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

| by

lock-in-case.jpgAngel Anaya of Fall River, Massachusetts and Jose Rivera of Lawrence, Massachusetts were arrested early Tuesday night following a brief encounter with the police. According to today’s Lawrence Eagle Tribune, an auto theft strike force was working in Lawrence that day. They received a stolen car report for a Toyota. Shortly thereafter, a patrol officer spotted the car in a restaurant parking lot. This took place around 7:30 in the evening. The driver later identified as Anaya hit the officer and fled in the car. A chase ensued. Anaya hit another car as well as a police cruiser and along with his passenger, Rivera, they fled the scene on foot. Rivera was charged with Receiving a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Resisting Arrest. Anaya was charged with Assault With a Dangerous Weapon, Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Failing to Stop for a Police Officer. The cases are being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court however these matters could be indicted and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crime Lawyer

Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle in Massachusetts is a felony pursuant to M.G.L. c. 266 Section 28. The law states that anyone in possession of a stolen car, knowing the same to be stolen is guilty of that offense. The statute permits a sentence of up to fifteen years in state prison or two and one half years on the house of correction. A judge cannot continue a case like this without a finding. Anyone who gets convicted of a second or subsequent offense must serve a minimum mandatory one year jail sentence. Prosecutions for this crime cannot survive attack if it is determined that the district attorney did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had possession of the car, knew that the car was stolen and that he intended to deprive the owner of the car permanently.

In this regard, the district attorney in this case might have trouble proving this crime against Rivera. There is no indication that Rivera knew that the car was stolen. Things that might suggest otherwise are a popped ignition, simultaneous engagement in other illicit activity, particularly Theft Crimes, visible signs of ownership by another or the presence of other stolen motor vehicles. None of this appears present in this case. As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I have had many cases where the charge of Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle has been dismissed due to an absence of evidence to attribute knowledge to my client. These cases are often difficult for the district attorney to prove, particularly as to passengers. Nor for that matter should evidence of Rivera’s flight be compelling. Anaya’s actions might well have surprised and scared him. Being present in a car responsible for striking a police officer, getting into a chase and an accident could understandably give people reason to flee. While that action was probably not the best course of action for Rivera it is not a determinant of guilt.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lowell Sun, thirty six year ol Shawn Price from Lowell MA is charged with a number of criminal offenses including domestic assault and battery, assault and battery, illegal possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, improper storage of a firearm and intimidation of a witness. It was reported that the police were dispatched to a Lowell address where Price’s girlfriend alleged that Price punched her, struck her with a coffee cup and coffee maker in an unprovoked attack. Following a bail hearing in the Lowell District Court Judge Barbara Pearson ordered that the defendant be held on $1,500.00 bail. The defendant pleaded not guilty.

According to reports, when the police responded to the alleged domestic violence, Price’s girlfriend claimed that Price had fled. The girlfriend alleged that while Price was in the bedroom using a cell phone he attacked her by grabbing her around the neck then dragging her by the hair. Price then threw the phone in the toilet so that his girlfriend could not call for help. This conduct must be the basis for the intimidation of a witness charge. The witness was apparently hysterical and had visible bumps and bruises. The witness did not seek medical attention and did not receive a restraining order against her boyfriend.

This type of case is often categorized as a “domestic abuse case.” In many situations, however, not in this case, the witness may apply for and receive a temporary 209A restraining order. Initially a “temporary 209A restraining order” is issued by a District Court Judge. In order for such an order to issue the complaining witness must allege facts indicating that he or she was placed in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm by the conduct of the defendant. In most cases, a complainant applies for this in a local district courthouse and fills out an affidavit in support of the restraining order. If it is an “emergency” and the courthouse is closed, often a clerk magistrate will call a judge that is “on call.” If the criteria is met, a temporary order may issue. For the order to have legal impact, it must be served on the defendant or he or she must be made aware of the specific conditions of the order. Following this initial order, a court hearing is scheduled approximately ten days from the issuance of the order. The defendant and the complaining witness are expected to show up. If neither party appears in court the order expires by “operation of law” at four o’clock in the afternoon.

In order to be able to apply for a 209 A restraining order the parties must be related, be roommates or be involved in a substantial dating relationship. However, if this criteria is not met a person may apply for a Harassment Prevention Order pursuant to Chapter 258E. In order to apply for this type of order it is not necessary that the parties be related, be roommates or have been in a substantial dating relationship. However, the standard for for the issuance of this order is different. The most common theory under which this type of order is sought is when a witness alleges that a defendant “harassed” him or her. The type of conduct that constitutes harassment is similar to that required for criminal harassment.
.

Continue Reading

| by

Kaitlynn Niles of Lynn, Massachusetts and three friends rented a hotel room at the Red Roof Inn in Framingham, Massachusetts two days ago. At approximately eleven at night Niles went to the front desk and attempted to get change for a counterfeit fifty dollar bill. A wary employee recognized something to be wrong with the bill and called the police. The officers went to the room and noticed marijuana smoke coming from inside. They also saw money in plain view. Two of the occupants, Niles and Joshua Jefferson from Lowell gave false names to the officers. Jefferson was searched. In his possession police found four hundred fifty dollars cash and a scale. Jefferson admitted to making the money from Selling Marijuana. On of the other occupants in the room , Elias Breit admitted to buying from Jefferson. Officers conducted a Search of the room during which they located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia and more counterfeit cash. Jefferson has been charged with Distribution of Cocaine, a Second and Subsequent Offense, Distribution of Marijuana, Second and Subsequent Offense and Conspiracy. Niles was charged with Uttering a False Note.

Read Article:

Framingham Drug Case Defense Lawyer

Uttering a false note in Massachusetts is a felony. The proscription is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 267 Section 5 which states “[w]hoever, with intent to injure or defraud, utters and publishes as true a false, forged or altered record, deed, instrument or other writing mentioned in the four preceding sections, knowing the same to be false, forged or altered, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or in jail for not more than two years.” To prove this offense the district attorney must show four things beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the defendant either used or tried to use the note as being genuine, 2) that the note was counterfeit, 3) that the defendant knew it was counterfeit and 4) that the passing of the note was done with the intent to defraud. In this case the district attorney will want to introduce the additional counterfeit bills the police seized in the hotel room to show that Niles was not making a mistake when trying to change the fifty dollar bill, rather that she knew it was a fake and that she was trying to get real money in exchange for the fake. These cases are often continued without a finding particularly if the defendant does not have a criminal record and the amount passed is small.

As to Jefferson, he has some problems. I will repeat again my admonition that it is never a good idea to talk to the police without first engaging the services of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. If the statements the police attribute to Jefferson are true then he has admitted to committing the felony for which he is being charged. This was stupid and unnecessary. Breit too made a big mistake. The facts of this article suggest that if he had said nothing then the charges against him might not stand and be subject to a dismissal after a Motions Hearing. Let me say it again. You have no obligation to talk to the police. When you do you are likely to get yourself in more trouble. Contact a lawyer before speaking to anyone.

Continue Reading

| by

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer I am often perplexed by certain “office policies” that overlook justice for the sake of appeasing the public. Yesterday for instance I was in a Massachusetts district court on a case where my client was charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender. My client is twenty four years old. When he was sixteen years old an aunt made a complaint that four years earlier he had inappropriately touched her daughter, the defendant’s biological cousin. The touching, if true amounted to an Indecent Assault and Battery. The allegation was that the defendant grabbed his cousin’s buttocks. The victim’s mother and the defendant’s mother are sisters.

By “coincidence” these allegations came to light after the two sisters became embroiled in a lawsuit over a piece of property that the two inherited. The dispute became bitter. The sisters still do not speak with one another. Now stupidly the defendant pleaded guilty to the Indecent Assault and Battery charge as a juvenile. He was placed on probation for two years. At the time of his guilty plea he was made aware of the Sex Offender Registry consequences. This admonition was conveyed by the judge, not the defense lawyer. The lawyer never told him about this prior to the hearing on his change of plea. However, once this obligation was conveyed to him he immediately complied with the laws.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Laws have stringent registration requirements. Correctional institutions have the obligation to report the convicted offender to the registry. Parole and probation departments have the same obligation. Sentences of less than ninety days for a conviction of a sex offense require the judge to advise the accused of his duty to register in accordance with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry laws. Sex offenders who move into Massachusetts must register within two days. The registration must include the Sex Offender’s address, work address and the school he or she is attending. Sex Offenders who move around within Massachusetts must provide their new home, work or school addresses. Sex Offenders who want to move out of Massachusetts must notify the Registry. There is a special provision for work addresses as well; that being an offender must notify the board ten days prior to starting work in that establishment.

The client about whom I am speaking works as a chef. He has moved among jobs and homes about eleven times over the past several years. He has always complied with the registration requirements. He took a new job this past summer. He believed that he had once again registered in accordance with his obligations as he had on eleven prior occasions. He was wrong. He made a mistake. He forgot to do so. Now keep in mind that his residence remained the same. That notwithstanding, over the Labor Day Weekend he was stopped for a Motor Vehicle infraction. The officer learned that he had not registered and he was properly arrested. He was held until his arraignment on that Tuesday and he registered upon his release. I provided this information to the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case. As is her office policy, she called the Sexual Assault supervisor. The recommendation came back: guilty with two year probation. The supervisor never took the time to look at the facts of this case, rather, she held to the rigid policy of her office, refusing to even look at this client’s history of registering and the substance of the crime that occurred twelve years ago to which he pleaded guilty eight years ago. What is even more troubling is that this same district attorney’s office, second earlier, recommended pre-trial probation for a man accused of driving one hundred ten miles per hour on the highway.

Continue Reading

| by

Michael Rubino of Braintree, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn last Friday. It is alleged that the Massachusetts court officer had sexual contact with a couple of female prisoners while he was on duty. The alleged acts took place last year and early this year at the Boston Municipal Court on New Chardon Street in Boston. An article in the Quincy Patriot Ledger states that on two occasions Rubino engaged in sexual misconduct with a woman when she was shackled and handcuffed. In another matter authorities allege that the defendant gave a female detainee cigarettes and money in exchange for sexual acts at the courthouse.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer, Sexual Assault

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I am interested in knowing exactly what acts are alleged against Rubino and what evidence exists to support these allegations. The reason for my curiousity is simple. There is no law prohibiting consensual sex between court officers and inmates. This is not the case for correctional officers. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A makes it a crime for any correctional employee to engage in sexual relations with an inmate during the course of his or her employment. A conviction for this offense is punishable by up to five years in state prison. The crime is a felony. There is no defense of consent for correctional officers whereas there is for court officers. The full text of the law reads as follows:

“An officer or other person who is employed by or contracts with any penal or correctional institution in the commonwealth, and who, in the course of such employment or contract or as a result thereof, engages in sexual relations with an inmate confined therein, within or outside of such institution, or an inmate who is otherwise under the direct custodial supervision and control of such officer or other person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in a state prison or by a fine of $10,000 or both. In a prosecution commenced under this section, an inmate shall be deemed incapable of consent to sexual relations with such person. For purposes of this section, sexual relations shall include intentional, inappropriate contact of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to conduct prohibited by section 22 or 24 of chapter 265 or section 2, 3, 35 or 53A of chapter 272.”

There is very little case law in Massachusetts. This is understandable in that this is one of the few laws in Massaschusetts that does not have any gray area. Either the act happened or it did not.

One of the things I wonder about in this case is the extent of the evidence against Rubino. The lockups at the courthouses are monitored with video cameras. There are several of these cameras mounted throughout the lockup area providing surveillance at numerous angles and in all cells and areas used for transporting detainees. These monitors are installed for continuous viewing of prisoners to ensure their safety and the safety of the court officers moving them in and out of the courtrooms. The video monitors are also used to ensure the safety of the correctional officers transporting the prisoners from correctional facilities and jails to and from court. Anyone such as Rubino, working the lockup is aware of these devices and what they are constantly revealing. If the basis for these allegations is simply the word of the accuser then Rubino’s defense might depend on the cameras, other inmates present at the time of the alleged incidents and the testimonies of his co-workers.

Continue Reading

| by

charlie-sheen-brooke-mueller-twins-4.jpgActress Brooke Mueller was in a bar known as the Belly Up nightclub this past weekend. There, it is alleged that she struck another woman. The police were called to investigate the incident. They spoke to the victim and looked for Mueller. The actress was later located at another nightclub. When confronted by the police Mueller poked an officer in the chest. Mueller was arrested and in her possession police found between four and five grams of cocaine. Mueller admitted to having the drug to share with her friends. Mueller, the ex-wife of actor Charlie Sheen is being arraigned this morning for charges of Assault and Battery, a misdemeanor and Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, a felony.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

If this case were being prosecuted in Massachusetts an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would probably get the charge of Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B reduced to Possession of Class B. The case would also be continued without a finding assuming the defendant had no criminal record or a minimal criminal record. The Assault and Battery charge would also probably continued without a finding on the condition that restitution, if any, be paid to the victim.

This case should also serve as a lesson to my readers. Never speak to the police. I repeat this admonition consistently. I have never had a client “talk his or her way out of” a criminal charge. It never happens. Had Mueller just shut her mouth she would not be facing a felony charge. Rather, she would have been charged only with Possession of Cocaine. Her admission that she intended to “share” the drug with friends makes this case a felony. My office is currently representing several people who have made similar statements to the police relative to Marijuana Possession. They client gets caught with less than an ounce of marijuana. This is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. But when the police ask what they are doing with it they cavalierly say that they are only smoking it with their friends. Now, the non-crime becomes a crime and they get charged with a felony. In essence, this law has given young people a false sense of security about what they can do with marijuana. This past weekend we had a similar experience. We had a client who was arrested for a Massachusetts Sex Crime. The police told him that if he wanted to get bailed out over the weekend he needed to cooperate with them. He called us from the police station and we told him not to talk to the police. He listened to us and was bailed out anyway. Again, the lesson is this: shut your mouth. Do not talk to the police. There is absolutely no upside to this if you are a suspect or defendant in a criminal case.

Continue Reading

| by

Just two days ago Lawrence, Massachusetts Police responded to a call at a rooming house on South Union Street. They arrived to find a thirty three year old woman they knew to be a prostitute complaining that she had been strangled and harassed by a man. The man, Richard Croteau was still at the scene when the police arrived. Croteau told the police that the woman had stolen money from him. The police interviewed some witnesses. One claimed to have heard Croteau threaten to “bash” the woman’s head in. Another witness supposedly saw Croteau grab the woman by the neck. Croteau was charged with Assault with the Intent to Commit Murder and Threatening to Commit a Crime. The case is being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, Prostitution, Violent Crimes

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will tell you that stories like this one are common in the Massachusetts district courts, especially those courts in cities such as Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn and Brockton. It is true and unfortunate that prostitutes get robbed and beaten. However, it is also true that they frequently do the robbing. They then preempt any retributive efforts by making false claims about being robbed and beaten. This permits these women to retain the fruits of their crimes. I cannot count the number of times I have had clients complain to me that they were robbed by the prostitute they were engaged with and ended up arrested and in court to defend a dubious accusation. There is usually good news for the men who stand in Mr. Croteau’s shoes. These women have no interest in appearing in court and cooperating with law enforcement personnel. After all, why would they? They got what they wanted. Money. Oftentimes they are able to do this without performing their marketed sexual services. In twenty four years of practice I cannot remember a time when a prostitute appeared in court to testify for the prosecution on a case like this one.

These stories can stimulate conversation about the pros and cons of legalizing prostitution in the United States. Currently, only one state permits Prostitution, Nevada. There, prostitution is legal in eight counties, not the entire state. It is illegal in Las Vegas notwithstanding the prevalence of sexual attractions and stimulations in that city. Rhode Island permitted prostitution until 2009. In Louisiana convicted prostitutes must register as sex offenders. The prostitution industry nationwide is estimated to generate fourteen billion dollars annually. Proponent of legalized prostitution argue among other things that regulating this trade will provide tax revenue to municipalities and states, control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and prevent crimes such as the ones for which Croteau is being charged in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

This past weekend a thirty seven year old homeless Lawrence, Massachusetts man told police that he had been shot in the elbow. An investigation was quickly launched leading the police to an address on Broadway. Officers arrived, were permitted to enter the address and were presented with BB guns. They claim that at that time they were able to see drugs, heroin and marijuana in plain view on a table. The person present in the home was a woman (Torres) who quickly accused her husband, Tommy Galarza as the person to whom the drugs belonged. Torres and Galarza were both arrested and charged with various Massachusetts Drug Crimes. Officers then applied for and obtained a Search Warrant. During the execution of the Search Warrant the police located thirty five grams of cocaine, twenty five grams of heroin, oxycontin pills, assorted pills, cutting agents, a scale and cash. Both Torres and Galarza have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine and Trafficking Heroin as well as Possession of Class B With the Intent to Distribute. It is likely that a Conspiracy charge will be filed as well. Through these efforts Lawrence Police were also able to meet up with a man by the name of Brian Smith, a neighbor. Smith was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin. These cases will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Essex County Drug Crimes Lawyer, Salem, Lawrence

The case against Galarza seems to be the strongest for the defense. The police went to the home. He was not there. They see drugs in plain view in a common area in the home. There is no admission or confession by Galarza. His wife’s statement cannot be used in court against Galarza and in my experience it is extremely for one spouse to testify against the other. In Massachusetts, when someone is present in a home where drugs are dealt the law makes clear that this presence, in and of itself, is insufficient to sustain a prosecution for drug dealing activities. There must be proof that the defendant had control, knowledge and power along with the ability and the intention to exercise dominion and control over the drugs. This is not present here. We have no idea when the drugs entered the home and whether or not Galarza was even present in the home when the drugs were present. His wife’s self-serving, legally inadmissible statements cannot be used by the district attorney in a prosecution against Galarza. Massachusetts law states that presence and awareness standing alone do not constitute evidence that will warrant a jury to infer the intention and ability to exercise and control over the drugs. That being the case no one can reasonably argue that the facts in this case are sufficient as to Galarza to permit this prosecution to stand.

Continue Reading

| by

growing-marijuana-plant.jpgDeborah Toloczko and her husband Anthony Toloczko were on vacation in Las Vegas last week. Upon their return to Massachusetts they were met at Logan Airport by law enforcement officials. There, the Worcester County couple was arrested. It is alleged that the pair was growing marijuana in their Douglas, Massachusetts home. Last week, officers entered the Toloczko property and conducted a search. During the search officers found about one hundred twenty pot plants, two to three feet tall. They also located Marijuana Cultivation Paraphernalia including grow lamps, timers, climate control devices and an irrigation system. Officers also located Firearms they claim were improperly stored. Bail for the couple was set at two hundred fifty thousand dollars for Ms. Toloczko and five hundred thousand dollars for Mr. Toloczko. It is also alleged that over fifty pounds of marijuana was located, already packaged for sale. Seventy five thousand dollars cash was seized as well. Evidence taken from the scene led officers to apply for and obtain another Search Warrant where one pound of packaged marijuana was also located.

Read Article:

Worcester County Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer one criminal charge comes to mind that is omitted from this article; that being Trafficking Marijuana. The Massachusetts Marijuana Trafficking laws set the threshold for Marijuana Trafficking at fifty pounds. Trafficking fifty pounds up to one hundred pounds carries a mandatory minimum one year sentence and a maximum sentence of fifteen years in state prison. The amount of marijuana packaged just reaches this threshold. However, I imagine that the district attorney is also going to add in the amount of marijuana contained in the plants which will undoubtedly drive the quantity up.

There is always going to be a calculation problem for the prosecution when dealing with marijuana plants and usable marijuana that can come from that plant. Studies have shown that “enormous” marijuana plants can produce ten or even fifteen pounds of consumable substance. Some credible law enforcement agencies maintain that one “mature” plant will yield one pound of usable marijuana. The term “mature” is subject to interpretation. Keep in mind that indoor plants rarely exceed four feet in height whereas plants grown outdoors are often three to four times as tall. Horticultural practices also figure into the average yield of a plant. All of these factors make it difficult for the district attorney to prove the presence of a particular quantity of marijuana for which the accused is accountable. In this case this will likely be one of the issues raised by the defense. All of this makes me wonder why the bail was set so high in this case. It would not surprise me at all to see that the bail either has been lowered or will be lowered after the order of bail is appealed.

Continue Reading

| by

CProducts30RoundInGun-5.jpg
Around 4:30 in the morning this past Sunday Massachusetts State Police responded to a call for a Motor Vehicle accident in the northbound lane of Route 24. The arrived to learn that Jason Ribeiro of Brockton, Massachusetts was driving a car the rear ended another vehicle. The victim called 911. The police investigation revealed the presence of a large capacity loaded firearm in Ribeiro’s car. Both of Ribeiro’s passengers, a juvenile and John Pires also from Brockton were charged with Possession of a Firearm. The case is currently pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Gun Defense Lawyer

It is extremely uncommon for multiple parties to get convicted for possessing the same firearm, particularly where the weapon is found in a motor vehicle. Unless one of the occupants is actually holding the gun or the weapon is tested for fingerprints there is simply no way to attribute Possession of the Firearm to one of the parties as opposed to the others. Now Massachusetts and most other jurisdictions recognize that someone can “constructively possess” an item. The law on constructive possession states that even without actual physical possession of an item a person can be legally responsible for possessing that object via constructive possession. To be convicted for possessing an item under that theory the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has knowledge of the object, the ability to exercise control over that object and the intent to exercise control over that item. As to constructively possessing a gun in Massachusetts one of the leading cases holds that you can infer constructive possession of the gun “from defendant’s proximity to gun in motor vehicle, where evidence that, when stopped by police, defendant ‘first leaned forward and to the right before complying with the order to raise his hands[,] . . . [and] [a] loaded handgun was found protruding from under the passenger seat in the vehicle he was operating'”. Conversely, one cannot infer constructive Possession of a Gun in Massachusetts where the gun is in proximity to a defendant’s personal papers. Proximity and knowledge do not show possession.

So how here does the district attorney sustain a prosecution against all three where there exists only one gun? They probably cannot. This is where the assistance of an Experienced Massachusetts Firearm Defense Lawyer becomes necessary. It is possible in some circumstances to succeed on a motion to dismiss in cases like this, at least as to two of the defendants. It might be possible for that motion to apply to all three defendants. To better assess this case it is necessary to know where the weapon was found in the car. What if anything did the defendants say. Is there any physical evidence on the weapon that links one or more of the suspects to the gun; i.e. DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence. What did the person in the other car see relative to the weapon. Where was the weapon found in the car? Who was the owner of the car?

Continue Reading