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

| by

According to a report in the Quincy Patriot Ledger a Quincy, Massachusetts police officer saw what he determined to be “suspicious behavior” at 2:30 in the afternoon in a residential neighborhood. The newspaper report says that the officer believed that two men sitting in a parked car were “acting suspicious”. The men were identified as Raul Fontana of Lawrence, Massachusetts and Harrich Garcia of Haverhill, Massachusetts. The officer also observed that the address where the car was parked, 10 Earnest Avenue, appeared to have been broken into. The belief was that there might be a break-in in progress and that perhaps these two men were involved. The officer searched both men. Fontana was found in possession of an unspecified quantify of Oxycontin. A third individual, Ely Thevenot exited the home with a shoebox. Police searched him and the box and found about ten thousand dollars cash. Another man, Jose Rosario was found hiding in a car nearby. Officers searched the home and found more Oxycontin. Two other people who were in the house at the time were not charged with any crimes. All four men have been charged with Trafficking Oxycontin, a Class A substance, Drug Conspiracy and Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Counterfeit Substance. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court but will probably be prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Oxycontin Trafficking Defense Law Firm

Drug Trafficking Attorney in Quincy, Massachusetts

Accepting for now that the article is accurate the starting for a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defending this case is to evaluate the constitutionality of the stop and frisk of the individuals in the car and then the determine whether the search of Thevenot and the house were lawful. To justify the seizure of Fontana and Garcia the police must show that they had reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupants of the car had committed or were about to commit or were in the process of committing a crime. The district attorney in this case is going to argue that the broken window at 10 Earnest Street gave rise to this suspicion and permitted the search of the car occupants and Thevenot. A hunch does not meet the standard of reasonableness. In this case there appears to be an absence of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the actions of Fontana and Garcia were consistent with criminal activity. Simply sitting in a car at 2:30 in the afternoon in a residential neighborhood does not support the officer’s actions. So what did the officer in fact see when he approached the car? Did he see some sort of object consistent with being used to break windows? Did he see cuts on the hands of either Fontana or Garcia consistent with them having suffered injury while breaking into the home? Were the officers notified about the possibility of a break-in at 10 Earnest Avenue? Or were Fontana and Garcia simply sitting in their car outside of the home? Did the officers know who lived in the home? Was the home associated with drug activity in the past? Here, it looks like the police officer was acting on a hunch. This should not survive a constitutional challenge.

Continue Reading

| by

Just after 5:30 p.m. yesterday, Methuen, Massachusetts resident John Sullivan was driving on Pelham Street when he heard a noise. He thought he hit a deer. Not too long thereafter Sullivan noticed damage appearing to be more extensive than he first thought. He became concerned that he might have hit a person so in less than one half hour he went to the Methuen Police Station where he learned that he had in fact struck a seventy-year old woman who was in critical condition. The woman was wearing dark clothing. Several witnesses saw her being thrown into the air. Another witness though that a trash bag was being thrown out of the window of a car in front of her. There is no indication that anyone was able to identify Sullivan or his car as being involved in the accident. Sullivan has been released on personal recognizance notwithstanding a request from the assistant district attorney for a ten thousand dollar bail. Charges of Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injury are pending in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crime Defense Law Firm

Leaving the Scene of an Accident Lawyer in Massachusetts

Not every accident resulting in an injury constitutes a crime. That is the message that Sullivan’s Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer needs to convey to the district attorney’s office or, if necessary to a jury. Keep in mind a few things. The woman who was hit by Sullivan’s car was wearing dark clothing. According to the newspaper report the victim’s late husband was hit by a car in that area about six years ago. So what does that tell you? This is a dangerous intersection. Or, the lighting in this area is poor. What did Sullivan do wrong? Nothing according to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune article. None of the witnesses’ statements referenced any wrongdoing on his part. There is no reference to excessive speed or to a red light violation. There is no indication that he was inattentive. As a matter of fact, Sullivan did the right thing. When he became concerned that he might not have hit a deer he immediately went to the police station. When he learned that someone had been hit he voluntarily gave a statement. The timing of his actions are critical. Less than one half hour after the accident he reports to the police station. This immediately eliminates any suggestion that he was operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His lawyer made clear that he has not texting capabilities so we can rule that out as well.

Continue Reading

| by

David Anderson of Salisbury, Massachusetts has been charged with Possession of Child Pornography and Unlawfully Videotaping Persons in the nude. According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Anderson’s former wife found nude video pictures of unsuspecting young female relatives. The girls were between the ages of ten and thirteen. She contacted police in Newtown, Connecticut, a town where Anderson also resides. The police in Connecticut contacted the Salisbury, Massachusetts police who in turn applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. According to authorities, computer hard drives were seized and analyzed. On them are thousands of images of young women. The women came into contact with Anderson through internet advertisements offering money in exchange for internal examinations. The examinations consisted of digital intrusions that were photographed. Anderson’s activities might have occurred over the course of several years. The case in now pending in the Newburyport District Court but will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Anderson has a pending Child Pornography case pending in another state.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Law Firm

Child Pornography Possession Attorney in Massachusetts

So how would a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defend a case like this one? The answer is pretty simple. Get the search declared unconstitutional and it is unlikely that the prosecution will be able to go forward with its case. How likely is that? Well, that all depends on how well the affidavit in support of the Search Warrant was written. In cases like this one the credibility of the person providing law enforcement the initial incriminating evidence is at issue. In this case that person is Anderson’s former wife. Since she is not identified as a “confidential informant” the standard for determining her credibility is somewhat relaxed. She receives an enhanced status when her credibility is being evaluated. One Massachusetts case stated that someone who witnesses a crime should be deemed reliable without needing to show prior reliability. In this case there should be a caveat to that. One can reasonably conclude that a former spouse’s credibility might be in doubt where the relationship is shown to be hostile. Thus, there would need to be independent corroboration to the allegations made by Anderson’s wife in this case.

This article suggests that Anderson might have additional problems developing in the near future. The police are trying to identify the women whose images were taken during the “examinations”. As they come forward I would expect the charges to mount along with the strength of the district attorney’s case. Defending this case is not going to be an easy task and the consequences of a conviction will likely implicate a jail sentence.

Continue Reading

| by

James Hampton Wade, a 22-year-year old Marblehead man, is facing charges of operating under the influence of alcohol and drugs, both second offenses, operating a motor vehicle to endanger, leaving the scene of property damage, and resisting arrest after allegedly crashing his car into a utility pole on Saturday night. Police allegedly received a report of the accident, which split the pole, shortly after 9 p.m. on Saturday. A person reportedly exited the car, “stuck an air bag back in,” and left the scene. Police allegedly followed a trail of antifreeze from the accident location to the vehicle allegedly operated by Wade. Wade, walking down the street, was located shortly after police found the car. He allegedly told police that he crashed into the pole because he had taken too many Prazosin pills and that he had planned on reporting his car stolen before police arrived. Wade allegedly struggled with the arresting officer, who claims to have injured his neck, for one minute. The car was towed.

During booking, police allegedly found a $12.75 receipt, which had cleared about 20 minutes before the crash was reported, from a local bar. Wade was arraigned in Lynn District Court and released on personal recognizance Monday, and his pre-trial date is scheduled for Jan. 3.

This might be a difficult case for the government to prove if Wade retains an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney. It is unclear whether the drunk-driving count is based on anything more than the bar receipt. For example, it is unclear whether Wade took a breathalyzer test, submitted to any field sobriety tests, or exhibited any signs of impairment. There may not have been probable cause to support this count of the complaint or the government might ultimately struggle with proving it, particularly where the $12.75 bar receipt could easily have been for just one or two drinks, food, or drinks for another person. It would also be interesting to find out how much time elapsed between the accident report and the encounter with Wade. Timing is important because even if Wade did exhibit signs of intoxication at the time police confronted him, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that he was intoxicated at the time of the alleged operation. For example, he could have had drinks after the alleged accident. In order for the Commonwealth to prevail at trial they must demonstrate that Wade was operating a motor vehicle on a public way while under the influence of alcohol. All three of these elements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The most litigated element is the “intoxication element.” The Massachusetts jury instructions tell jurors that to prove this element the Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant was drunk but just that his or her ability to operate was impaired do to alcohol. In some cases, such as this one, when the defendant is not arrested behind the wheel of the car an experienced Boston area defense attorney can shed doubt on whether the defendant was driving the car while he or she was under the influence.

Continue Reading

| by

Last week an animal control officer in Lawrence, Massachusetts responded to a call reporting that a kitten was dying at a local rooming house. The officer learned from another tenant that the accused, Edwin Hernandez might have thrown the animal at a wall after it supposedly scratched him. The witness also reported seeing Hernandez hit the kitten several times in the head. The animal control officer reported that the kitten’s face was swollen and that it was bleeding from the mouth area. Hernandez denied striking the animal. A local animal hospital examined the kitten and confirmed that hit had a suffered a broken jaw and blunt force trauma to its head. Hernandez will be summonsed for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Law Firm

Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Essex County Massachusetts

There are two primary animal cruelty laws in Massachusetts. The first is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 112 which makes it a felony to “willfully and maliciously” kill, disfigure or maim an animal. This crime is a felony. A conviction for this offense can result in up to five years on prison. The other law is more commonly used when charging Animal Cruelty Cases in Massachusetts. This law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 77 makes it a felony to torture or beat an animal. This law also permits a state prison sentence for up to five years. Animal cruelty cases in Massachusetts are taken quite seriously by prosecutors and judges. People do get sentenced to jail when convicted of these charges. This makes your decision of which Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to hire an important one.

So what is going to happen to Mr. Hernandez? This depends on how the magistrate handles the allegations at the Clerk’s Hearing. If the tenant who witnessed Hernandez hit the kitten on the head appears and offers testimony against him then a complaint will most probably issue. Even if this person does not appear at the hearing, the animal control officer will provide this information to the magistrate making the likelihood of the issuance of a criminal complaint strong. Hernandez has to keep in mind that anything he might say at the Clerk’s Hearing can be used against him if the complaint issues. Not all Clerk’s Hearings are recorded however I have seen police officers take notes and prepare supplemental reports based on representations made during these proceedings. Prosecutors will use this material to help prove their case. Appearing at a Clerk’s Hearing without a lawyer is never a good idea. Too many times complaints issue in cases where had the defendant hired a lawyer no probable cause would have been established.

Continue Reading

| by

William Kotowski and his wife Joanna were driving home in separate cars after meeting for dinner late last week. Another car being driven by an unnamed individual was being operated in an aggressive manner, one that appeared threatening to the Kotowski’s. That man pulled off of the road to enter and establishment. William Kotowski followed the man into the parking lot. While he was in his car the other man approached him and started to scream at Kotowski. This individual claims that Kotowski then brandished a firearm, pointing it at his face. Kotowski then left. The police arrived at his home, conducted a search and found the Firearm. Joanna Kotowski arrived home during the arrest. Incensed at the fact that the other person was not arrested she went back to the store to confront the man. She too was then arrested. William Kotowski has been charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and a Massachusetts Firearms Crime. Joanna Kotowski has been charged with Assault and Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The case is pending in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapons Defense Law Firm

Newburyport, Massachusetts Assault and Battery Lawyer, Gun Charges Attorney

The best way to see what might have happened in the parking lot is to check for security video cameras. More and more establishments have installed some sort of security device over the past decade. The cost of installation is cheap. Parking lots and entryways to today’s establishments often have this equipment to prevent thefts and to identify suspicious patrons. A diligent Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will usually visit the crime scene on his case to see what evidence might exist to help exonerate his client. One such piece of evidence is the presence of video equipment. I recently had a Drunk Driving (OUI) case in a Middlesex County Court where the police officer failed to secure a videotape of the parking lot at a convenience store where he supposedly had the defendant perform Field Sobriety Tests. During cross-examination the officer was shown pictures of the structure, the parking lot and the cameras. He was asked whether or not efforts were made to secure the videotape. His answers were evasive. It was clear to the jury that the officer was either lying or that he did not adequately do his job. This resulted in a successful outcome for my client. A videotape might support Kotowski’s defense that the “victim” was the initial aggressor in this case.

The Kotowski’s complaint about the victim not being arrested is a valid one. However, not all is lost simply because this person was not arrested. The defendant’s can certainly apply for a complaint against this person at the courthouse if they feel aggrieved.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune has reported that Lawrence Police Officer William Green shot a man who is accused of beating another male with a baseball bat in a Lawrence alley. The Tribune reports that while Green was doing a paid detail at the Club Copa he became alerted to a disturbance in a nearby alley. Upon investigation, Green observed a male beating another male with a baseball bat. According to the report of District Attorney Blodgett’s office, Officer Green gave reported verbal commands for the assailant to stop. The bat yielding assailant, later identified as Jose Concepcion of Lawrence, apparently failed to stop and Green shot him twice. This put an end to the beating and both participants landed in the hospital. Concepcion was taken to Lawrence General Hospital and the other male was taken to a Boston Hospital. According to a press release from Blodgett’s office, per department policy, Green has been placed on paid administrative leave. The Massachusetts State Police and The Essex County District Attorney’s Office is continuing to investigate the incident.

The facts of this case raise some very interesting and often litigated legal issues. A defense that is often asserted, when identification of a perpetrator is not an issue, is self-defense or defense of another. Although all of the facts of this case are clearly not available at this time, this may or may not be a viable defense. It is always the burden on the Commonwealth to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Once a defendant asserts a claim of self-defense or defense of another the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In Massachusetts an individual has an obligation to retreat if possible and can only use as much force as reasonable to defend oneself. Generally speaking, a gun or knife would be considered excessive force if an individual was fighting an unarmed person. However, every case is fact specific. Critical factors to be considered if you believe that this type of defense may apply to your case are whether a defendant was out numbered, what type of weapon was used (if any) and the size of the parties involved.

Based on the facts of this case it appears that the individual that used the bat on the male in the alley can be charged with a number of offenses ranging from assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon to assault with intent to murder (armed). In the event that the person is charged with just assault and battery and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon the case may remain in the District Court. The advantage of this is that a District Court Judge can only sentence up to two and one half years in the house of correction. However, if the case is indicted and the case is in Superior Court he will face the possibility of a state prison sentence. The maximum sentence for armed assault with a dangerous weapon is twenty years. The decision of what Court that this case will be litigated in will probably be made after a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attack and the background of the involved parties. Based on my experience, I would expect that the Essex County District Attorney’s Office will present the case to a Grand Jury and indictments will be returned against the individual that struck the male with the bat.

Continue Reading

| by

Debra Antonitis, a 45-year-old North Attleboro woman, has been charged with mail fraud and wire fraud for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from the Wrentham Co-Operative Bank where she previously worked, the Boston Globe reported Thursday.

Prosecutors claim that between April 2006 and and January 2012, Antonitis made fraudulent transfers by faking withdrawals from customer accounts and transferring the money to her own account. The government also alleges that Antonitis created false entries in records to make it appear that the customers had made the withdrawals. Antonitis allegedly made 143 fraudulent transfers totaling $112,385. She is facing three counts of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud.

Federal prosecutors love to bring mail and wire fraud charges, and Antonitis will need an experienced federal criminal defense attorney on her side. Former federal prosecutor Jed Rakoff wrote the following in a Duquesne law review article:

To federal prosecutors of white collar crime, the mail fraud statute is our Stradivarius, our Colt 45, our Louisville Slugger, our Cuisinart-our true love. We may flirt with RICO…and call the conspiracy law “darling,” but we always come home to the virtues of [the mail fraud statute], with its simplicity, adaptability, and comfortable familiarity. It understands us and, like many a foolish spouse, we like to think we understand it.

As Rakoff notes, part of the reason prosecutors are so fond of mail and wire fraud is the simplicity of these offenses. Both come down to two basic elements, although there are sub-elements: (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) use of mail or use of interstate wire communications to further the scheme. Another reason prosecutors find these statutes so attractive is that they are amorphous and allow the government to prosecute a huge range of conduct, even activity that doesn’t necessarily fall under the traditional umbrella of “fraud.” The government does not have to prove that the mailing or wiring contained fraudulent information or that a defendant personally mailed or wired the item in question, as long as the defendant”caused” the mailing or wiring. The government also likes these offenses because the unit of prosecution for the purposes of charging is each mailing or wiring. Therefore, the government can bring a separate count for each mailing or wiring, even if there was just one scheme.

Antonitis should speak with a Massachusetts criminal lawyer who has experience in the federal courts and understands the complexities of federal criminal practice, one with a thorough understanding of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been advisory only, but judges often follow the guidelines or deviate from them at the government’s request. This is probably due in part to the fact that most federal district court judges were appointed since 1987, when the Guidelines went into effect, and are just familiar with that regime. Judges might also stick to the guidelines for fear of reversal. Some believe that judges had their hands tied by the guidelines for so long that they’re afraid too many downward departures will prompt Congress to restrain their discretion again. In any event, a skilled attorney should aggressively work to both build a strong defense and to minimize Antonitis’ Guidelines exposure.

Continue Reading

| by

At four o’clock this morning actress Lindsay Lohan was arrested in New York. It is alleged that Lohan slapped a woman at a New York City nightclub during an argument. The woman did not need medical treatment. Lohan is currently on probation in relation to a theft case having occurred last year. This arrest could result in Lohan being charged with a Probation Violation.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Probation Violation Defense Law Firm

Assault and Battery Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts

A Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will often defend alleged Probation Violations in advocate on behalf of the accused at the ensuing Probation Surrender Hearing. This process is often unpredictable and results vary from court to court. The practice of certain probation officers and/or their departments are inconsistent throughout the Commonwealth. For instance, some probation departments routinely recommend incarceration for someone they believe has violated the conditions of his probation. Some judges regularly adopt such recommendations making it almost impossible to get a just result in certain cases. Others will give the probationer a fair hearing and make their determination based on what I consider a more fair hearing. The standard at a probation revocation hearing in Massachusetts is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The federal standard is “at least to a reasonable degree of certainty”. In my opinion the federal standard is more favorable to the accused. This cuts against the Massachusetts trend to provide more protections for the accused than does the federal courts.

In Massachusetts “[a]ny conduct by a person on probation which constitutes a violation of any of the conditions of his probation may form the basis for the revocation of that probation.” A violation of the laws as alleged in the Lohan matter would suffice in Massachusetts. There is no requirement that the accused by convicted of the alleged crime that serves as the predicate for the violation. Similarly, an acquittal on the crimes serving as the violation does not end the surrender hearing. A new arrest provides grounds for initiating a surrender hearing. In Massachusetts a defendant’s probation may be revoked on hearsay evidence along so long as the hearsay evidence has substantial indicia of reliability. Unreliable hearsay cannot serve as the basis for probation revocation. There is a due process requirement pertaining to Probation Violations in Massachusetts however it is not nearly as strong as that in criminal prosecutions. In essence, all that Massachusetts requires is written notice of the alleged violation, disclosure of the evidence supporting revocation and the right to be heard and to present evidence. The makes it extremely important for the accused to make sure that the Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer he hires has experience with Probation Violation Hearings and familiarity with the judges and probation officers in that particular court.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report in Boston.com, Ciro Reyes-Palma, a Massachusetts man was in the middle of a Rape of a Child trial in Great Barrington. He was facing eleven counts stemming from allegations that he committed Rape of a girl over a three year period. The Sexual Assault began in 2009 and continued until 2011. Authorities learned that Reyes-Palma fled to Mexico on Saturday. Despite his default the trial continued. The man was convicted in his absence.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Defense Law Firm

Lawyers Who Defend Child Rape Cases in Massachusetts

This case brings up the interesting issue of how judges and lawyers handle cases where the accused defaults during trial. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 states that “[i]f a defendant is present at the beginning of a trial and thereafter absents himself without cause or without leave of court, the trial may proceed to a conclusion in all respects except the imposition of sentence as though the defendant were still present.” That is what occurred here. The right to be present at one’s trial is deemed waived or forfeited where the accused does one of two things. If he voluntarily absents himself from the trial his appearance is deemed waived. Or, if his conduct is disruptive to the proceedings a judge in his discretion may order the defendant secluded. In the latter situation the defendant is usually placed in a separate room where he can view the proceedings alone. If a defendant fails to show up during the trial the judge has to decide whether the trial should continue or whether mistrial should be granted. The judge’s job is to determine whether the defendant’s absence is with or without cause and whether or not it is voluntary. Thus, typically some sort of investigation is undergone and a hearing follows. The record must show what efforts were taken to find the defendant and what evidence has been gathered in relation to his default.

Here, I imagine that is what the judge in fact did and decided that given the defendant’s flight to Mexico the trial should continue. The bigger problem in situations like this the judge can charge the jury on consciousness of guilt. Naturally, if this instruction is given the jury will believe that the defendant’s mid-trial default was due to his belief that things were not going his way and that he was going to be convicted. As a practical consequence, the defendant’s sentence will probably be substantially greater than it would have been had he remained in court for the duration of the case. Similarly, he can be charged with another crime for defaulting in the middle of his trial.

Continue Reading