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

According to an article in the Brockton Enterprise Shane Wilson of Norton, Massachusetts has been charged with Leaving the Scene After Causing Personal Injury Resulting in Death. The incident occurred early Sunday morning on Route 24 near Randolph. It is alleged that Wilson struck a twenty nine year old Needham man around 1:15 in the morning. Apparently, just hours after the incident Wilson called the police, stating that he was aware that he hit something, just not a person. Investigators think the victim was walking against the flow of traffic and had not concluded from where he was coming. Wilson’s car is in the possession of law enforcement officials. The article indicates that an accident reconstruction is being performed by the Massachusetts State Police. Wilson will be prosecuted at least initially in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crimes Defense Law Firm

Leaving the Scene After Personal Injury or Death Lawyers in Massachusetts

The charges here are quite serious. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24 states that anyone who leaves the scene of an accident to avoid being arrested or prosecuted and as a result of that accident kills someone will be subject to a mandatory jail sentence of either one year in jail or two and one half years in state prison. It seems to me that the keys to this case are whether Wilson knew that he hit someone with his car and that after doing so he left the scene to avoid prosecution. All elements of this crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Wilson. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer here is what strikes me as interesting in this case. Wilson called the police himself to report that he hit something. What does this signify? 1) That he did not know if he in fact hit a person and 2) more importantly that he never intended to flee and avoid prosecution. Rather, he wanted to alert the authorities to a situation in which he was involved.

Here are some facts that I would need to know before assessing the viability of defenses in this case. Who if anybody was with Wilson when this happened? What did that person see? Where was the body found? What time did Wilson’s call go out to the police department? What does the state police accident reconstruction conclude? Did anyone else see what happened? Did the victim have a toxicology workup? What if anything did that reveal? There are many options for defending cases like this one. Each is fact specific. Wilson may want to consider his own accident reconstruction defending on the state police conclusions. We have engaged accident reconstructionists many times with excellent results. Many times these experts are able to demonstrate to a jury the flaws in the prosecutors’ expert’s analysis and show what really happened.

Continue Reading

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Dominique Hans from Salem boarded a school bus this past February in an effort to prevent her disabled child from continuing to be hit on the way to school. According to the paper, Hans approached the bus driver in an effort to explain that her child was getting hit by one of the passengers. When the bus driver apparently ignored her, she walked down the aisle and asked the child why she hit her son. It appears that she did not want the boy to sit next to her so she hit him. Hand eventually faced a charge of assault and battery in the Salem District Court.

In Salem District Court both sides offered their version of the events and proposed, what they believed to be, appropriate punishment. The Commonwealth requested that a guilty finding enter and the defendant be placed on eighteen months supervised probation and that she write a letter of apology. The defense proposed that the case be continued without a finding for one year and then dismissed if the defendant successfully completes probation. The defense emphasized the defendant’s impressive law abiding background and explained that the defendant was protecting her child from being hit on the bus. Apparently, the concerned mother and defendant feared that if the hitting continued her son could suffer hearing loss. The judge ultimately sided with the defendant and continued the case without finding the defendant guilty and ordered that she apologize to the passenger on the bus.

In order to prove assault and battery in Massachusetts the Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an intentional unconsented to touching on another person. If you or a family member has been charged with assault and battery it is important that you have an experiences Massachusetts defense lawyer on your side. Depending on the circumstances of the case a defense of self-defense, defense of another or a claim that the incident just did not happen can be developed and presented at trial.

Often times a criminal charge of domestic assault and battery often accompanies a request by the complainant for a civil 209A restraining order. If you have been served with a 209A restraining order or would like to seek a 209A restraining order against a relative, spouse, roommate or someone with whom you have been involved in a substantial dating relationship with — it is important that you contact an Massachusetts attorney to make sure that you understand the appropriate standard that has to be met. Although a 209A restraining order is a civil order–it is often recommended that a defense be presented because if the complainant alleges that there is a violation then a criminal charge can issue. The best way to avoid this from happening is to prevent the order from issuing in the first place!

Continue Reading

Just a few days ago police officers in Lynn, Massachusetts went to a home on a report of a dispute involving Domestic Violence. They arrived to find the victim bleeding from his head. Officers arrested Wallace Jones, a twenty one year old from Franklin Street in Lynn. Jones’ mother told the police that her son and her boyfriend got into a fight after she and the victim were arguing. She further stated that the defendant was attempting to defend her. Jones’ mother denied seeing Jones use a weapon to cut the victim. She believed that the injuries might have been sustained when her boyfriend hit his head on a table during the dispute. The charges Jones faces are not mentioned in the article but there it appears that either Assault and Battery or Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon or both will be considered.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Assault and Battery Defense Law Firm

Essex County Massachusetts Violent Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I never promise results for clients. No one can predict the outcome of a criminal case. Rather, criminal lawyers gage the likelihood of success on experiences they have had with similar cases in the county where the particular charge lies. The facts of this case suggest that a dismissal or even an acquittal are on the horizon for Jones. There was no weapon associated with the victim’s injuries. The only witness to the crime has told the police that Jones was defending her. This is indicative of an affirmative defense known as the Defense of Others. It permits someone to come to the aid of someone else provided he or she acts within certain parameters. In essence, the law in Massachusetts permits someone to use force if he reasonably believes that someone else is in imminent danger of sustaining bodily injury, that he reasonably believed that force was necessary to defend the person being attacked and that he use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend against the danger. Absent the use of a weapon it appears from the facts revealed in this article that Wallace Jones can avail himself of this defense.

Also, in this case it is unlikely that the victim, who was also a combatant will testify against the defendant. He has a privilege against self-incrimination and his testimony will open him up to a potential prosecution for Assault and Battery against Wallace Jones. Additionally, very few juries will convict someone who stands up to defend his mother against abuse from her boyfriend. I would be extremely surprised to see this case go to trial or to see anything short of a dismissal of these charges.

Continue Reading

Dossantos.jpgJust before 4:30 a.m. Monday, Brockton, Massachusetts police received a phone call from a man stating that he had been held captive at gunpoint. The “victim” stated that he went to the home of Emanuel Dossantos. Once he attempted to leave the home Dossantos held him at gunpoint. He was able to escape and call the police. He did not need or seek any medical attention. While the responding officer was interviewing the victim Dossantos came out of a nearby apartment. He was arrested. The police then applied for an obtained a Search Warrant. Later that day a search of Dossantos apartment was conducted. Inside the police found two guns and some cocaine. Dossantos was charged with Armed Robbery, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of Ammunition and Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court. That nature of the charges permits the district attorney to prosecute this case in the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Drug Defense Lawyer

Criminal Defense Law Firm in Brockton, Massachusetts

Any Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer reading this article will tell you the same thing. There is something incredible about the victim’s allegations. It is highly unlikely that the events as described by the victim unraveled as suggested or even at all. This looks very much like a drug deal gone bad or someone making allegations against a competitor or enemy. Now how do we know that? Consider the following questions. What was the victim doing out at the defendant’s home at 4:30 in the morning? Why didn’t anyone see any injuries on the victim? How was the victim able to escape from Dossantos while being held captive at gunpoint? Does the victim have a record for violence? Does the victim have a record for drugs? Are there any phone records showing the victim making calls at or near the time of the alleged illegal activities?

Here is something else to consider. If Dossantos had roommates the district attorney might have difficulty establishing Dossantos’ possession of the drugs and guns as opposed to someone else’s possession. I would imagine that for many reasons the victim in this case will not testify. He likely has a Fifth Amendment privilege that will enable him to avoid having to testify. That leaves only the Possession With Intent case against the defendant and absent some corroborative links between Dossantos and the substance a Motion to Dismiss or a dismissal on a request for a required finding of not guilty might work here. The case against Dossantos might not be nearly as bad as one might think at first glance.

Continue Reading

Thirty two year old William French of Framingham, Massachusetts was arrested following a 2010 incident where he is accused of Rape. Authorities claim that French kidnapped a woman and took her back to his home where he committed Aggravated Rape, Robbery and assorted Massachusetts felonies. He is now trying to Suppress evidence (statements) he claims were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; specifically that French was drunk at the time his confession was obtained. Three officers testified at the hearing, all claiming that they did not smell alcohol on French at all.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer

Suppressing Statements in Massachusetts is not easy to do. Yet when a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer is able to get someone’s confession excluded the case often becomes difficult if not impossible to prove. Both the federal and Massachusetts constitutions require exclusion of statements obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Any statement of an accused to be used by the district attorney must have been made voluntarily. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Intoxication bears heavily on the issue of voluntariness.

Great deference is given to the observations and testimony of police officers at hearing on motions to suppress evidence. Successfully challenging their account often requires tireless investigation. It might be necessary to establish a timeline through witnesses showing when and where the defendant was drinking, how much he was drinking and his apparent state of sobriety. Sometimes security videotapes can be accessed showing the accused drinking and acting in a manner consistent with being intoxicated at or near the time of the interrogation. Receipts from bars often help prove how much the accused had to drink.

Recent developments in Massachusetts case law have helped with police credibility issues in this area. It has been suggested that the better practice for police interrogations is to have the interview recorded. Consequently, Massachusetts police usually explain to the subject the option of having the proceeding recorded. The accused can reject the offer. These recordings have been helpful to me in defending cases. They often better highlight the points my clients seek to get across. So rather than rely on the police officer’s testimony the judge or jury can make an independent assessment about sobriety and constitutional violations in general.

Here, it appears that absent suppression of French’s statements a conviction is likely to follow. The allegations are chilling. French is already serving a state prison sentence following a parole violation. Rape is a life felony in Massachusetts and the guidelines for a sentence after a conviction are high in this case. This shows just how important it is to make a proper challenge to these statements.

Continue Reading

Five people from the towns of Salem, Wakefield, Peabody and Revere, Massachusetts have been charged in the Boston Municipal Court with Conspiracy, Subornation of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Corrpution of a Witness after testifying for friends on Massachusetts Fraud Case. According to a report on the Salem News, William Penta of Salem, Massachusetts, Deanna Pistone of Wakefield, Massachusetts, Laura Battista of Revere, Massachusetts and Janet Vaccari and David Forlizzi of Peabody, Massachusetts have been charged with trying lying on an Insurance Fraud trial in Boston several months ago. Both Forlizzi and Fred Battista were charged with committing Insurance Fraud. Prosecutors alleged that the two filed falsified insurance claims arising from fictitious automobile crashes. Pistone, Vaccari and Penta initially cooperated against the other two and were subpoenaed to testify against Battista and Forlizzi at trial. It is now alleged that during the trial Laura Battista, Vaccari and Penta provided perjured testimony.

As a result of concerns with the defendants trial testimonies an investigation was initiated. Prosecutors learned that David Forlizzi had paid money to Vaccari during the trial and prior to the trial. The article suggests that some of that money was used to keep Deanna Pistone from testifying. Forlizzi has been charged with Subornation of Perjury, Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice and Corrupting a Witness as has Vaccari. Penta and Laura Battista have been charged with three of the four counts. Pistone has been charged with Perjury, Obstruction and Conspiracy.

Read Article:

Boston Fraud Defense Law Firm

I would imagine that these cases will be indicted and prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston. Nothing troubles judges more than an illicit manipulation of the legal system. As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I have been defending the accused and fighting against such actions for over twenty years. That is in essence what criminal defense lawyers do on a daily basis. We fight against lying police officers and lying civilian witnesses. We expose people who improperly manipulate the criminal legal system. I agree that anyone who commits such acts should be prosecuted. That includes police officers and civilian witnesses who commit perjury and testify falsely against innocent people. The problem is that all too often prosecutors ignore such crimes when the people fabricating evidence do so against the accused. Don’t get me wrong. There are district attorneys refuse to prosecute cases supported by suspect evidence or by witnesses who lack credibility. But too often this is overlooked. This is why your choice of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer might be the most important decision of your life. We take the time to investigate all witnesses before trial to ensure that their lies will be exposed.

Continue Reading

When a ten year old New Hampshire girl’s parents became concerned about the child’s demeanor they took her to a counselor. The girl told the therapist that a sixty three year old man had her sit on his lap and watch pornography with him. She further complained that he touched her inappropriately underneath her clothes. The therapist reported the incident to local authorities who in turn provided the information to the Methuen, Massachusetts police. All of this occurred on July 10, 2012. The next day police applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. The search took place on July 12, 2012 around 8:00 p.m. Numerous items were seized including cameras and computers. During an initial examination of the equipment officers located files containing Child Pornography. Specifically, authorities found a video of a child performing oral sex on the accused, John Lefebre. The abuse occurred in Methuen and in New Hampshire. The reports are silent on the relationship between Lefebre and the victim and her family. It is further alleged that when officers asked Lefebre if he knew why they were there he responded that it was because of what the victim said to them. It is further alleged that these acts took place over the last four years. As of now Lefebre has been charged with Rape of a Child and Posing a Child in a State of Nudity. The case is currently pending in the Lawrence District Court but will the prosecution will most likely take place in the Salem Superior Court.

Read Article:

Essex County Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Child Rape Defense Lawyers in Lawrence and Salem, Massachusetts

So what now for Lefebre? These are always difficult cases to defend. The success of Child Rape prosecutions usually depends on the credibility of the victim. His or her ability to recall the details of the crime with sufficient particularity is vital to the district attorney. While an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer might succeed in showing a lack of credibility to a jury this case is going to be more problematic. The district attorney has alleged that Lefebre videotaped an act of Child Rape, that being someone under the age of sixteen performing oral sex on him. If the victim of that act is the same as the complaining witness in this case that video will be admitted as evidence against him. Even if this is not the same victim the district attorney might be able to use that as evidence of Lefebre’s pattern of conduct, motive or absence of mistake. It will be difficult for jurors to separate this collateral act from the testimony of the complaining witness. Lefebre’s best chances come with suppression of the items seized pursuant to the search. If successful, the videotape will be excluded as evidence and witness credibility will once again take center stage in his defense.

Continue Reading

People in the Tower Hill section of Lawrence, Massachusetts complained to police about Drug Dealing in their neighborhood. As a result of the complaint the officers conducted surveillance activities. The result was the arrest of two New Hampshire women and a Lawrence man. Regina Hardy and Kylee Locke have been charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin was Kept and Possession of Heroin respectively. Locke has also been charged with Possession of a False Prescription. David Troncoso has been charged with Distribution of Heroin, a School Zone Violation and Possession of Class E Drugs.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Heroin Possession Defense Lawyer

Lawrence Massachusetts Heroin Distribution Defense Attorney

Almost weekly local newspapers report stories similar to this one. Neighbors complain about alleged illegal activity that they suspect involves drug dealing. The police respond by starting an investigation that almost always includes surveillance activities. They sit and wait. Then they see what they believe to be a drug deal and arrests are made. The operation is easily accomplished. The buyers are stopped. They are always addicts, desperate and afraid. They will immediately point the finger at the dealer who is then stopped by the police. Either drugs or money or both are found in his possession. He is then charged with Distribution of Controlled Substances. Chances are pretty good in Massachusetts that anyone involved in Drug Dealing within city limits will have to defend a School Zone Charge. The challenge to the Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defending the dealer varies from case to case. Rarely will the buyers testify against the dealers. They don’t have to. Drug Possession Cases in Massachusetts are routinely resolved favorably to the user unless the accused has an involved criminal history, particularly one that is replete with Drug Possession convictions. Even when they are not charged criminally they will likely not testify due to their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So the prosecution then has to rely on the observations of the police officers involved in the operation and the materials they find in the possession of the Drug Dealers. Street level dealers carry small quantities of drugs. They do this to avoid being charged with more serious crimes such as Drug Trafficking. Many times, when they are stopped after an alleged drug deal they have no drugs in their possession or quantities consistent with personal use. The district attorney will try to say that the manner of packaging might suggest an intent to distribute rather than possession. Many times these “dealers” are caught with a small number of bags of drugs such as cocaine or heroin, an amount that might be consumed by an addict in less than a day. An Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer can make the case that this opinion (the intent to distribute) is equally consistent with personal use. If successful this can result in the dismissal of the felony charges. Again, it is important to make sure that your lawyer understands the laws in Massachusetts and that he or she has the experience necessary to get you the best result possible.

Continue Reading

According to a report in the Lowell Sun, several men from the Merrimack Valley have been charged in Federal Court with Conspiracy to Distribute 5 Kilograms or more of Cocaine and Heroin. The investigation of the drug ring, which was primarily located in Lawrence, Massachusetts began in 2009. Then, as part of a surveillance activity agents seized over two million seven hundred thousand dollars. That portion of the investigation further led authorities to Julio “Lingo” Vicente who had been living and operating out of Billerica, Massachusetts. Wiretaps were established as was electronic surveillance equipment, all of which linked others to the drug operation. Vicente was heard on several of the wiretaps discussing the sales and distribution of multiple kilos of cocaine and heroin. Also charged was Freddie Morales-Lugo of Haverhill, Massachusetts who was in Lowell at the time of his arrest. Morales-Lugo was out on bail awaiting trial in Massachusetts for Trafficking Over 200 Grams of Cocaine and Possession of a Firearm. Morales-Lugo’s girlfriend, Yina Gonzalez was arrested on that state charge and faces Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Charges as well. It is alleged that Thevenyn Nova was one of the suppliers to the organization and that Nova obtains his cocaine from Mexico. Nova has been linked to seizures of one hundred seventy three kilos of cocaine in Revere, Massachusetts. Among the seizures made during the course of the investigation were over seven hundred thousand dollars from a car in Wilmington, Massachusetts and twenty four kilos of cocaine in a van. Also charged in this case are Jose Rosario, Ricardo Gomez, Javier Francisco Sanchez-Pastrana, Melson Martinez-Ortiz, Carlos Arias, Sergio Cartagena, Hector Soto-Ramirez, Giovani Garcia-Rivera, Rafael Toribio Vazquez, Ramire Castillo, Erick Bonilla, Kelymn Mejia, Tomas Soto, Jose Jimenez, Omar Delgago, Elvyn Garica and Kelvin Perdomo.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Federal Court Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

So how does this case get resolved? All of that depends on what defendant we are talking about. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I enjoy getting involved in cases like this one. Usually, the defendants are viewed the by the prosecution as having differing levels of culpability and their punishment, if convicted often reflects that sentiment. There is a tendency for the accused in cases like this one, particularly when charged in federal court, to “cooperate” against the other defendants to get plea deals that would otherwise be unattainable. The “deal” however is not always as beneficial as one expected. Sometimes, during the proffer the accused give up more information about themselves than the prosecution was aware of. This can at times have the effect of increasing the punishment rather than mitigating the damage. If properly represented by an Experienced Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyer this problem can be avoided.

Continue Reading

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rendered its decision in Commonwealth v. Williamson. The Court held in summary that there is no mandatory requirement that someone who is convicted for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender by placed on Community Parole Supervision for Life (CPSL), commonly known as Lifetime Community Parole. The applicable statute is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 6 Section 178H which states that anyone who knowingly fails to register, verify registration information, provide notice of a change of address or gives false information is guilty of this crime. There is a provision of this law that states that Level 2 or Level 3 sex offenders convicted of Failing to Register as a Sex Offender in Massachusetts shall be subject to CPSL. Earlier this year the Supreme Judicial Court addressed this issue without deciding it. See Commonwealth v. Kately, 461 Mass. 575 (2012). That changed with Williamson.

Read:

Commonwealth v. Williamson, SJC 11132

In Williamson the defendant pleaded guilty to Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. He had been convicted over twenty years earlier of Rape of a Child and was classified as a Level 3 Sex Offender. The plea agreement contemplated that he serve one year in jail. The sentencing judge believed that Lifetime Community Parole was mandatory and imposed that as a condition of his sentence. His remarks on the record confirmed that belief. In reversing the sentencing the Court held that the statutory language “subject to” does not mean mandatory. The provision in the statute referencing Lifetime Community Parole is discretionary and left up to the discretion of the judge.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can tell you that there was widespread belief throughout the state that this law required the imposition of CPSL. Many people have pleaded guilty with the misunderstanding that they had to be placed on CPSL as a condition of their plea. Obviously, as this case indicates there was a belief on the part of judges that they had to sentence to these terms. CPSL is perhaps one of the most onerous conditions of a sentence that someone can endure. It is not simply a condition of a sentence it is an enhancement to a sentence. The person is subject to the supervision of the parole board and is treated as a parolee. Fees can be imposed on the probationer. A violation can subject the someone to further incarceration. Practically speaking, this is a terrible way to have to go through life. Accordingly, anyone who has been sentenced to CPSL should contact a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to see whether or not that sentence was imposed as a result of a judge or defense lawyer not knowing that the law was in fact discretionary.

Continue Reading