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

| by

In Broward County Florida a criminal charge issued in large part due to texting between defendants and Facebook posts that detailed their plan. The text messages discussed what to do with the victim’s body. The Facebook posts were more detailed and accompanied by photos and entries that offered law enforcement a nice timeline of the defendants’ activities. If this was not enough one of the defendants told a friend how he strangled the victim and where he left her body. This admission continued with complaints about how bad the decomposing body smelled followed by texts to the co-defendant repeating this concern. The defendant then went to visit with a drug counselor where he once again confessed to having killed a named and missing woman. The drug counselor contacted the police. The police responded and gave the man his Miranda warnings. He then spoke to the police and provided them with a statement.

Read Related Article:

Getting Confessions Suppressed in Massachusetts

Any Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell you what I have repeated countless times to prospective clients, existing clients and through this blog. Nothing good can ever happen when you talk to the police. Nothing good can happen when you text about having committed crimes. Nothing good can happen when you post details of your criminal activities on Facebook. I cannot find any crime statistics in Massachusetts or other parts of the country that identify how many indictments or complaints would not have issued had the accused not opened his or her mouth. I am confident that the number is much more than one half. Another statistic that I am interested in is how many criminal convictions are directly attributed to the accused opening his mouth, or taking out a pen or entering text into some sort of electronic device. That number must be staggering. In my practice alone I see way too many people who have talked, texted or posted prior to calling me for advice.

So how do Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers handle this issue. Well, filing a Motion to Suppress is always prudent. If the police took the statement without following proper constitutional requirements the case may be dismissed. Similarly, at times text messages or Facebook posts can only be properly accessed through Search Warrants and a failure to get one validly issued can be fatal to the district attorney’s case. Where the post or text is published in a public forum suppression is not that easy and the accused may have to resolve his case without a trial to get the best result. Social media and electronic communications make prosecuting much easier these days. That is why it is necessary for the accused to Hire an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Souza v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles held that a continuance without a finding is not a prior conviction for the purpose of calculating prior offenses for the purposes of an Administrative Driver’s License Suspension.

By way of background, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 section 24 (1) (f) (1) provides that a driver faces suspension of his or her driver’s license for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test following an arrest for operating under the influence of alcohol. In the event that the driver has previously had a “conviction” for operating under the influence of alcohol the amount of time that his or her license is suspended increases, relative to the number of prior “convictions.”

In Souza, the plaintiff had a “continuance without a finding” for an operating under the influence of alcohol back in the 1990’s and was arrested again 2010. The Registry maintained the position that the “continuance without a finding” counted as a prior conviction and suspended his license for three years. As Souza discusses, “Pursuant to G.L. c. 90, § 24(1) (f ) (1) (§ 24[1] [f ] [1] ), the registrar is required to suspend an arrested driver’s license for three years for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test if the driver has been previously “convicted” of an OUI offense. If the driver has not been previously convicted, the license suspension period is 180 days. Id.” As indicated above, in this case the petitioner’s license was suspended for three years. The plaintiff appealed the finding of the Registry. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the “cwof” cannot be considered a conviction in the context of an Administrative License Suspension Hearing.

The lion’s share of the opinion discussed whether a “continuance without a finding” (cwof) is a conviction in this administrative context. In the criminal law context, a “cwof” is NOT considered a criminal conviction, however a case that is disposed of in that manner will appear on a CORI check and law enforcement and some employers will have access to that information. Additionally, if an individual receives a “cwof” on the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, it will count as a “conviction” and if the individual gets arrested for that offense again, he or she will be charged as a second, third or fourth offender as indicated by his or her CORI.

When a defendant admits to sufficient facts and receives a “cwof”–the case is continued for a period of time without a finding of guilt and then dismissed provided the defendant satisfies all conditions of probation. In most Massachusetts District Courts a “cwof” is a common disposition for defendants disposing of a first offense operating under the influence of alcohol case. The benefit of this type of disposition is that if an individual applies for a job he or she does not have indicate that he or she has been convicted of a crime because a guilty finding did not enter. However, if a defendant who receives a “cwof” is found to be in violation of his or her terms of probation he or she can be surrendered and a guilty finding may enter. Furthermore, a defendant in that situation faces the possibility of being sentenced to jail for a term of two and one half years if he or she is found to be in violation of the probationary terms.

Continue Reading

| by

Jessica Senter, a twenty four year old nanny working for a Groveland, Massachusetts family has been charged with Larceny Over $250 in the Haverhill District Court. Also charged was her boyfriend, Jukub Councilman. In November of 2010 Senter started work for for the victims in Groveland. She started in a part-time capacity and was awarded a full time job just a couple of months ago. As part of her compensation Senter received a new car and a cellphone. Then, just about a week ago the family noticed that some jewelry was missing. In fact, it was a lot of jewelry, estimated at thirty thousand dollars. It was quickly determined that Senter and Councilman were selling the items at a pawn shop in New Hampshire. More items were found in their possession at the time of their arrest. For this, both have been charged with Larceny Over $250 which is a felony in Massachusetts. Senter however has other problems. Apparently she was convicted of felony larceny last month and sentenced to probation. The victim was also someone for whom Senter worked as a nanny. She was given a suspended sentence. Her conditions of probation included an order to remain free of alcohol and drugs. Senter is a suspect in a similar case in Newburyport.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Larceny Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Theft Crime Attorney

So just how much trouble is Senter in right now? That is an interesting question. A lot determines when the jewelry and other goods were stolen from the victim. If it was before she pleaded guilty on the unrelated case a couple of months ago she might have a chance at a reasonable resolution of this case. If the district attorney can prove that she committed these crimes after the probation was imposed then she is in much more trouble. At the very least she is facing the imposition of a one year house of correction on a Probation Violation. As a matter of law, if probation is revoked the judge must impose the original sentence unless the time for which a revise and revoke can be entertained has not expired. Depending on the exact nature of the suspended sentence and the date on which it was ordered Senter may be able to avoid the one year jail sentence.

Here is another interesting aspect to this case. How does the prosecutor prove that the jewelry was stolen after probation was imposed on the case in March? Well, there are two ways. First, the victims can testify as to when they last saw the item and when they then realized it was missing. This can be problematic in that there might be conjecture that would not satisfy the judge that the event occurred after Senter was placed on probation. The second and more effective way to show the time of the theft is to get the pawn shop dealer to provide testimony and records identifying the time and manner in which he came into possession of the jewelry.

Continue Reading

| by

On June 22, 2004 a woman in Boston, Massachusetts boarded a Green Line Trolley. The train was crowded that day as the Red Sox had a home game. The defendant, Timothy Day got on the same train at the Copley Station. While on the train Day allegedly touched the woman and himself in an inappropriate manner. The woman exited the train and detected a stain on her clothing and something on her purse. She washed her clothes and threw the pocketbook away. The latter item was retrieved and tested. A DNA profile was created with the substance. It was later learned that two years earlier a similar incident occurred in Virginia. There too a sample was obtained and tested. The two samples matched. Last year it was determined that Day was the source of the DNA sample. Day is not being prosecuted in Virginia due to a statute of limitations problem. Day has been charged with Indecent Assault and Battery and is being prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

Read Article:

Boston Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Indecent Assault and Battery Attorney in Massachusetts

Statute of Limitations defenses are very rare in Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 277 Section 63 limits the time for filing an indictment or complaint to six years in Indecent Assault and Battery cases. This would be great for Day except for the fact that Massachusetts exempts as time any period in which the defendant is not living openly in Massachusetts. Had he been living in Massachusetts for the established period after the alleged act occurred he might succeed in moving to dismiss this case. Other Sex Crimes in Massachusetts such as Rape of a Child or Rape have much more generous time frames in which to file a complaint and prosecute the accused. Child Rape Cases in Massachusetts have a twenty-seven year statute of limitations. Rape cases have a fifteen year statute of limitations.

As a Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer I would like to know what substance was specifically identified on the woman’s pocketbook. DNA can be left at a crime scene through blood, head hair, body hair, skin flakes and more. Everyone leaves DNA traces behind through daily life activities. It can be left behind on cups, cigarettes, phones and other items. It can also be found in other bodily fluids, such as saliva, tear drops and semen. Thus, it would be helpful to know from what substance the DNA profile was obtained. Keep in mind that if Day ejaculated on the woman and her purse you would expect other people to have witnessed the act. This supposedly occurred on a crowded trolley. So what did other people see? Is anyone able to identify Day as the person committing the sexual assault? Can the woman make an identification? The answers to these questions will be helpful in the defense to this case.

Continue Reading

| by

Roberto Jordan of Haverhill, Massachusetts was arrested last night and charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Assault and Battery, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and other related crimes. The crimes are both felonies and misdemeanors in Massachusetts. The incident started around midnight. According to reports Jordan and his girlfriend got into a fight. Jordan was hit in the head. When the police got to the scene they noticed him covered in blood. Jordan then allegedly charged at the officers, apparently striking at least one of them in the process. There were several other people in the area, some of whom might have witnessed the events. Jordan was taken to the hospital. He is being arraigned today in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer

Boston Criminal Lawyer, Assault and Battery Crimes

So here is the first thing that sticks out to this Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer. The police show up and see Jordan “covered in blood”. He then gets charged with Domestic Assault and Battery. Why? What about the person who delivered the blows who put him in this position? Why was this person not charged? The article says that the “victim” was Jordan’s girlfriend. I can see a couple of reasons why Jordan was charged and not the girlfriend. The first is that law enforcement has a bias when investigating domestics against males. The belief is that it is the male rather than the female who was the aggressor and the woman needs protection. This is not always the case but the trend is to err on the side of protecting the woman, removing the man from the home and charging him with the crime. The second reason Jordan might have been charged rather than his girlfriend might have to do with the other charges. As I have mentioned in past blog posts, police officers are sometimes very aggressive when arresting or subduing suspects in criminal cases. Some officers have a tendency to “over do it” and end up injuring the suspect unnecessarily. When they do this they tend to charge the person with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. While this is not always the case I find the most charges of A & B on a PO are reactive charges.

In this case it is reported that there was a crowd that gathered to watch the events. A Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will embrace this as an opportunity to locate witnesses who might be able to provide evidence that will exculpate the accused, in this case Jordan. My office uses private investigators to go out and interview percipient witnesses. At times we get written statements from these people so that their observations are preserved for trial. Other times we find it more prudent not to get written reports as Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure now require Defense Lawyers to surrender copies to the prosecution. Perhaps some of these people will be able to help out with Mr. Jordan’s defense.

Continue Reading

| by

People living in an area of Tower Hill in Lawrence, Massachusetts were becoming concerned about what they believed to be drug deals occurring in cars in their neighborhood. In response they called the police. Two nights ago, following up on the complaints, an unmarked cruiser was patrolling the area. They observed a Toyota Camry parked in the troubled area. The Camry left the area. The cops followed it. The car then stopped a short distance away, in the middle of the street near another car. Officers saw what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction and they pulled the Camry over. Inside were Meghan Sardella, the driver of North Andover and Christopher Venezia, the passenger of North Reading. Sardella was found to be in Possession of Heroin for which she has been charged. Venezia has been charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept. The cases will be prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence, Massachusetts Heroin Possession Defense Lawyer

The crime of Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor. The statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 35 controls this crime. The statute reads that “[a]ny person who is knowingly present at a place where heroin is kept or deposited in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any person who is in the company of a person, knowing that said person is in possession of heroin in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both.” First time offenders can get their convictions sealed after they fully satisfy their conditions of probation.

From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer this law is extremely troubling. It cuts against well established Massachusetts case law that makes someone’s presence at the scene of a crime without more insufficient to convict that person of the crime. In a well constructed opinion in 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed its position in this regard and expanded on it in detail. See Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009). In Zanetti the Court stated that presence alone does not establish a defendant’s knowing participation in the crime even if he knew about the crime and took no steps to prevent it. There must be a showing that the defendant participated in the crime or that he had a shared intent to commit the crime. Simply being present is not enough. Very few cases in Massachusetts even discuss the statute in question here and no case defines it. The constitutionality of that statute is in my opinion and should be challenged.

Commonwealth vs Zanetti.pdf

Continue Reading

| by

Roger Clemens.jpgDuring the jury selection process a prospective juror told the prosecution, judge and defense that he would rather stay home in bed than be a juror on the Roger Clemens Perjury trial case. The twenty seven year old unemployed juror will now get his wish. After repeatedly sleeping during the trial testimony and showing up late, the judge dismissed the juror. This comes on the heels of the judge warning the parties that the jurors appeared bored and imploring the lawyers to speed things up.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

So what does a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer do with the problem of sleeping jurors? Well the first thing to do is to bring the matter to the attention of the judge. Massachusetts law makes clear that a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial may be put in jeopardy if a juror sleeps through testimony. A judge is obligated to make sure that all jurors hear all of the evidence. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 234A Section 29 a judge has the discretion to dismiss a juror at any time if he or she determines it is in the best interests of justice. The judge may order a hearing to establish a record pertaining to the issue of a sleeping juror. The defense lawyer should attempt to have the judge conduct a hearing on the matter to preserve the observations of others, particularly in the event that the judge refuses to act in accordance with the defendant’s requests on that issue. Massachusetts judges have dismissed jurors who were acquainted with the lawyers or witnesses. One Massachusetts judge dismissed a juror who smoked marijuana to remain awake during a trial. A sitting juror was dismissed where his son was arrested and placed in the same jail as the defendant during the pendency of the trial. Sitting jurors who had travel plans were excused once it was determined that they could only deliberate in a limited time frame. Illness can serve as a reasonable basis for dismissing a juror. Dismissing a deliberating juror due to child care problems was found necessary and appropriate. A juror’s failure to reveal his criminal history warrants his removal.

Massachusetts case law states that a judge’s decision to remove a sitting juror will not be found violative of the defendant’s rights unless doing so constituted an abuse of discretion. This suggests that it is critical for the defense to try to get the judge to have a hearing on any challenge to a sitting jurors’ competence to remain. Even if the judge refuses to conduct a hearing making a record with affidavits supporting the defendant’s position on removal will be critical to the appeal.

Continue Reading

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reports that police in Rockland, Massachusetts acted after receiving nearly twenty civilian complaints of suspected Massachusetts Drug Dealing starting this past April. People specifically reported extensive automobile and foot traffic at a specific location. In response, officers set up surveillance of a home on Liberty Street to verify the complaints. While doing so they observed what they believed was a drug transaction between two people, defendants Richard Stanton and Selena Keaney. Stanton was driving a car and found to be in possession of Heroin. Keaney was found in possession about four grams of Heroin. Keaney has been charged with five criminal matters including Possession of Heroin and Distribution of Heroin. Stanton is facing charges of Possession of Heroin. The cases will be prosecuted in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Distribution Defense Lawyer, Heroin

The first thing that comes to mind for an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer when reading this article is moving to Suppress the Search. In past blog posts I have often repeated that police officers are not permitted to stop and conduct a threshold inquiry absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. The word “reasonable” requires the suspicion to be based on “specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom”. In order to give that phrase meaning judges look at these matters on a case by case basis. One Massachusetts Appeals Court case held that an experienced officer’s actions after making an observation of what he believed to be a drug deal in a “high drug crime area” was in fact an illegal search where even though the officer saw an exchange and purported counting of money. The same court has held otherwise on cases involving similar facts. Knowing the law in cases like this one and being able to persuade the judge hearing the motion that this case replicates one in which suppression was granted is the job of the criminal defense lawyer thereby making your choice of lawyer an extremely critical decision.

It is often difficult to determine how the Motion to Suppress will be turn out before the hearing. Police officers’ testimony often exaggerates the narrative in their reports in an attempt to “fill in the blanks” that they either know or have learned necessary to sustain their Search and Seizure. This is yet another reason to make sure that you choice of lawyer is someone who has the experience to address this situation in court. This is also why Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers often reserve filing a memorandum of law in support of the motion to suppress until all evidence has been adduced at the hearing on the motion.

Continue Reading

| by

methamphetamine.jpgThis past weekend police in Framingham, Massachusetts raided the home of Douglas Lester (a pseudonym), a twenty one year old man living on Day Hill Road. The Metrowest Daily News reports that early Sunday night Lester was seen selling marijuana to a female not far from his home. Police stopped the woman. She surrendered the drugs and the police applied for and obtained a Search Warrant for Lester’s home. Inside they found over fourteen grams of Meth (Crystal Methamphetamine) in various locations in the home. They also found several bags of marijuana. In excess of thirteen thousand dollars cash was taken during the raid. Scales, packaging materials and assorted Drug Paraphernalia were seen in the premises during the search process. Lester has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Trafficking Methamphetamine. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars. Lester is facing a Probation Violation as well. The case in currently in the Framingham District Court. The district attorney will likely indict this case and prosecute Lester in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Framingham Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that based on the information in this article Lester’s chances of success hinge on the constitutionality of the Search Warrant. The first thing to analyze is the credibility of the police officer’s observations relative to the sale between Lester and the unidentified woman. What did they see? From what vantage point or location did they see the purported transaction? Was their view clear? How did they in fact determine that this was a drug deal? The next thing to look at is the credibility of the woman they stopped. What was in her possession? If there were drugs, what type? Marijuana? Crystal Meth? How much drugs was she possessing? What information did she give the police? What was her motive in providing this information? Does she have a criminal record? Was she using drugs at that time? Was she arrested and if so, with what was she charged? The next part of the analysis contemplates whether the information this woman provided coupled with the police observations gives rise to the issuance of the Massachusetts Search Warrant. This woman’s veracity and her basis of knowledge must be properly assessed if the information she provided is considered in the Search Warrant Application process.

Trying to Suppress Searches in Massachusetts is something our office attempts regularly for Massachusetts Drug Cases. Suppression often results in the dismissal of a criminal case. Without the drugs the district attorney is usually unable to proceed with its criminal charges. Hiring a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer who knows the law and is able to convince judges that a Search and Seizure was unlawful is critical to anyone charged with a Drug Crime in Massachusetts. Our offices have won countless drugs cases this way in counties throughout the state.

Continue Reading

| by

A Salem, Massachusetts police officer became suspicious the other day when he saw a car with dark tinted windows. He then followed the car. He observed the car failing to stop for people in a crosswalk. The officer pulled the car over and quickly learned that the driver, Julio Cruz of Salem, Massachusetts was Operating With a Suspended License. Cruz, who was known to the officer claimed that he was out delivering pizza. No pizzas were in the car. Cruz was then arrested. His passenger, Enrique Gray-Santana, also of Salem, Massachusetts was also arrested for carrying a knife with a blade longer than permissible by town ordinance. The car was towed. It was also searched. Inside of the vehicle officers found enough cocaine to justify a trafficking charge. Both men now face charges of Trafficking Cocaine in the Salem District Court. If the weight of the cocaine satisfies trafficking threshholds then the case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Cruz has a pending Cocaine Distribution case pending in the same county.

Read Article:

Salem, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Cocaine Distribution Law Firm in Massachusetts

Depending on the information contained in the police reports the district attorney’s case here might be susceptible to a Motion to Suppress. Forget about the stop for a minute. Forget about the “Motor Vehicle Violation”. Even if there is justification for the stop the officer’s conduct might have exceeded what is permissible under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The law in Massachusetts does permit what are called “inventory searches” in some situations. The police may search someone arrested at the place of detention to secure the person’s property. An inventory policy must be followed to justify the search and if done properly the items seized can be used as evidence against that person. Inventory Searches of Motor Vehicles however are subject to a different procedure. Impounding motor vehicles is generally found to be justifiable if the district attorney can show public safety concerns or a risk of vandalism or theft to the vehicle if abandoned at the scene of the arrest. If an unarrested passenger can drive the car the impoundment will be considered illegal. Subsequent searches of the impounded vehicle might however be subject to a constitutional challenge. For example, Massachusetts Courts have held that the search of a towed car was investigatory and not an inventory search where the police used a drug sniffing dog to find drugs. Investigatory searches require Search Warrants. Inventory searches do not. Police inventory polices must be in writing and followed for an inventory search to survive a Motion to Suppress. Inventory searches have three purposes in Massachusetts; to protect the property in the car, to protect the police against claims of theft and to protect the public from danger. It is the district attorney’s burden to establish that he search was a lawful inventory search.

Continue Reading