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

| by

Operation Cross Country was a three day undercover venture that involved Massachusetts towns including Saugus and Malden. The target of the investigation was teenage sex trafficking. In Massachusetts alone three pimps and several other people were arrested for Pimping, Prostitution and Drug Charges. A high level local law enforcement described the young prostitutes as victims, not criminals. The operation was designed to locate and protect young prostitutes, to get them off of the streets and to essentially rescue them. The investigation involved over two thousand agencies nationwide. In all, seventy nine child prostitutes were rescued and over one hundred pimps were arrested. Locally, Dion Dottin of Medford and Jonathan Brown of Boston were arrested and charged with Deriving Support from Prostitution and Trafficking Persons for Sexual Servitude. Both were arraigned in the Lynn District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Human Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Earlier this year the Massachusetts Legislature passed into effect the Human Trafficking – – Sexual Servitude law. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 50 states that anyone who knowingly subjects someone else to engaging in commercial sexual activity or causes someone to engage in such activity is guilty of the crime of Human Trafficking. The crime is a felony. A conviction of this crime requires a five year mandatory minimum state prison sentence. If the victim is under eighteen years of age there is a potential life sentence after a conviction. This law became effective on February 19, 2012 and to date there are no Massachusetts appellate cases discussing this statute or in any way interpreting its meaning.

Human Trafficking is a problem worldwide. It involves the harbouring, transportation, transfer, coercion, abduction and general sexual exploitation of prostitutes or others. There is an undertone of coercion associated with this crime. The crime can essentially be broken down into three elements, the act (i.e. recruitment, transportation, etc.), the means (essentially coercion) and the purpose (sexual exploitation, particularly prostitution). From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer it will be interesting to see how district attorneys will distinguish this law from the prohibition against Deriving Support from a Prostitute, a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 7 which has a two year mandatory, less than half of the Human Trafficking requirement. The crimes appear similar in nature and from a factual perspective they are virtually indistinguishable. When for instance would the crime of Deriving Support from a Prostitute not involve recruitment, a form of force and sexual exploitation. It will be interesting to see if Deriving Support from Prostitution is considered a lesser included offense of Human Trafficking.

Continue Reading

| by

Last week a woman who lives on Newcomb Place in Taunton, Massachusetts returned home after being away overnight. When she entered her apartment she observed Katherine Lee Ferguson, a Plymouth, Massachusetts resident, naked and cooking breakfast. Ferguson’s friend Kyle Timmons of Taunton was also present. It is alleged that the two broke into the home through the back doors. The police arrived to find a relative of the victim chasing Timmons out of the building. Timmons continued his flight and was ultimately apprehended down the street. Ferguson was found in the home, wearing a dress and ring belonging to the victim. Both defendants have been charged with Malicious Destruction to Property Over $250 and Breaking and Entering. Timmons also faces a Restraining Order Violation while Ferguson is being charged with Receiving Stolen Property.

Read Article:

Taunton Breaking and Entering Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Theft Crimes Defense Law Firm

The most serious statute with which Ferguson and Timmons are being charged is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 17. That law states that anyone who commits the crime of Breaking and Entering a building in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony where the owner is present can be sentenced upon conviction of up to ten years in state prison. The crime is a felony. This type of crime is commonly known as a burglary. Burglaries are considered particularly egregious crimes and judges often impose stiff sentence after someone is convicted of this offense. The word “building” as used in this statute can be equated with a home as is the case here. There must be an intention on the part of the accused to commit either a felony or a misdemeanor along with breaking and entering to satisfy the elements of this crime. Where that cannot be proved prosecutors often charge the crime of criminal trespass. Here, Ferguson’s wearing of the victim’s dress and ring are sufficient to suggest the intent to commit either a misdemeanor or a felony. The facts are not as evident relative to Timmons.

Defending these crimes can be difficult particularly before a jury. Jurors are typically unsympathetic towards people accused of breaking and entering someone else’s property, especially someone’s home. In Timmons case the apparent question is “what crime did he intend to commit?”. While this might appear defensible from the facts set out in this article I can see where a jury might believe that he was acting as a joint venturer with Ferguson and that he was complicit in helping her steal the ring and dress. Getting caught in the act like this makes trying this quite difficult. I imagine that Timmons and Ferguson will be trying to resolve this case through a plea deal.

Continue Reading

| by

Lawrence, Massachusetts police broadcast information that two individuals involved in a firearm incident were in a grey Jeep somewhere in the area. Haverhill police hearing the description saw the vehicle at a gas station and arrested Franklin Gary and Cam Vitalone, both from Haverhill. It is reported that two defendants approached two men who were standing near their car in Lawrence. They then threatened the two with a handgun. The victims were able to get into their car and leave the area. The defendants, riding in the grey Jeep followed them onto a highway. Ultimately the victims called the police and gunshots were heard in the background during the call. Both Gary and Vitalone have been charged with Possession of a Firearm, Assault with the Intent to Murder, Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Building. The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court. Vitalone has a pending Gun Case in Massachusetts in another court.

Read Article:

Gun Case Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts

Essex County Robbery Attorney

When I read an article like this one it is difficult for me to believe the victim’s account of the incident. They want the police to believe that they were simply standing by their car when all of the sudden Vitalone and Gary arrive in their Jeep, approach them and one of the defendants brandishes a black revolver. They then get into their car, drive across the City of Lawrence, get onto Route 495, travel to the other side of Lawrence and call the police while Vitalone and Gary are shooting off a gun in the background. Of course, no one gets shot, no one’s property gets shot and no evidence of a discharged firearm is located.

If anything the victims say is true here is what a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer would expect to see develop. One of the defendants would be found in possession of a gun. A gun would be found in the Jeep. A gun would be found in one of the defendant’s homes. One of the defendant’s fingerprints would be found on the gun. A gunshot residue test would reveal the presence of powder on the defendant’s hands. Witnesses would have seen the car chase. Witnesses would have seen one of the defendants brandish the gun on Dorchester Street. Witnesses would have seen someone reaching out of the Jeep firing a gun. The victims would be able to make an identification of the defendants and attribute to each their individual actions. The victims would have made their 911 call early in the chase at which time police could have initiated their efforts and apprehended the suspects in the act. It is doubtful that any of this happened in the manner in which the victims said it did.

Continue Reading

| by

Eufemia Abrego was at the Lawrence District Court yesterday showing support or her brother who is facing a Domestic Violence charge involving his wife. The forty five year old Lawrence native approached the victim, her sister-in-law who was sitting on a bench outside of the courtroom. It is alleged that there Abrego told the victim to drop all charges against the accused if she knew what was good for her. This conversation took place twice, the second time in front of a Spanish interpreter. The interpreter however admitted that she never heard the conversation but was told by the victim what Abrego had said. The district attorney’s officer was alerted to the conversation. They contacted a police officer who escorted Abrego out of the courthouse and arrested her. Abrego was charged with Intimidation of a Witness.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Who Defends Intimidation of a Witness Cases

Massachusetts Threatening to Commit a Crime Defense Attorney

The Massachusetts Witness Intimidation Statute is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B. The statute says that anyone who deliberately threatens a witness in a criminal case is guilty of witness intimidation. This crime is a felony and is punishable by up to ten years in state prison. Witness intimidation is taken very seriously in Massachusetts and Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers are seeing more and more of these cases being prosecuted. The Abrego situation is different from the majority of cases that my office has recently defended. Abrego’s alleged activity took place in a courthouse and was witnessed, at least in part by someone not related to the litigants. The more common Witness Intimidation case in Massachusetts now involves threats made through Facebook or texting, especially among teenagers and younger people. Social media preserves the threats or perceived threats and makes the district attorney’s decision to prosecute much easier than it had been in the past. The problem however still lies with proving that the accused is the person who sent the threatening message. Sharing cell phones, smart phones and computers tends to complicate the prosecutor’s efforts of establishing who in fact sent the unlawful communication. We have successfully defended countless cases where the threats came from someone other than the defendant but who had access to the defendant’s device.

Witness Intimidation charges are often associated with Domestic Violence cases such as here. These cases are highly charged emotional matters that can lead to an unfortunate lack of self-restraint. Where there are witnesses to the incident accompanied by a confession such as with Ms. Abrego, efforts at resolving the case short of trial will likely be sought. Cases like this one can be continued without a finding or pretrial probation can be imposed so Abrego will be best served by having an experienced lawyer represent her.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that around 4:30 yesterday afternoon Billerica, Massachusetts police were called for a shooting near a new convenience store on Boston Road after a man entered the store, bleeding and complaining that he has just been shot at. The victim stated that the defendants, Jose Jusino and Joshua Ruiz, both from Haverhill, Massachusetts kidnapped him at gunpoint demanding money. The defendants drove to the Billerica convenience store where a struggle ensued and gunshots were fired. The victim’s injuries were not likely from the gunshot. Based on police broadcasts of the suspects descriptions Jusino and Ruiz were detained in Lowell, Massachusetts where a show up identification procedure confirmed that both were the assailants. Ruiz and Jusino are being charged with Kidnapping and Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Assault Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Attorney

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18(b) sets out the law for Armed Assault with the Intent to Murder in Massachusetts. In summary, anyone who, with a firearm commits an assault on someone else with either the intent to rob that person or to murder the person is guilty of a felony. The case can be prosecuted in either the district court or the superior court. There is a maximum twenty year state prison sentence for a conviction of this offense. The district attorney’s decision as to where to prosecute this case is largely dictated by the underlying facts. If this was an actual abduction of an innocent person who was fortunate enough to escape his captors then I would imagine that this case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court in Woburn. If however there are some facts suggesting that this was some sort of dispute that evolved into a quasi-violent episode then the case might be prosecuted in the district court. Obviously the defendant’s criminal history will factor into that decision as well.

So what can a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer do to get started on the defense of Jusino or Ruiz. I imagine they will try to identify the location from where the victim claims to have been kidnapped and see if there are surveillance or security cameras in the area. If available, the video footage will either support or contradict the representations of the victim. It is also sometimes helpful to locate and interview anyone who lives or works in the area where the alleged abduction supposedly took place. See what if anything people saw. See what is on the videotape from the convenience store cameras and match that with the victim’s complaints. Check cell phone records to see if the victim and defendants have some sort of relationship that precedes this incident. Find out if the victim has a history of violence and a criminal record. Locate the gun to see whose fingerprints are on it, if any. Interview the victim’s friends and family to see if his account of these events differs from the statements he made to the police. There appears to be more to this case than was initially reported to the police.

Continue Reading

| by

The manager of a rooming house in Lawrence, Massachusetts found a laptop in the laundry room that she believed belonged to one of the tenants. Rather than return it the woman opened it and found images of Child Pornography. She then called the police. It was determined that the computer belonged to Gerard Anthony Burbine, a registered sex offender. Lawrence police then secured the laptop. They obtained a Search Warrant and a search of its contents confirmed the presence of Child Pornography. Burbine was previously charged with and convicted of Possession of Child Pornography for which he received a jail sentence. Right now, according to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune Burbine is being held on thirty thousand dollars bail for Enticing a Minor to be Exhibited in a State of Nudity. The case is being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court but will probably be moved to the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

Lawrence Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer

I imagine that Burbine is being charged under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29A. That statute prohibits anyone from enticing someone whom he knows or should know is under eighteen years old from enticing that person to be exhibited in a state of nudity. A conviction for that offense is a felony for which there is a ten year minimum sentence. The article here makes no mention of facts that support this charge. Thus, I can only assume that during the forensic examination of the computer there were some emails or chat line communications located that suggested some sort of enticement.

Any Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that there are always defenses to cases like this one. It is likely that the rooming house has one IP address that the tenants share thereby making internet access easy for everyone. The fact that the laptop was found in the laundry room suggests that someone other than Burbine was using it. Think about it. Why would he need the laptop in the laundry room? And, if he was using it there why would he leave it there? People living in rooming houses have limited means and are inclined to protect their personal belongings, not leave them in open areas. Aside from the device, what links Burbine to the illicit activity? Did anyone see him perusing the unlawful material? Are there any personal identifiers showing that he was the person who accessed the Child Pornography? Perhaps there is nothing more than stated in this article thereby making a prosecution of this case more difficult that it initially appears.

Continue Reading

| by

As part of a three month investigation, police in Brewster, Massachusetts received information that certain individuals might be transporting Heroin on Cape Cod. The investigation resulted in a stop of a car being driven by a twenty four Cape Cod woman. The woman was accompanied by two men, John Hurst and Adam Larsen. After the car was stopped officers located about four hundred fifty bags of Heroin. The total weight approximated ten grams, slightly less than necessary to charge Trafficking Heroin. All three were charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, a Class A Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. The woman, who had her child in the car has also been charged with Child Endangerment.

Read Article:

Cape Cod Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

Drug Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts

Two questions come to mind when reading this article. The first centers on the officer’s probable cause to stop the vehicle. What information did they have and was that information enough to justify the stop. Any time a motor vehicle is stopped it, or its occupants are searched certain constitutional principles are implicated, all centering on the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The answer to this question affects all of the defendants as each will no doubt file a Motion to Suppress the stop and fight the intrusion. The second question focuses on the location where the drugs were found. If they were found in someone’s physical possession it is likely that not all of the occupants controlled the drugs. If they were in a common are in the car then it would be interesting to learn what evidence the district attorney has to charge each of the accused with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin.

Massachusetts case law states that it is not enough that the accused is in the same car as the drugs found. It is also not enough that the defendant has knowledge that a substance is in the car. Possession implies control and power over the substance. Being a passenger in a car where drugs are present does not imply involvement in the commission of the drug offense. There must be more. The district attorney’s ability to prove this case against any of these defendants depends on where the drugs were located, what the defendants said at the time they were approached by the police, the information the police had prior to stopping the vehicle and the actions or movements of the parties during the incident. The Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers who represents these people will use this information as a starting point for establishing a defense to these charges.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Bristol County District Attorney, a multi-county investigation called “Operation Diesel Spill” came to a climax this past week with the arrest of thirty-eight year old Alexander Torres, Senior. The Brockton Enterprise reported that the arrest of Torres will put a “huge dent” in the distribution of heroin. According to the Enterprise, nine law enforcement agencies have been working in an extensive investigation that included the use of court-ordered wiretaps that cumulated with the seizure of 2.3 pounds of heroin that is estimated to have a street value of over $300,000.00. This coordinated investigation began last summer and resulted in drug raids in Attleboro, Taunton, Brockton and Central Falls Rhode Island. In addition to the arrest of Torres, it is expected that twenty-three people will be arrested or summonsed to court on related drug and firearms offenses.

If an individual is facing drug and or gun related charges as the result of an investigation and execution of a search warrant, there are many approaches that an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer can take to successfully defend the accused. Initially, it is imperative to conduct a pre-trial investigation early on to determine whether there are any favorable witnesses. In any case in which a search warrant has been applied for and executed to search a person, home of vehicle it is imperative to thoroughly review the application for the warrant and the return of the search warrant.

A valuable tool in a Boston area criminal defense attorney’s arsenal is the ability to file a motion to suppress evidence and a motion to suppress statements in appropriate circumstances. The Massachusetts Declaration Of Rights and Article XIV of the United States Constitution provides that a private citizen enjoys an expectation of privacy in his or her home, car and person. In order to search an individual’s home the authorities must present reasons or “probable cause” in the form of an application for a search warrant to a clerk-magistrate. The application must proved reliable information that the contraband sought can be found at the specific location or on the specific person. Often, the affiant provides information from an “informant” [either reliable who has supplied information in the past or a concerned citizen] or an “unreliable” or first time “informant.” The affiant must establish the reliability and veracity of this information within the four corners of the affidavit. The reliability and veracity of the information is one of the areas in which an experienced drug defense lawyer attacks in the form of a motion to suppress evidence.

Continue Reading

| by

Yesterday morning members of the Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department served a Search Warrant at 39 Whipple Street, the third floor apartment. At around 7:00 in the morning the officers raided the home. During the search they found Oxycodone pills, Cocaine and assorted Drug Paraphernalia including scales and packaging materials. A small amount of cash, under one hundred dollars was seized as well. Present at the time of the execution of the Search Warrant were Abigail Rivera, Esteban Lugo and Joshua Rivera, all alleged residents of the home. All three have been charged with Possession of a Class B narcotic and Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B substance. Another individual who was in the apartment, Jamie Rodriguez was arrested due to an outstanding warrant.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Lawyer, Class B Substances

Lowell, Massachusetts Lawyer Defending Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B Narcotics

Every time I read an article like this one I immediately wonder how the prosecution expects to establish culpability for each member of the home. As I have mentioned before, Massachusetts case law emphatically states that “mere presence” at or near the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish liability for the commission of the crime. If that is all the evidence the district attorney has against the accused then the case will be dismissed as to that defendant. There must be more than simply being present when a crime has been committed. There must be some evidence that the accused was committing the crime. Even if he or she was not actively doing the illegal act the district attorney can proceed under a joint venture theory. This however requires them to show that the accused knowing participated in the commission of the crime, either by himself or with others and that he or she intended to commit the offense. In a case like this one the drugs are not usually in every room in the home. They are not usually in the possession of each individual home at the time the Search Warrant was executed. So why then were three people charged in this case? The answer is easy. All three were residents of the apartment. When the police cannot identify the actual culprits for certain they charge everyone present. As a matter of self-preservation one of the accused may point the finger at the others and solidify the prosecutor’s case. Other times, out of fear of going to trial some of the accused may plead guilty to something that does not require jail time or extensive probation. However, if the defendants are properly represented they often find some very viable defenses to the charges that result in suppression of the items seized or dismissal of the charges. This is another reason why getting the right Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to defend you is extremely important.

Continue Reading

| by

The Somerville Patch reports that police officers who witnessed at least three drug deals in two days have arrested a Malden, Massachusetts woman, charging her with Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Here is a look at what transpired. Last Friday around 3:30 p.m. the woman was seen meeting up with another woman. The two walked towards a man at which point a drug transaction occurred. The buyer, a sixty one year old Brockton, Massachusetts man was charged with Possession of Heroin and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws. The next day, the same woman was again seen engaged in a drug sale. The police followed her and saw her involved in yet a third drug deal. As with the first deal, the alleged buyer, a thirty seven year old Winthrop man was arrested and charged with Conspiracy and Drug Possession. The case is being prosecuted in the Somerville District Court.

Read Article:

Somerville, Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Lawyer, Heroin, Conspiracy

Any time I read a story like this one I immediately become somewhat suspicious and wonder about the exact location police officers were in when they made their “observations”. When I defend Drug Cases in Massachusetts like this one, one of the first things I do is visit the crime scene. Using the police report and other discovery materials I try to ascertain the surveillance location. When it is not clear from the report or more importantly, when it is clear that there was no legitimate surveillance point, I file a motion for the disclosure of the surveillance location. This is often met with opposition.

Discovery of information in criminal cases is often discretionary. The district attorney often argues that they are not obligated to disclose surveillance locations in that doing so might compromise ongoing investigations or that disclosure is not relevant to the case at all. The best Massachusetts case supporting the defendant’s right to have this information is Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 421 Mass. 272, 274-276 (1995). In Hernandez, the Supreme Judicial Court held that disclosure was necessary where the surveillance location was helpful and relevant to the defense in terms of attacking the officers’ represented observations. In many cases true cross-examination requires a disclosure of a surveillance location. There can be a need to show how certain obstacles might have impeded an officer’s views and to show that he never saw what he reported to have seen. It is important to note that there is no obligation for the defense to show what it believes the evidence might show in order to justify the request for disclosure. All that is required is that the defendant make a preliminary showing that disclosure would provide material evidence needed by the defendant for a fair presentation of his case to the jury. Once the surveillance location has been disclosed, photographing the area might be helpful when arguing for suppression before a judge or an acquittal by a jury.

Continue Reading