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

| by

Last night Massachusetts State Police and Lawrence, Massachusetts police officers raided the Italien-American Civic Association on Essex Street looking for evidence of an illegal gambling operation. The establishment has been targeted by local police since a November 2011 murder occurring just outside of the club. The raid was permitted by a Search Warrant recently obtained by law enforcement. This investigation targeted conventional gambling activities such as craps and card games as well as Dominican lottery and cockfighting. Arraignments this morning are in the Lawrence District Court. There is no indication as to whether or not the case will be prosecuted in the district court or the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Gambling Defense Law Firm

Criminal Attorneys Who Defend Gaming Charges in Massachusetts

The prohibition against gambling in Massachusetts is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 271 Section 17. The law states that anyone who is in any way involved with gambling and convicted under this statute is guilty of a felony. There is a maximum three year prison sentence associated with a conviction for illegal Gambling in Massachusetts and a fine of up to three thousand dollars. This statute is all encompassing. At many levels there are constitutional challenges to this law that might result in a dismissal of charges against the accused. For instance, there is a phrase in the statute that provides liability for “whoever is present in such place”. Massachusetts case law however has held that “[m[ere unwitting presence of defendant in same place where apparatus is does not constitute crime”. There are many reasons why people might legitimately attend a social club that does not involve their participation in unlawful gambling. There is no valid reason to charge these people with a violation of this law even though they were present when a raid occurred. At times this is lost on district attorneys who prosecute large numbers of people, many of whom were simply caught up on the execution of the Search Warrant. It is not unusual to see as many as thirty people or even more initially charged with illegal gaming activities. Typically, the charges against many of these people will be dropped for a lack of evidence tying them to the Gambling.

In my experience as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer these cases usually involve Wiretap Warrants. After obtained a Wiretap Warrant law enforcement officials continuously monitor the content of telephone calls between the principles in the illegal business and their customers. The monitoring often goes on for months or at least until such time as the authorities believe that they have enough evidence to make arrests and/or apply for a Search Warrant. Sometimes the best way to defend one of these cases is to attack the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Wiretap Warrant. If successful all conversations will be suppressed as will the fruits of those conversations, meaning the Massachusetts Search Warrant.

Continue Reading

| by

Edward Armstrong and William Scott, both from Framingham, Massachusetts were arraigned earlier this week and charged with Home Invasion. It is alleged that this past Sunday just after 10:30 p.m. both defendants forced their way into an apartment by their home. Present were a man and a woman. Scott held the woman against the wall. Armstrong punched the male occupant in the face several times. He also hit him with a crowbar. Prosecutors have stated that the male victim has suffered significant facial injuries and remains hospitalized. Both the defendants and the victim live on Grant Street. The defendants took the case that was in the man’s wallet. Earlier in the day the male victim boasted about having won five hundred dollars from a scratch ticket. If fact, the ticket was only for five dollars. Neighbors were aware of the five hundred dollar windfall and it is suggested that through them the defendants believed that the victim had money. In addition to the Home Invasion charge both men face counts of Larceny Over $250, Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle, Armed Robbery and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Both defendants have prior criminal matters. Right now the cases are being prosecuted in the Framingham District Court. I would imagine that these matters will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Framingham Armed Home Invasion Defense Lawyer

Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Massachusetts Home Invasion statute is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18C. This law makes it a crime for anyone to enter someone else’s home, knowing or believing them to be home, with a dangerous weapon and threatens and uses force on the occupant or occupants. This is a life felony and there is a minimum twenty year sentence associated with a conviction for this crime. There are some pretty interesting aspects to this statute. The district attorney has no obligation to prove that the accused had knowledge that people lived in the dwelling. All that they have to prove is that while in the dwelling the defendant remained there “knowing or having reason to know” that someone was in the property. Also, there can be no affirmative defense of “self defense” in Home Invasion Case in Massachusetts where the occupant of the dwelling uses force to repel the defendant. Even though there is a twenty year minimum sentence someone convicted of this crime can be placed on probation. However, if a sentence of incarceration is to be imopsed it must be for at least twenty years.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I can tell you that very few of these cases are supported by the facts that the statute was intended to punish. Cases that are charged as Home Invasions initially have facts similar to those set out above. Sometimes the facts are in fact more egregious. The victim or victims will report that they were simply in their homes when someone broke in and beat them. Often times their complaints contain allegations of theft. In reality, many of these cases involve drug ripoffs or drug deals gone bad. The physical beating might be significant enough to warrant medical attention and during the course of treatment the “innocent” victim will state that he was robbed. Other times the victim reports the “crime” in retaliation for the failed drug deal. With the assistance of an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer the accused might be able to fight these charges successfully at trial. Explaining these facts to the district attorney during plea negotiations is sometimes an option however this can unnecessarily alert them to defense strategy or theory. The “victims” in these cases are reluctant to testify. They often have exposure themselves either for drug dealing or some other type of illegal activity. Very few of these cases go to trial and if handled properly can result in a verdict of not guilty or a dismissal.

Continue Reading

| by

Thirty two year old Gregory Couture was recently arraigned in the Hingham District Court for one count of Open and Gross Lewdness. The Brockton Enterprise reports that last fall Couture exposed himself to a woman walking in Luddham’s Ford Park. The victim was unable to identify him at that time. Just a few weeks ago another woman in the same area saw Couture following her. This same woman saw him hiding behind trees another time in the park. This time the woman took a picture of Couture’s car and showed it to the police. Couture was questioned by the police and supposedly admitted to exposing himself in the fall and to having done so to other women in the past. Couture posted five hundred dollars cash bail. He has been banned from the park.

Read Article:

Hingham, Massachusetts Sex Offense Defense Lawyer

Open and Gross Lewdness in Massachusetts is a felony. It is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16. The law states verbatim that “[a] man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars”. While this offense is closely similar to the crime of Indecent Exposure it is considered more serious. Behavior conducted in private will not suffice to convict for this offense. The element of “open” means exactly that. The conduct must be performed with the intention to cause alarm or shock. Indecent Exposure in front of children will satisfy the elements of the offense but the same conduct in front of adults might not. A single act of Open and Gross Lewdness cannot result in more than one conviction even if there are multiple victims. Exposing oneself and masturbating in a public place are typical examples of acts that result in these charges being brought. “Mooning” adults should not result in a conviction and charges alleging such conduct should be dismissed upon motion.

This conduct in lay terms in known as exhibitionism. It is characterized as the act of showing genitals to a stranger without the intention of engaging in sexual activity with that person. Exhibitionists often masturbate during this exposure. Some do so with the intent to shock the victim. Others do this in hopes of arousing their target. The causes of this behavior vary and are mostly inconclusive. The perpetrators are almost always male. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I have represented many people accused of crimes involving exhibitionism. They defendants in my experience are always men. Experts will tell you that this behavior can be controlled with therapy and sometimes drugs. We have engaged psychologists to evaluate our clients charged with having committed crimes involving this type of behavior. Their reports and recommendations have helped us resolve these cases favorably on countless occasions.

Continue Reading

| by

Unfortunately, in Massachusetts many defendants are often “overcharged” and face crimes, including felonies, when the complained of conduct simply does not meet the threshold legal requirements. We all know that being charged with a crime and dragged into court can interfere not only with someone’s liberty but with their job, family and lifestyle. This situation is particularly true if a defendant is charged with a crime that has sexual connotations, such as open and gross lewdness or indecent exposure. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 272, §16 does not define “open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior,” but five elements have been generated by case law. These five elements are as follows: (1) that the defendant has exposed his or her genitals, buttocks or female breasts to one or more persons; (2) the defendant did so intentionally; (3) the defendant did so openly, either intending public exposure or recklessly disregarding a substantial risk of public exposure, to others who might be offended by such conduct; (4) that the defendant’s act has been done in such a way to produce alarm or shock ; and (5) that one or more persons have in fact been alarmed or shocked by the defendant’s thus exposing himself. Commonwealth v. Kessler, 442 Mass. 770, 773 (2004). In other words, the Commonwealth is required to prove “intention, manner, and impact.” Commonwealth v. Quinn, 439 Mass. 492, 496 (2003). This offense is a felony in Massachusetts and can have sex offender registry consequences.

Open and gross lewdness is similar to the offense of indecent exposure, which is proscribed by G.L.c. 272, §53, but the two have different elements reflecting, in part, their different origins. Commonwealth v. Quinn, 439 Mass. 492, 495 (2003). Indecent exposure, although seems to implicate some sort of sexual misconduct, this is a misdemeanor. While open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior requires that the defendant’s act be committed in such a way as to produce alarm or shock, indecent exposure requires only “an intentional act of lewd exposure, offensive to one or more persons.” Commonwealth v. Fitta, 391 Mass. 394, 396 (1984). Thus, the presence of “alarm or shock” is what distinguishes the open and gross offense from the indecent exposure offense, and being “offended” is not the equivalent of undergoing “alarm or shock.” Commonwealth v. Kessler, 442 Mass. 770, 774 (2004). Likewise, being “nervous” or “excited” does not “connote the serious negative emotional experience” required. Id.

While lewd and lascivious behavior is not confined to exposure of genitals, cases involving open and gross lewdness “invariably have involved exposure of the genitalia.” Commonwealth v. Arthur, 420 Mass. 535, 541 (1995). While sudden exposure of a buttocks by dropping one’s pants may alarm or shock, cases involving buttocks exposure in the context of open and gross lewdness have involved such exposure in front of children. See Quinn, 439 Mass. at 497-98. Indeed, the offense of open and gross lewdness has been applied primarily to indecent exposure in front of, and sexual conduct with, children. Commonwealth v. Sefranka, 382 Mass. 108, 116 (1980). Cases involving open and gross lewdness, as opposed to indecent exposure, tend to involve public masturbation or fellatio, Commonwealth v. Adams, 389 Mass. 265, 272 (1983), Commonwealth v. Dickinson, 348 Mass. 767, 767-68 (1964), Commonwealth v. Gray, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 901, 901-02 (1996), exposure to young children, Commonwealth v. Fitta, 391 Mass. 394, 395-97 (1984), Commonwealth v. Wardell, 128 Mass. 52, 53-54 (1880), or sexual conduct with, and abuse of, young children. Commonwealth v. Lucas, 332 Mass. 594, 595-96 (1955).
Unfortunately, police officers are often not familiar with the different types of conduct required in order for them to charge an individual with either indecent exposure, lewd and lascivious conduct or no crime at all!

Continue Reading

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reports that yesterday a seventy two year old Fall River man attempted to abduct a twenty seven year old woman. The woman was walking her dog in Braintree. The man pulled up and asked for help entering an address in his GPS device. As the woman tried to help him the defendant tried to pull her into the car. The woman screamed. The defendant drove off and was later apprehended by the police. The accused, Carlton Comstock has been charged with Attempt to Commit a Crime, Kidnapping and Assault and Battery. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Quincy, Massachusetts Sexual Assault Defense Lawyer

Norfolk County Massachusetts Sex Crimes Attorney

The crime of Attempt to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts is established through Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 274 Section 6. The law states that anyone who does an act towards the commission of a crime and is unsuccessful in doing so is guilty of a crime. Whether or not the crime of Attempt to Commit a Crime is a felony or a misdemeanor depends on the crime that the perpetrator intended to commit. Here, the crime is Kidnapping. Kidnapping in Massachusetts is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years. Accordingly, the crime Comstock is defending has a maximum penalty of five years. If the case is kept in the Quincy District Court then Comstock’s maximum exposure is two and one half years on jail. The Massachusetts case of Commonwealth v. Ware, 375 Mass. 118 (1978) made clear that the crime of Attempt to Kidnap requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intention to cause the victim to be imprisoned or confined against her will.

I am interested in learning just how the district attorney intends to prosecute this case. On its face the charges appear quite serious. The attempted abduction of a woman walking her dog is horrifying. However, when deciding when and where to prosecute criminal cases district attorneys look not only at the severity of the crime but the age of the offender, his or her criminal record, the danger the accused presents to the community and whether punishment upon a conviction can be adequately imposed by a district court judge. In cases like this one Comstock’s lawyer might investigate his mental health history, if any. Locating witnesses who witnessed the offense will also be helpful particularly if their accounts do not match up to the woman’s story. Her criminal history might also be a factor in deciding how to defend or prosecute this case.

Continue Reading

| by

A thirty seven year old Somerville, Massachusetts man who was riding the Green Line MBTA last week is accused of exposing himself to a Brighton woman. Boston.com reports that a woman boarded a trolley in the Allston, Brighton area. She observed the defendant approaching her. She looked down and saw his penis exposed and being stroked. Once he realized that she was looking he pulled down his sweatshirt to cover the exposed area. The woman screamed. The man apologized and got off the trolley. The victim followed him, grabbed him and waited for the police to arrive. The man told the police that his shorts must have fallen down due to the fact that the trolley was crowded and moving erratically. The case will be prosecuted in the Brighton District Court.

Read Article:

Brighton, Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Strange as it may sound this is not an unusual incident. Since becoming a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I have defended scores of cases just like this one. The MBTA seems to be a popular place for people to engage in this sort of behavior. However, our clients have been accused of doing this on buses, in airport terminals, on planes, in cars and out in the open while walking down busy city streets. If the person does not have a criminal record a typical result for resolving these matters would be a continuance without a finding with an evaluation and treatment as recommended by the probation department. On several occasions we have engaged psychologists to examine the accused and prepare an “aid in sentencing”. The psychologist will run our client through a battery of tests, interview him, interview family members, review the police reports, the accused’s criminal history and more. From this a report will be generated that will identify the problem, its triggers, cures or management tools to address the problem and the likelihood of reoffending or engaging in more egregious criminal conduct. These aids in sentencing comfort prosecutors and judges in recommending or imposing sentences that give the accused another chance.

Indecent Exposure in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor. It is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53. There is a maximum penalty is six months in the house of correction. The defendant in this case might face a charge of Open and Gross Lewdness. This charge is a felony and punishable by up to three years in prison. Open and Gross Lewdness is more difficult to prove than Indecent Exposure. A continuance without a finding is typically an option for resolving this crime as well however an aid in sentencing will become more necessary in this situation.

Continue Reading

| by

Edmond Wormwood and Billy Adams, both from Maine have been arrested. Both are being charged with Larceny by Scheme for allegedly bilking a ninety two year old Haverhill, Massachusetts man out of ninety thousand dollars. A third suspect, Michael Mills is also being sought in this crime. According to a report on Boston.com the defendants appeared at the victim’s home in the winter and offered to do some small jobs. They began with some tree work. They also painted and cleaned the victim’s cellar. The work was considered subpar. The victim’s bank froze the account after noticing unusual spending patterns. The police were notified. A couple of weeks ago the men were back in this area, getting another check from the victim and trying to cash it. Authorities allege that both Adams and Mills have been involved in other schemes similar to this one. Right now the case is pending in the Haverhill District Court. I would imagine that the Essex County District Attorney’s office will prosecute this case in the Superior Court located in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Articles:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Essex County Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Theft Crimes Defense Law Firm

Larceny by a Single Scheme is a felony in Massachusetts. The crime is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 30. The law states that anyone who steals over two hundred fifty dollars from a person over the age of sixty-five can be sentenced by up to ten years in prison. If the case is kept in the district court then there is a maximum jail sentence of two and one half years. The “single scheme” aspect of the crime is established through case law. In 1965 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that “where it appears that successive takings are actuated by a single, continuing criminal impulse or intent or are pursuant to the execution of a general larcenous scheme, such successive takings constitute a single larceny regardless of the extent of the time which may have elapsed between each taking.”

The obvious question to answer in this case is whether or not the services provided by the defendants could have reasonably supported the ninety thousand dollars that victim paid. There is no doubt that tree work, painting and cleaning the basement do not warrant that high a bill. If the defendants performed remodeling work that might change things somewhat. That defense would require them to show payment for supplies and perhaps a contract verifying the agreement between them and the victim. The comment that the workmanship was subpar is subjective and it would be difficult to have an opinion as such entered into evidence. The defendant’s biggest problem is that the victim is ninety two years old. No judge or jury will have sympathy for these guys if it looks like they took advantage of an elderly person. The Essex County District Attorney’s office has a page on its website identifying its position on elder abuse. Their position suggests strongly that if these men are convicted for committing this crime they will be going to state prison for a significant time period. This makes their selection of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer particularly important.

Continue Reading

| by

A forty year old Foxborough, Massachusetts man was charged with Threatening to Commit a Crime in the Wrentham District Court. According to reports, the defendant told a Foxborough selectman that he was “a dead man” if he did not change his position on casino development in the town. The defendant was arrested and a stay away order was placed into effect. A judge sitting in the court ordered bail set at five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Criminal Defense Lawyer

Wrentham Court Criminal Lawyer

The crime of Threatening to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts is established through Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 275 Section 2. The law states that “[i]f complaint is made to any such court or justice that a person has threatened to commit a crime against the person or property of another, such court or justice shall examine the complainant and any witnesses who may be produced, on oath, reduce the complaint to writing and cause it to be subscribed by the complainant.” The elements of this offense include an expressed intention to commit a crime on someone coupled with “an ability to do so in circumstances that would justify apprehension of the recipient of the threat”. This crime is limited to cases where the accused actually causes fear to the victim. The victim’s fear must be justifiable a justifiable fear. This crime is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. There is a maximum six months jail time for a conviction and a fine of up to one hundred dollars.

This crime is one of the most common in the Massachusetts district courts. Massachusetts Courts have set a broad interpretation of what constitutes a threat and certainly in this case the prosecutor could make out his case if the witness testified as the reports suggests. These cases are usually dismissed on court costs. Sometimes pretrial probation is offered as a disposition. Rarely do you see these cases going to trial. Prosecutors are not usually adamant about an imposition of guilty on Threats cases. The charge of threats is often ancillary to a much larger charge encompassing more serious conduct. This case is the first time I can remember a judge setting bail on a charge of Threatening to Commit a Crime without additional charges being brought. A bail of five thousand dollars is particularly high and I imagine that the complainant’s status as a selectman had something to do with this. Regardless of the bail situation however, on cases charging Threats only a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney should be able to resolve this case in a way that does not leave the accused with a criminal record.

Continue Reading

| by

Zachary Brewster, a twenty six year old New Hampshire resident was driving his car the wrong way down a one way street Tuesday night in Lawrence, Massachusetts. After learning that the operator did not have a license in his possession, the officer who stopped him asked him to get out of the car. As soon as Brewster complied with the exit order the police saw Drug Paraphernalia in the front of the car. Specifically, the police observed needles and syringes. The police also had the two passengers, Bradford Sargent and Jennifer Trowbridge get out of the car as well. A backpack located in the backseat of the car was searched. There police found cocaine and a bag of mushrooms. During the booking process Trowbridge was found in possession of heroin and cocaine. These substance were concealed in her bra. She was also holding additional syringes and needles. All three have been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Possession of Class C (mushrooms) as well as Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws. The cases are pending in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

Defending Drug Cases in Essex County Massachusetts

This article got me thinking about the number of drug cases my office gets that start with a stop of a motor vehicle. I would estimate that at least of our drug cases fall within this category. There are several reasons for this. The police can usually justify their activity or “probable cause” when they pull a car over. Whether true or not, they can cite a high rate of speed, erratic driving, driving the wrong way down a one way street, expired inspection sticker, expired registration and more. Many of these reasons are subjective and difficult to challenge through Motions to Suppress. Conversely, Massachusetts Drug Cases involving search warrants require the approval of a judge or magistrate and concrete facts that can easily be challenged if exaggerated or false. Hand to hand drug sales typically involve lengthy investigations that expose the identities of informants or compromise the undercover status of the officers involved. These types of investigations require the services of additional officers who conduct surveillance making the police work more costly. There is the additional risk that the more officers involved in the operation the easier it is for an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to call into question the integrity of the operation. The more officers involved the more likely their testimonies will vary thereby weakening the strength of the district attorney’s case.

The biggest problem for these defendants is that the driver did not have a license in his possession. This essentially permits the police to do more than simply cite the driver for operating the wrong way down a one-way street. It gave them the legal authority to order the driver to exit the car. That led to the disclosure of the drug paraphernalia and probable cause to arrest for a violation of the Massachusetts Drug Laws.

Continue Reading

| by

Jonathan Ngarambe of Salem, Massachusetts was summonsed as an Essex County juror. During the impanelment process on a Massachusetts Rape Case, Ngarambe lied to the judge. On two occasions the judge asked the prospective jurors if anyone knew any of the defendants. Ngarambe never made clear that he did in fact know three of the four defendants and that he went to school with these men. The district attorney prosecuting the case saw Ngarambe making eye contact with one of the rape trial defendants. He found out that Ngarambe had contact with another defendant in the courthouse the morning the trial was scheduled to start. Ngarambe was questioned by the trial judge and denied knowing the defendants. A 2008 Salem Massachusetts High School yearbook confirmed that the suspect was classmates with some of the defendants. One of the defendants is Facebook friends with him. Ngarambe has been charged with Witness Intimidation, Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. He will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Authorities contend that Ngarambe wanted to get seated on the jury to help his friends get acquitted.

Read Article:
Salem Criminal Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B sets out the law for Intimidation of a Witness or Obstruction of Justice in Massachusetts. As relevant to this case, the law states that anyone who “misleads, intimidates or harasses another person” i.e. a police officer faces up to ten years in prison after a conviction. This law also provides for the same punishment for anyone who tries to improperly manipulate a jury. There is also a house of correction sentence available for someone charged with this crime and both the district court and superior court have jurisdiction over this crime. In this case, recognizing the severity of the attempted obstruction the district attorney opted to indict this case. I would imagine that the prosecutor in this case is looking for state prison time if he gets a conviction.

This case aside, one of the things that concerns me most about this law is its subjectivity. If a police office questions a witness and is not satisfied with his or her answer the possibility of an obstruction charge looms. This is another reason why I always advise my clients not to talk to the police. Nothing good can come from it. Talking to the police without the presence of counsel puts you at risk for some sort of criminal charge, even if you have not committed a crime. Make sure you consult with a lawyer before you ever talk to the police. My office has defended people charged with this crime who never would have been had they simply not spoken to the police. If the police want to talk to you, call a lawyer.

Continue Reading