a criminal case in Massachusetts. This crime is a felony. Anyone convicted of this offense can be punished by up to tow and one half years in the house of correction or up to ten years in state prison. A fine of up to five thousand dollars might also be imposed. These cases can be prosecuted in either the county where the defendant committed the act or in the county where the criminal proceeding is taking place.

These cases are getting prosecuted much more frequently these days than they had been in the past. This is largely due to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, texting and now Instagram. It is all too easy to trace the origin of threatening messages. In addition to being illegal, using the social media for such conduct is downright stupid. It is basically like sending a signed letter in your own handwriting. This is however often the best defense to cases like this one. An experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer might ask the jury to consider whether it was the defendant who posted the message or someone else. People often have access to other people’s media devices. Desktop computers, laptops, smartphones and ipads all have the capability of transmitting this material. People share these devices regularly and absent some additional evidence the mere publishing of intimidating words or photos does not mean that the owner of the sending device is guilty. If the defendant in this case did not admit to this act then perhaps he has a viable defense to these charges. Regardless, the one lesson anyone should take from stories like this is “Don’t put anything in writing”. That action, like talking to the police, can only worsen the problems that you might be facing.

Continue Reading

| by

Two Lynn Massachusetts residents, Marilyn Beltran,42, and Eliu Matos, 43, have been indicted in connection with an alleged check scam involving MassHealth’s transportation program. The two will be arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court on January 17. It is alleged that Beltran, who was employed by a private company contracted to administer the transportation program, filed fraudulent reimbursement claims between October of 2003 and July of 2012. She allegedly cashed the checks for herself, even though the claims were for family members. Matos allegedly helped Beltran by cashing some of the checks, which Beltran made out in his name. Both are facing numerous counts of larceny over $250 and presentation of false claims. According to a press release from the Attorney General’s office, Beltran was a transportation specialist, and her primary responsibility was reimbursement data entry. The alleged scheme yielded more than $490,000. An internal investigation allegedly uncovered this scheme. The company at which Beltran worked has offered to pay restitution and has promised to implement better auditing and oversight procedures.

In a statement, Attorney General Martha Coakley said, “This deception not only defrauds taxpayers, it also exploits the integrity of a system that is meant to help those most in need.”MassHealth provides both emergency and non-emergency transportation services to those with low income. According to the MassHealth website, those with certain types of MassHealth coverage can be reimbursed for use of public transportation and travel costs greater than $5, provided that the medical appointment is not within walking distance and the services are documented. Van and taxi services are available to those without access to public or private transportation, so long as a health care provider authorizes the need for transportation. It is unclear how Beltran would have been able, as the government alleges, to make claims on behalf of family members. It is also unclear, from reviewing the requirements for reimbursement, how one’s health care provider would not become aware of fraud, since the medical services generally need to be documented and the provider must certify the need for transportation.

In cases such as this one, a larceny over $250 charge is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for up to five years. At the district court level, a charge of larceny over $250 is punishable by up to two years in jail. The prosecution of Beltran and Matos will likely be very aggressive, given the large amount of money involved and the fact that, as noted by Coakley, the alleged scheme will probably undermine public confidence in the system.

| by

Just two days ago a Massachusetts State Trooper made a motor vehicle stop just before four in the morning. According to reports the car ran a stop sign and was speeding in Brighton. Some of the passengers were “ducking” in the car at the time the trooper started to approach the car. Brian Poitras of Lynn, Massachusetts was supposedly driving the car with a suspended driver’s license. He was placed under arrest. The three passengers were then removed from the car. In an area not specified in the article officers found eleven grams of cocaine, seven grams of methamphetamine and some marijuana, the amount of which did not meet the threshold for a criminal complaint in Massachusetts. In addition to being charged with Operating with a Suspended Driver’s License Poitras was charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine, Drug Conspiracy, and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana. The passengers, Kristen Hosman of Salem, Massachusetts, Victor Cordino of Boston, Massachusetts, and Cameron Linehan of Somerville, Massachusetts were all charged with the same Massachusetts Drug Offenses. The case will be prosecuted in the Brighton District Court.

Read Article:

Boston, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm

Boston Drug Defense Lawyer, Possession With Intent, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methamphetamine

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I truly enjoy defending cases like this one. Countless variables factor into defense strategies in this case. There will be defenses pertaining to some of the accused, one of the defendants, and all of the defendants depending on where the drugs were found, who said what and what the officers recorded in their report. There is no way that all four people in the car were Possessing Drugs either directly or constructively as is required for a conviction for these crimes. There is no way that all four of the accused conspired to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. Rather, they were all arrested because they were present where drugs were found and that is not enough to get a conviction in Massachusetts. In its simplest form, conspiracy in the context of this case requires an agreement to commit a designated drug offense. Four people in a car and the presence of drugs does not establish that element (the agreement) of the conspiracy charge. It will be even more difficult for the district attorney to prove that all of the defendants intended to distribute the substances. As I have mentioned several times in the past, being present where a crime is being committed is not proof that that person was involved in criminal activity. Absent more than is mentioned in this article the drug charges might not survive.

Continue Reading