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

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reports that Mary Lukasik, a Massachusetts woman will be charged following an accident that resulted in a death just two days ago. The thirty four year old Lukasik was driving a car that struck a fifty one year old woman. The accident occurred around 7:00 in the morning. Lukasik will be charged with Motor Vehicle Homicide by way of Negligent Operation. The case will be prosecuted at least initially in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Homicide Defense Law Firm

Hingham, Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Defense Lawyer

In the opinion of this Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer perhaps the most unjust crime that is prosecuted in Massachusetts is Motor Vehicle Homicide by way of negligent operation. This Massachusetts law states that ordinary negligence, the same negligence that applies to tort cases can suffice to establish guilt of the accused. The law requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated a motor vehicle, that she did so in a public way and that she did so in a negligent manner such that the lives and safety of the public might be endangered. A finding of “ordinary negligence” establishes a violation of the statute. The penalty for a conviction under this statute is rather severe given the absence of a need to prove criminal intent. There is a minimum thirty day sentence and up to two and one half years under the misdemeanor version of this law and significantly more if the case is prosecuted as a felony. There is also a fifteen year loss of license for anyone convicted of this crime. While the article is silent as to whether this case will be charged as a misdemeanor or felony it appears that a misdemeanor complaint has issued.

To successfully defend a case like this it is necessary to show an absence of negligence on the part of the accused. Did the victim dart out in front of the car? Was there some sort of obstruction in the road or nearby area impacting the driver’s ability to see the pedestrian? Was the accused acting appropriately and this simply an unfortunate accident? These are some of the questions that Ms. Lukasik’s lawyer will investigate in preparing for her defense. Being accused of a crime does not mean that a person is guilty of having committed that crime. Unfortunately, when a death is involved prosecutors tend to try to hold someone accountable for the act. Their approach is often “let a judge or jury determine what happened and assign accountability”. Good, experienced defense lawyers can convince a judge or a jury that there was no crime committed and perhaps all that occurred was an unfortunate accident.

Continue Reading

| by

An article in Wicked Local, Cambridge reports today that Toure Penn Poster of Cambridge, Massachusetts was arrested after police officers supposedly saw him engaged in a drug deal just after 9:30 a couple of weeks ago. The officer reported that he saw Poster on his bicycle circling and constantly looking back towards the officer’s cruiser. A car approached. Poster was witnessed leaving his bicycle, getting into the car and getting out of the car a few blocks down the road. Officers confronted Poster, searched him and found in his possession three small baggies of marijuana, a Class D substance. Poster was arrested and charged with Distribution of Marijuana, a Class D Substance. He was also charged with Distribution of Marijuana in a School Zone given the incident occurred within three hundred feet of an elementary school. Officers further reported taking Poster’s cell phone and taking calls made to the phone during which alleged Drug Deals were discussed.

Read Article:

Cambridge, Massachusetts Marijuana Distribution Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Drug Cases in Cambridge, Massachusetts, School Zone Cases

The first thing a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will think when reading about this case is “why was Poster charged with Distribution?”. There is no indication that any officer saw him distribute anything. The information that the police related is that they saw Poster get into a car, abandon his bicycle, exit the car a few blocks away where he was found in possession of an obviously small quantity of Marijuana. Interestingly enough the quantity of the drug is not even mentioned suggesting to me that it was far less than one ounce, thereby making Poster’s activities non-criminal unless the district attorney can prove actual distribution or an intent to distribute. Well, the distribution suggestion seems purely speculative. Who is to say that Poster was selling as opposed to buying from the person in the car? Even more, who is to say that Poster and the unknown, unidentified person in the car had any Marijuana Dealings at all? Poster might well have had the Marijuana in his Possession prior to meeting up with the car. And think about this. Why would Poster get involved in a drug deal with a police cruiser right near him? Wouldn’t he simply tell the driver of the car to come back another time? Wouldn’t he call the person and say “Hey. The timing is bad. There is a police car right here?” Stories like this one always raise my suspicions. Drug dealers do not deal drugs in front of parked police cruisers particularly when they know that the police are watching them as Poster seemingly did here. It seems to me that either the facts set out in this article are very incomplete or Poster has some viable defenses to set out, or both.

Continue Reading

| by

Marc Appleton, a 30-year-old Gloucester man, has been charged with animal cruelty after allegedly breaking a dog’s leg. It is alleged that three witnesses heard the dog, which belonged to Appleton’s roommate, crying after two loud thumps. One neighbor told police that the dog was not outside until after the dog was heard crying. One witness found the dog in the bushes with a swollen leg and advised Appleton to take the dog to the animal hospital. This witness claims that Appleton admitted to “smacking” the dog after he discovered that it had chewed his DVD and urinated on the floor. Appleton allegedly told police that the dog was hit by a car. He denied hitting the dog. Appleton allegedly took the dog, a beagle mix named Buddy, to his roommate’s work place and told the roommate that the dog had been hit by a car. The two men took the dog to the hospital, and Appleton allegedly agreed to pay for the medical bills, which totaled $4,900.

Just weeks ago, John Dugan, another Gloucester man, was charged with animal cruelty after allegedly disemboweling his dog. In that case, prosecutors allege that Dugan, 26, killed the dog because it ate a large amount of heroin and then dumped its body behind a building. Police searched Dugan’s home and found a pit bull, an electronic scale, and plastic sandwich bags, items allegedly associated with drug distribution.

The cases referenced above will likely be prosecuted aggressively, and the defendants will need the help of experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers. The government may take a hard-line approach because certain studies indicate that those who abuse animals are likely to become violent towards people down the line. Animal abuse is used by F.B.I. profilers as a major factor in assessing the likelihood of future violence.

Continue Reading

| by

Today’s Brockton Enterprise reports that Patrice Moorer, a Taunton, Massachusetts woman has been indicted on allegations that she lied to a Plymouth County Grand Jury in a Murder Case. The alleged misleading information provided by Moorer relates back to a November 2009 murder in Brockton. In the early morning hours four people were shot at a Hess Gas Station. One of the victims succumbed to his wounds. A day after the shooting Moorer was interviewed by the police and summonsed to testify before a grand jury. She provided testimony at that proceeding. Subsequently, in 2010, Moorer spoke with state police again. This past September she was again summonsed to testify before the grand jury. She did only this time her testimony changed. Authorities then charged Moorer with Perjury and Intimidation of a Witness. Her case is pending in the Brockton Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton, Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Law Firm

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Perjury, Intimidation of a Witness

The Massachusetts Witness Intimidation statute, M.G.L. c. 268 Section 13B includes what is commonly known as the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Among other things this statute makes it a crime for anyone to lie to a police officer who is investigating a case or to lie to a grand jury. This crime is a felony. It is punishable by up to ten years in state prison and a five thousand dollar fine. It is not clear from this article whether the basis for the charges against Moorer stem from allegations that she lied to the state police investigating the murder or lies to the grand jury or both. What is clear however is that she has some tremendous exposure.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I see cases like this one becoming more prevalent. District attorneys now indict this conduct more frequently. They do so for several reasons. They want to send a message to people that misleading an investigation, particularly one of this magnitude will not be tolerated. Perhaps more importantly these cases get filed to “squeeze” the witness into providing more accurate information regarding their knowledge of the crime. I would imagine that law enforcement believes that Moorer has some significant knowledge either of the events or people who might have been involved in the crime. The threat of ten years in jail looming over her might be incentive enough for her to cooperate in exchange for some sort of leniency in her pending case. This again however is a perfect example of how speaking to the police without hiring a lawyer can get you into big trouble. Always err on the side of caution and consult with a lawyer before talking to the police. Some basic advice can save you the problems that Moorer is facing.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Dery Moeda of Brockton, Massachusetts has been indicted by a Plymouth County grand jury for Home Invasion and related Massachusetts Violent Crimes. It is alleged that Moeda broke into a home on October 11, 2012 around 7:30 in the morning. While in the home he placed a gun against a thirteen year old girl’s head, telling her to remain silent while the apartment in which she lived was searched for nearly one hour. Apparently Moeda and his cohorts were looking for money they believed to be in the home. The girl identified Moeda through a photo array. In addition to Home Invasion, Moeda has been charged with Kidnapping and Larceny Over $250. The case is being prosecuted in the Brockton Superior Court.

Read Article:

Plymouth County Kidnapping Defense Law Firm

Brockton Criminal Defense Lawyer, Home Invasion, Larceny

Whenever a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defends a case like this one the photographic identification process gets scrutinized. I always want to know what the victim saw and how strong her identification of the suspect was prior to her being presented with the photographic array. The identification itself and the photographic array get introduced into evidence unless the defendant’s lawyer is able to show that this aspect of the identification process was unnecessarily suggestive and that the identification itself was tainted because of it. The burden is on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that given the totality of the circumstances the identification process was so “suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification as to deny the defendant due process of law”. While this task is difficult and arguably unconstitutional given its burden shifting application, recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court established an advisory protocol to help ensure against abuse. This would require law enforcement to make it clear to the witness that the person who committed the crime may or may not be in the array. The witness should also be advised that it is just as important to clear someone as it is to identify someone. Additionally, the witness should be told that the individuals depicted in the photographs might appear different than they did at the time of the crime and that regardless of whether or not an identification is made the investigation will continue. The procedure shall also ask the person making the identification to state the degree of certainty he has in selecting the photo.

When this procedure is not used in accordance with the Supreme Judicial Court’s recommendation I usually ask the trial judge to incorporate in the jury instructions language that reflects law enforcement’s failure. I view a significant percentage of out of court photographic identifications as unreliable and suggestive. This is certainly something worth litigating in Massachusetts Criminal Cases.

Continue Reading

| by

In Massachusetts, someone can apply for a “restraining order” against another person even if the parties are not related, not roommates and have not been in a dating relationship. Massachusetts restraining order Our Attorney has years of experience fighting for defendants who have been served with civil 209A restraining orders or 258E Harassment Prevention Orders.

Traditionally in Massachusetts, it was necessary for the parties to either be related, living together or involved in a substantial dating relationship to have standing to apply for a civil 209 A restraining order requesting that a judge order one party to stay away or not contact another party. The standard that must be met for a judge to issue a 209A restraining order is that the complainant has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm from the defendant. In Massachusetts, an individual can seek a temporary order in a district court. If the defendant is not readily available a judge often issues the order for a short period of time, one week to ten days, and sets a return date with the expectation that the responding party will be notified of the hearing. This allows a defendant to appear and court and make his or her case why the restraining order should not be extended. Typically the defendant maintains that the plaintiff is not telling the truth and/or that even if what the plaintiff is claiming is true, he or she failed to establish that these actions could reasonably cause the plaintiff to reasonably be in fear of immediate serious physical harm. Massachusetts defense lawyer Our Attorney meticulously prepares for these hearings. Securing the affidavit that the plaintiff filed in support of the order and reviewing all supporting documentation, such as emails, text messages and any other documents to support the clients position is crucial to be prepared to mount a successful defense. A 209A restraining order is a civil order however, any alleged violation can result in a criminal charge against a defendant for violation the restraining order. Additionally, an individual who has a restraining order issued against him or her must surrender all firearms. This fact may effect employment for individuals that are in law enforcement or other professions in which carrying a firearm is part of the job. Clearly, mounting a successful defense and preventing the issuance or continuance of a 2090A order is critical.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258E provides another avenue for plaintiffs to seek a civil restraining order against a defendant. This type of order is often referred to as a “Harassment Prevention Order. The statute provides the following three definitions of “harassment” warranting relief: (1)”3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, abuse or damage to property”; or (2) a single act that “by force, threat, or duress causes another to involuntarily engage in sexual relations”; or (3) a single act that constitutes one of 12 enumerated crimes involving sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. One major difference between this order and a 209A order is that the parties do not have to be related, married, roommates or have been involved in a substantial dating relationship.

The most common provision that the District Courts see is the first section in which the plaintiff must demonstrate, “three or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, abuse or damage to property.”

This first branch of harassment has five components. The first requires that there be three or more acts of harassment. The additional requirements are as follows: (1) Each act must be aimed at a specific person; (2) Each act must have been both willful and malicious; (3) Each act must have been done with intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or property damage; and (4) Each act must in fact have caused fear, intimidation, abuse or property damage. Defending the issuance or extension of this type of order requires an experienced Harassment Prevention Order attorney to attack each prong of the requirements. The attorney must conduct interviews with the defendant and any potential witnesses and review the appropriate documents.

Continue Reading

| by

Melvin Ehrlich, a 52-year-old pediatric dentist, was arraigned in Framingham District Court Thursday on charges of illegal possession and distribution of child pornography. It is alleged that a technician discovered the pornography on Ehrlich’s computer in March and reported it to the police. The prosecutor claimed that Ehrlich had 29 images of nude and partially-nude children on a laptop used by the dentist, his 18-year-old son, and his wife. Ehrlich allegedly took the laptop to the technician because it had a computer virus. A doctor who shares an office building with Ehrlich told reporters that her granddaughter has been treated by Ehrlich for years and that the granddaughter never exhibited any indication that something might be wrong. Ehrlich’s pre-trial date is scheduled for January 11.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, the first thing I notice is that Ehrlich shared the computer with at least two other people. He did not have exclusive access to the computer, and it is unclear how the government came to target Ehrlich, and not his wife or teenage son, in the investigation as to who downloaded or distributed the alleged pornography. Another thing to note is that the government will have to prove that the alleged dissemination of the pornography was purposeful. Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, such as Limewire, have made that much more difficult. Many users of such programs do not realize that by downloading a file, the user is also sharing the file in a universally accessible folder. File-sharing programs like Limewire have two functions. One is downloading files from other users. The other is making files on one’s own computer accessible to other users. Some of these programs automatically place any downloaded file in a “shared” folder. Often, users don’t fully understand these functions and inadvertently make their files available in the “shared” folder.

Finally, assuming that the police obtained a search warrant before conducting a search of Ehrlich’s laptop, there might be strong arguments for lack of probable cause or particularity if the images were described as they have been in news reports: images of “nude” and “partially nude” children. Not all images of children in states of nudity are pornographic. The First Amendment issues that arise in these types of cases are interesting. While child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, the determination as to whether an image is child pornography necessarily involves a First Amendment ruling, and the presumption that an image is protected under the First Amendment applies with equal force when the police are seeking items believed to be child pornography. Therefore, according to the First Circuit at least, the determination as to whether there is probable cause for issuance of a search warrant requires “a look” at the images or a very detailed description of them. If the description in this case was simply “images of nude or partially-nude children,” then it probably would not be considered sufficiently detailed.

| by

Kelly Arzate and Charles Berard, two Holyoke men, were charged Wednesday with cocaine trafficking and possession with intent to distribute marijuana after police conducted a “routine traffic stop,” according to local news outlets. A state trooper conducted the stop after midnight, allegedly because he noticed that Arzate’s license plate light was out. When he approached the car, he allegedly detected an odor of marijuana. He called for backup and ordered the pair out of the car. Troopers searched the car and allegedly recovered a bag of suspected cocaine in the center console, eight cell phones, $13,000 cash, and 15 pounds of marijuana, which was in the trunk, in individual baggies. Arzate and Berard were then arrested. Police estimate that the street value of the cocaine would have been $20,000 and that the street value of the marijuana would have been $4,000.

An experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer would immediately pick up on the fact that this exit order may have been illegal, and these two defendants might have strong grounds for a motion to suppress evidence. Because possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts, the odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot justify an exit order. This is because exit orders must be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Still, officers might be able to conduct an exit order of a driver if there is reasonable suspicion that the driver was operating the under the influence of marijuana. Here, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that Arzate was operating under the influence of marijuana. It’s telling that he was apparently not charged with that crime. Further, he was stopped not because he was driving erratically or in any way indicative of impairment. Rather, he was stopped simply because his light had gone out. There is no indication in news reports that Arzate exhibited any signs, such as blood shot eyes, of marijuana impairment. Also, it seems that there was no apparent reason for ordering the passenger, Berard out of the car. In order to do that, police would need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, independent of the driver, on the part of the passenger. The alleged drugs here were apparently not in plain view, since the troopers allegedly recovered them from the console and the trunk. It does not seem that the defendants engaged in any activity that could be perceived as a safety concern. Finally, it is unclear whether the trooper smelled burnt marijuana or fresh marijuana. If he smelled fresh marijuana, that would further weaken the case for reasonable suspicion of OUI drugs. A skillful Massachusetts drug crimes attorney will likely be able to make a strong argument for suppression in this case. Successful motions to suppress often lead to dismissal of drug charges.

| by

According to a report in the Metrowest Daily News, Donald Williams, a fifty six year old Massachusetts man is being charged with Attempted Murder. It is alleged that late last week police were called to a Worcester County address where they encountered Williams in the garage. Williams told the officers that the “victim” had attacked him with a baseball bat. In response, Williams stabbed the man. The home to which the police responded belonged to neither of the combatants. Williams was initially charged with Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, the same charged alleging the additional element of serious bodily injury and Assault. The charges were amended to add Attempted Murder. The case will likely be prosecuted in the Worcester Superior Court. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars. The “victim”, a man named John Cortez is also being charged with a Violent Crime, specifically Assault and Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon.

Read Article:

Worcester County Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Crimes in Worcester Courts

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer two things dart out at me when reading this article. One is the defense of self-defense. The other is the issue of the mutual invocation of Fifth Amendment privileges.

Self-Defense
Here are some things to consider when evaluating self-defense as a means of defending charges like these. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams did not act in self-defense. To do this the district attorney must show that the defendant did not reasonably believe that he was being attacked or was about to be attacked and that and that he was in danger of great bodily harm or death. The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams did everything reasonable to avoid the fight. Finally the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force Williams used was not reasonably necessary. This might be a difficult obstacle for the prosecutor to overcome. Williams was attacked by Cortez. The article suggests that he was permissibly at the location where the fight occurred. It is unclear whether Cortez was there with the homeowner’s consent. Cortez also used a baseball bat to strike Williams. Williams may not have been able to avoid defending himself and perhaps the only way he could do so was with a weapon. Also keep in mind that Williams never fled the crimes scene. This is evidence that works in his favor. Similarly, if Williams called the police the suggestion that he was the victim rather than the aggressor might prevail. The question is what would a reasonable person sitting in Williams’ shoes do? Massachusetts law states that retaliation is not a defense so the timing of the stabbing vis a vis the attack with the baseball bat becomes important here.

Fifth Amendment Privileges
Anytime someone does something that can be construed as being criminal he has the right to invoke his Fifth Amendment Privilege and refuse to testify. Oftentimes fights never get prosecuted as a result of this right. People who get charged with committing a crime either hire a lawyer or get a lawyer appointed for them. In situations like this one, where both combatants are charged with crimes of violence both will have a lawyer. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will probably tell his client to invoke the privilege and remain silent. In other words, the person will not testify against the person against whom he fought. Absent an independent witnsess’ the case will likely get dismissed.

Continue Reading

| by

John Burbine, a forty-nine-year-old Wakefield man, was arraigned in Middlesex Superior Court Wednesday, and he is facing 100 counts involving alleged sexual abuse and child rape, including 40 counts of aggravated forcible child rape. He was held without bail.

Prosecutors allege that Burbine sexually abused thirteen children, including an 8-day-old infant, between August 2010 and August 2012. Burbine, a Level 1 convicted sex offender, allegedly forced the children to perform sexual acts on him, raped them, made them watch pornography, and took baths with them. The government alleges that Burbine and his wife provided day care services, sometimes for long periods of time ranging from weeks to, in one case, 20 months. The day care center, Waterfall Company, was reportedly unlicensed and offered discounted rates. Burbine’s wife, Marian, was charged with multiple counts of reckless endangerment of a child. Prosecutors said that the investigation into her role in the abuse is ongoing.

Police allegedly found images of the children in states of nudity on Burbine’s computer. It’s also alleged that there were video files on the computer depicting Burbine sexually abusing at least one child. The images were allegedly stored in a file called “Little 2.”

Continue Reading