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

| by

jail.jpgA twenty four year old Medford, Masschusetts man, Brian Falasca was attempting to visit an inmate at M.C.I. Framingham this past weekend. During a search of his person prison guards found a suboxone pill in his shirt pocket. Falasca was interviewed. He denied intending to give the pills to the inmate. He claimed to have forgotten that he had the pills in his pocket. Subsequently, Falasca’s car was searched. In it authorities found forty five additional suboxone pills, some cash and Marijuana. Falasca has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Suboxone, Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substance Laws and Delivering Drugs to a Prisoner. The case is being prosecuted in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1712042048/Man-charged-with-bringing-drugs-to-Framingham-inmate
Framingham Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Law Firm
Delivering Drugs to a Prisoner is a felony punishable by up to five years in state prison in Massachusetts. The crime is set out in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 28 which states that “[w]hoever gives or delivers to a prisoner in any correctional institution, or in any jail or house of correction, any drug or article whatever, or has in his possession within the precincts of any prison herein named with intent to give or deliver to any prisoner any such drug or article without the permission of the superintendent or keeper, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.” There is very little case law on this crime. The law is cited in two unpublished criminal cases and one non-criminal case. If the act of distribution or attempted distribution is witnessed by prison guards or others the case is difficult to defend. However, in this case a defense might be more successful.

Falasca’s intent to deliver the drugs to an inmate has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. That might be a difficult task in this case. Suboxone is a drug used to treat opiate dependence. It is a medication that necessitates a prescription. It also has a street value and can be crushed and snorted to provide effect. Many people find it addicting in and of itself. Even if Falasca cannot produce a prescription the issue of his intentions is still material at trial. For instance, if he can show a heroin addiction a jury might well believe that he was trying to fight his urges through this medication. Or, he might have a dependency on this drug. Inadvertently possessing the substance does not indicate an intention to distribute or deliver the substance so proving this aspect of his case might be difficult.

As to the other counts, it is clear that challenging the Search and Seizure of Falasca’s car and its contents will be an issue in this case. A successful motion to suppress will result in the exclusion of the forty five bags of suboxone, the marijuana and the cash as evidence at a trial against this defendant.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, an Andover couple convicted of harassing their neighbor, State Representative James Lyons Jr., will be spending Christmas in jail after a jury in the Lawrence District Court found them guilty of criminal harassment and related charges. Apparently, approximately three years ago, in 2008, William and Gail Johnson were arrested while out on their morning run and charged with making false accusations of child abuse, criminal harassment, identify fraud and making a false report. One of the Commonwealth’s key pieces of evidence was the testimony from Gerald Colton, a former friend of the Johnson’s, who implicated the pair in the illegal activities. Following three hours of deliberations both were found not guilty on the identity fraud count. William Johnson was convicted of criminal harassment and making a false accusation of child abuse to the department of family services. Gail Johnson was convicted of criminal harassment. The judge sentenced William Johnson to eighteen months in prison and Gail Johnson to six months in jail. The pair will also serve a probationary term when they are released. Although criminal harassment is considered a misdemeanor, because the maximum penalty is a sentence in the house of correction as opposed to state prison, the Judge apparently had not patience for the troubling behavior of the Andover couple and sent them to prison for the holidays.

Relative to the crime of criminal harassment Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 43 A states the following:

Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished. . .
In Massachusetts, in order to establish that there has been a “pattern of conduct or series of acts” there must be three or more incidents and the alarming conduct must be directed to a specific person, the person who is seriously alarmed by the harassment. See, Commonwealth v. Welch, 444 Mass 80, (2005).

In Massachusetts an individual can apply for civil restraining orders if certain conditions are met. The “traditional” type of restraining order is the “209A” restraining order. In order to have a “209A” restraining order issue the parties must be “family member” or have been involved in a substantial dating relationship. The plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has been subjected to “abuse”.

Massachusetts recently enacted another type of civil restraining order typically referred to as a “Criminal Harassment Prevention Order.” In order to apply for this type of order the parties do not have to be related, dating or have been involved in a substantial dating relationship. Chapter 258E provides that a plaintiff can get a civil harassment prevention order if it can be established that the defendant engaged in the following conduct: (1) ”3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, abuse or damage to property”; or (2) a single act that “by force, threat, or duress causes another to involuntarily engage in sexual relations”; or (3) a single act that constitutes one of 12 enumerated crimes involving sexual assault, stalking, or harassment.

The first branch of harassment has five components. The first requires that there be three or more acts of harassment. The additional requirements are as follows: (1) Each act must be aimed at a specific person; (2) Each act must have been both willful and malicious; (3) Each act must have been done with intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or property damage; and (4) Each act must in fact have caused fear, intimidation, abuse or property damage.

Continue Reading

| by

drugs-300x300.jpgJust one week ago an unidentified person driving a car in Lowell, Massachusetts made an observation he thought worthy of police investigation. He noticed that the driving of another car was stopped in traffic and sleeping. This individual was then observed “waking up” and driving in an erratic manner, nearly colliding with a utility pole. The Dracut police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the man. It is alleged that the man was unsteady on his feet and that for his own safety no Field Sobriety Tests were given. It turns out that the driver of the suspect vehicle was an off duty paramedic. He was arrested and charged with OUI Drugs in the Lowell District Court. In the car police found some prescription pills, possibly some Heroin and some Drug Paraphernalia. These substances are being tested.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer, OUI Drugs

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I was immediately struck by a particular legal issue this case bears that is becoming more common in Massachusetts. It involves the admissibility of testimony necessary to sustain a prosecution in a case like this one. For an OUI Drug conviction in Massachusetts the prosecution must identify the substance that it believes the defendant was influenced by at the time of operation. It is well established in Massachusetts that unless properly trained no witness can opine that someone was under the influence of a particular kind of drug. Massachusetts police officers, particularly those on patrol are trained to observe and detect the symptoms of alcohol intoxication. But few of these officers are taught about the effects various drugs have on people and the manifestation of symptoms ingestion of these substances will have. Recently, to combat this shortcoming, district attorneys are using drug enforcement detectives to provide an expert opinion at trial on how people will behave when impaired by certain substances. The officer will review the investigation or arresting officer’s findings and draw a conclusion as to what substance was effecting the driver/defendant. Some judges are allowing this testimony notwithstanding objections by the Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer.

Historically, Massachusetts Courts have approved of this strategy. For instance, in murder cases it is often the case that the medical examiner who performed the autopsy is unavailable to testify at trial. The district attorney will substitute this witness with another medical examiner who will review the first examiner’s reports and records as well as the photographs taken during the examination. The substitute will then be allowed to provide an opinion as to the cause of death. This might however be coming to an end. In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011) the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made for the purposes of proving a particular fact, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2710 (2011). Such surrogate testimony violates the confrontation clause unless the analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist. I am hopeful that the Bullcoming decision once tested in Massachusetts will have application to drug recognition experts.

Continue Reading

| by

tfs_mm_hollywoodog.jpgMedical marijuana is a phrase that refers to the cultivation, possession and use of the drug marijuana for medical purposes. It is used to relieve pain associated with terminal illnesses or diseases. Ingesting marijuana has made AIDS and some forms of cancer more manageable. There are many people who believe that marijuana has great value in the treatment of many medical problems. Recently, and throughout the country, medical marijuana laws are coming into existence. These laws vary from state to state and appear to conflict with federal marijuana laws. Federal law still trumps state law however there has been limited effort on the part of the federal government to prosecute people who are acting in conformity with their state laws as they relate to medical marijuana. The exception to this pertains to medical marijuana suppliers.

There now exist sixteen states that permit growing and using marijuana for medical purposes. These states are California, Washington, Rhode Island, Vermont, Michigan, Maine, New Mexico, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, Montana, Delaware, Nevada and Arizona. Here is a look at how some of these states treat this issue of medical marijuana:

Alaska: Patients may possess up to one ounce and grow six plants;
Arizona: Patients may possess up to 2 ½ ounces and in certain circumstances grow up to twelve plants;
California: Patients can possess up to eight ounces and grow six plants;
Colorado: Two ounces and six plants.

All states that permit the use of medical marijuana regulate the diseases or medical conditions that qualify for the use and cultivation of the drug. For instance, Maine permits usage where the patient suffers from epilepsy, seizure disorders, glaucoma, and AIDS and chemotherapy related nausea. Montana lists these conditions and adds cancer in general, debilitating physical and mental conditions, severe or persistent muscles spasms and Chrohn’s diseases.

Some states require payment of a fee for the use of medical marijuana and others require the patient or provider to carry a medical marijuana card.

Here is something everyone should be aware of. Even where medical marijuana is legal there exist criminal penalties for people who exceed what is permissible or manipulate the law. For instance, selling to people not eligible to possess, possessing more than the legal amount and cultivating more than is permissible can get you in trouble. Jail sentences are often authorized as punishment for those who violate these laws.

Massachusetts does not have a medical marijuana laws. Moreover, Possession of Marijuana in Massachusetts is not legal. Possession of less than one ounce of Marijuana in Massachusetts is no longer a criminal offense however it is an infraction that can lead to having to pay fines. Make no mistake about this however, Distribution of Marijuana in Massachusetts remains a felony under all circumstances. Do not assume that it is okay to sell, give away or share any quantity of marijuana in Massachusetts. This is a felony. If you get caught you will be prosecuted for this offense. If you have any questions about this law you should contact a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer right away.

Continue Reading

| by

Police allege that Samuel Gambaro of Providence, Rhode Island was involved in a drug operation spanning at least three states, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. An investigation into Gambaro’s activities started in October of this year. Authorities claim that seven hand-to-hand sales to an undercover Massachusetts State Police Officer and a search warrant executed at a Lawrence, Massachusetts residence led to the criminal drug charges. The Search Warrant was executed at Bunkerhill Street. There, officers located over one hundred grams of heroin and sixty five grams of cocaine all said to have a street value in the vicinity of ten thousand dollars. Apparently the substances were located on a coffee table. Two other individuals were also charged with Massachusetts Drug Crimes as a result of this investigation. Santo Mota-Vizaino of Lawrence, Massachusetts and Francisco Carmona-Sanchez of Dorchester were charged with Trafficking Cocaine and Trafficking Heroin. Both have also been charged with Conspiracy to Violation the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Laws. Gambaro has been charged with Distribution of Class B and Distribution of Class A according to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune article. Gambaro is being held on one million dollars cash bail. Mota-Vizaino and Carmona-Sanchez are being held on fifty thousand dollars cash bail. These cases will most likely be prosecuted on the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Drug Crimes Lawyers In Lawrence Massachusetts

While reading this article I could not help but wonder why the police needed seven controlled buys to achieve their goal. I understand that sometimes they want to build a relationship with the suspect in hopes of getting to the source of the drugs. And sure, if they are successful the police will get more drugs off of the streets. Yet sometimes, and all too often, they have another motive in mind. That is, to get the suspect to sell them greater quantities of drugs so that the crime, and ultimately the minimum mandatory sentence is greater. Some jurisdictions recognize this as a defense to the crime. The defense is known as sentencing entrapment. This occurs when the government makes someone, who may have a predisposition to engage in one sort of criminal activity (i.e. selling small amounts of a drug), to engage in more serious criminal activity that exposes that person to harsher punishment (i.e. trafficking a drug). The purpose of recognizing the defense is to discourage improper government conduct. Some jurisdictions recognize sentencing entrapment as a defense theory in drug cases that can result in the reduction of a sentence. Unfortunately, Massachusetts does not. See Commonwealth v. Garcia, 421 Mass. 686, 692-693 (1996).

So let’s suppose that in this case Gambaro or his two co-defendants had an inclination to sell only small amounts of cocaine and heroin. Further suppose that this is all that they had ever sold and all that they were inclined to sell. If the undercover officer kept raising the amount he wanted to buy and essentially coerced the defendants to do so a sentencing entrapment argument could be made if this case were being prosecuted in a jurisdiction that recognizes the defense.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today four Massachusetts teenagers were being arraigned in Quincy District Court. All four are being charged with murder after a twenty one year old Randolph man was killed over the weekend. After the arraignment someone in the audience yelled out words of support to the defendants. The victim’s family took exception to that. A fight broke out requiring the Quincy District Court court officers and the Quincy police to intervene. In all, five people were arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct. None of the defendants were named in the report.

Read Article:

Quincy Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer

In order to prove someone guilty of Disorderly Conduct in Massachusetts the district attorney must prove three elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt. It first must that the accused either intended to cause alarm or that he acted recklessly thereby creating a risk of alarm. Second, the district attorney must prove that the defendant fought, threatened or engaged in tumultuous or violent conduct. Third, that the defendant’s actions created an offensive or hazardous condition which has no legitimate purpose to the defendant.

Not too long ago the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a disorderly person conviction. In that case, a Massachusetts state police officer drove up to a hotel parking lot and saw a man and a woman in a car. The was seemingly shaking his finger and yelling at the woman who was in the driver’s seat. The officer could hear the yelling but could not make out any words. Backup units arrived and the woman made clear that she did not want the man to be arrested. The officers told the man that he would be summonsed to court. He started flailing his arms telling the police that they were violating his civil rights. He was arrested and charged, among other things with disorderly person. In reversing the conviction the Appeals Court stated that the defendant’s conduct did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior”. Citing another Massachusetts case the Court held that “[t]o be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute.”

As a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer I would be interested in reading the police reports in the Quincy cases. We have had countless disorderly conduct cases dismissed where the defendant was arrested for incidents involving his use of speech only. Many police officers do not realize this to be the law and they make arrests and file charges based on protected conduct. Also, this case took place in Quincy. If the alleged acts occurred in the first session courtroom they will be recorded. That court started a pilot program wherein the cases in that courtroom air live through a webcam. Some of these people’s defenses might be provable through the footage from that system. Here is one more thing to keep in mind. Many legal scholars believe that this statute is unconstitutional. While it has survived constitutional muster it has been suggested that a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer defending one of these cases should challenge the statute to preserve any potential future appellate issues.

Continue Reading

| by

Hector Ortiz of Framingham, Massachusetts had been dating a woman who lived on Edgell Road until a few weeks ago when she broke up with him. She quickly became involved with someone else. Jealous and scorned, Ortiz concocted a plan to exact his revenge. This past Friday Ortiz followed the woman and her new boyfriend to a local restaurant. He then followed the two to the woman’s home and tried to force his way inside. The woman then went to the police station to make a report. While at the station, based on a tip from Ortiz the police found cocaine tucked into the woman’s gas cap. Both she and her boyfriend were arrested and charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine.

The woman then told the police a story that gave them concern. She claimed that a couple of weeks back, after she and Ortiz broke up, Ortiz went to her apartment and spent the night. The next day she woke up to find Ortiz on top of her attempting to rape her. The woman yelled. Ortiz ran off, supposedly with her cell phone. She never reported the incident until after the drug arrest.

The Framingham Police interviewed Ortiz. He admitted to placing the drugs in the gas cap. He stated that he wanted to get the new boyfriend in trouble but that his plan failed when the woman was also arrested. Ortiz has been charged with several crimes in the Framingham District Court; specifically, Civil Rights Violation, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, a Class B Substance, Indecent Assault and Battery, Intimidation of a Witness, Stalking, Assault With the Intent to Commit Rape, Filing a False Police Report and Threatening to Commit a Crime. Charges against the woman and her new boyfriend were dropped however the boyfriend was held on in ICE detainer.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

While the drug case seems to be an easy one for the district attorney the Attempted Rape matter might be more difficult to prove. Here is why. Jurors are going to question why this woman would allow her ex-boyfriend to spend the night in her home particularly where she had just become involved with another man. Jurors will also question the delayed disclosure of the alleged incident. The timing of the disclosure of the Sexual Assault is also suspect. It comes after the woman was charged with violating the controlled substances act. This suggests to jurors a motive for the woman to fabricate this story. Or perhaps her new boyfriend found out that Ortiz spent the night with her and she felt compelled to come up with this story to preserve her relationship.

Jurors are always charged with an instruction on the credibility of witnesses. Jurors are told that they can believe all, some or none of what a witness says in court. Jurors are instructed to use their common sense in evaluating the credibility of a witness. Jurors are to consider whether there exists a motive for testifying in a certain way or whether the witness might have hostility towards the defendant. In this case, one of the things Ortiz’s Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will focus on is the woman’s credibility in view of her late disclosure of the Sex Crime and her motive for making that revelation when she did.

Continue Reading

| by

laws.jpgMichael Brundige is fifty seven years old. The Quincy resident is facing twenty counts of Rape of a Child in Norfolk County and Plymouth County dating back as far as 1990. The Plymouth County case is being prosecuted in Brockton, Massachusetts. The alleged victim in that case was between the ages of six and eight when what has been charged as one count of abuse occurred. About one year ago Brundige was charged with three counts of Indecent Assault and Battery and three counts of Child Rape in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham. Just last week Brundige was charged with sixteen counts of Child Rape, all of which are currently pending in the Quincy District Court. The prosecution contends that those acts occurred over an eight year period.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Rape Defense Attorney

Our office represents many people charged with Rape of a Child in Massachusetts. Oftentimes the accused is facing accusations that occurred several years earlier. I am always asked whether the statute of limitations expired and whether or not the district can go forward with the case. The answer is complicated. Massachusetts legislature and courts have expanded the statute of limitations for this crime on several occasions. Prior to 1985 the statute of limitations was six years. Then, in 1985 the statute of limitations was extended to ten years. A Massachusetts Appeals Court decision interpreted the amendment to include those cases that preceded the amendment date. Thus for instance, an alleged act that occurred in 1977 would no longer be barred by the statute of limitations after the passage of the amendment. In 2006 the statute of limitations was again extended. This time the legislature wrote that the crime of Rape of a Child could be prosecuted anytime after the commission of the crime. In other words, there is really no statute of limitations for this crime anymore in Massachusetts. There is one caveat however. The law states that “any indictment or complaint found and filed more than 27 years after the date of commission of such offense shall be supported by independent evidence that corroborates the victim’s allegation. Such independent evidence shall be admissible during trial and shall not consist exclusively of the opinions of mental health professionals.” As a practical matter, if the district attorney wants to prosecute one of these cases he or she can do so at virtually any time.

In matters like this one the defendant needs to hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer. A successful defense to old Child Abuse cases requires a thorough investigation. It requires tenacious advocacy. Anyone defending these cases needs to explore the motivation of the accuser for the delayed disclosure. There is also a need to get a judge to order the prosecutor to disclose details of the event such as a particular date, time and location rather then permitting the accuser to simply say that the event happened when he or she was six or eight years old.

Continue Reading

| by

In Massachusetts, an individual can go to a local clerk’s office and apply for a Harassment Restraining Order pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258E even if the parties have not been dating, are not related and have not been married. Chapter 258E provides the following three definitions of “harassment” warranting relief: (1) ”3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, abuse or damage to property”; or (2) a single act that “by force, threat, or duress causes another to involuntarily engage in sexual relations”; or (3) a single act that constitutes one of 12 enumerated crimes involving sexual assault, stalking, or harassment.

The first branch of harassment has five components and appears to be the most utilized portion of the statute for the issuance and extension of orders pursuant to this section. . The first requires that there be three or more acts of harassment. The additional requirements are as follows: (1) Each act must be aimed at a specific person; (2) Each act must have been both willful and malicious; (3) Each act must have been done with intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or property damage; and (4) Each act must in fact have caused fear, intimidation, abuse or property damage.

In may cases, a complainant goes to a local district court and applies for a temporary order that requires a defendant to stay away from the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s home and the plaintiff’s work. A judge must evaluate the available information and decide whether to issue a temporary order. If a temporary order is issued, then the defendant must receive notice of the order and its relevant terms for the order to be enforceable. A defendant usually has no knowledge of the fact that an order has been issued against him or her. After a temporary order issues, there is a hearing date, approximately fourteen days later, in which the defendant can appear and give his or her side of the story. If both parties do not appear the order will expire by operation of law at four o’clock that day. If the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear, and the plaintiff claims he or she is still in fear of the defendant, the order is usually extended. The order can be extended for up to one year, however, the judge has discretion to issue it for a shorter period of time. It is important to note that although a Harassment Prevention Order is a civil order, an alleged violation of it can land a defendant in a criminal court.

An order often requires that the defendant refrain from any contact with the complainant. The “no contact” requirement means that a defendant cannot have ANY contact, direct or indirect, with the complainant. Thus, emails, flowers, text messages and contact through a mutual friend would be considered a violation of the order. If the case involves a couple that has children, the judge may make some rulings relative to the parties arrangements for the children. However, most of these situations are best handled in the probate court.

If you have been served with a Harassment Prevention Order, it is important that you have an experienced restraining order attorney on your side. In the unfortunate situation that the order is extended, it can be appealed. At this time, the venue in which to appeal Harassment Restraining Orders has not yet been clearly defined. Pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3, the Supreme Judicial Court has “general superintendence of all courts of inferior jurisdiction to correct and prevent errors and abuses therein if no other remedy is expressly must ‘demonstrate both a substantial claim of violation of [their] substantive rights and error that cannot be remedied under the ordinary review process.’ Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 406 Mass. 701, 706 (1990)], quoting Dunbrack v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 502, 504, (1986); McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497 (1995). Currently, G.L.c.258E does not provide any express appellate remedy from a district Court entering or extending such an order. Prior to Zullo v. Goguen, 423 Mass. 679, 672 (1972), review of restraining orders issued pursuant to G.L. 209A was sought pursuant to the superintendence powers afforded the Supreme Judicial Court under G.L.c.211,§3. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 593 (1995) [Challenging an order entered under 209A by suing G.L.c.211,§3 was proper]. However, in Zullo v. Goguen, 423 Mass. 679, 682 (1996) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court directed the appeals from 209A orders to the Massachusetts Appeals Court by holding, “. . . unless and until the Legislature decides otherwise, litigants seeking judicial review of an order made pursuant to G. L. c. 209A are directed to the Appeals Court.”

The outcome of the pending case of Borwoski v. O’Brien will determine the proper venue for filing appeals from the issuance and extension of Harassment Prevention Orders. The case was scheduled for oral argument this month.

Continue Reading

| by

Social-Media-Collage.jpgBack on October 4, 2011 a robbery occurred in Westford, Massachusetts at a liquor store. The incident was caught on a security videotape. The culprit was seen attacking the store clerk and making off with hundreds of dollars cash. The videotape also captured a woman authorities believe to this man’s girlfriend in the store earlier. The Westford Police posted the videotape on Facebook. A few weeks later a forty one year old Beverly man, Michael Whitcomb was arrested by Peabody police for another crime, a Robbery and Stabbing. His girlfriend, Jennifer Avola of Danvers was also arrested. The Peabody police saw the Westford posting and were able to make a connection to the robberies. The Salem News reports that Whitcomb might be responsible for similar robberies in which liquor stores and convenience stores were targeted. These occurred in the towns of Rowley, Georgetown and Ipswich. Both defendants are facing felony charges in the Ayer District Court for Larceny Over $250, Unarmed Robbery and Assault and Battery. Whitcomb is also charged with similar crimes in the Newburyport District Court as well as Assault and Battery By Means of a Dangerous Weapon for stabbing the clerk.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Social Media And Criminal Law

What Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers are seeing quite a bit of these days is the use of social media to help prosecute crimes. Police departments throughout the state have websites, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts through which they post information targeting leads for unsolved crimes or the location of suspects in criminal cases. These agencies are also alerting the public to certain conditions to avoid being victimized. Various federal agencies are resorting to the social media to help with their investigations as well. It is working. Think back to game seven of the Stanley Cup Playoffs last year. Do you remember the riots? Many of the people responsible for the mele were identified through social media.

More and more of my clients find themselves in court as a result of some sort of investigation that involved social media outlets. Sometimes these people posted information that made them suspects. At times the source of the information is co-conspirators posting events and information that the police use to initiate their prosecution. This is why I tell my clients to be careful what they put in writing. Now not all of this is bad. As a matter of fact sometimes the social media helps the defense attorney more than the prosecutor. Our office has been able to discredit witnesses at trial through their social media postings. For instance, at one recent trial a witness testified that her life was ruined as a result of an alleged sexual assault committed by one of our clients. She testified that she could not go out or socialize. She claimed that she was unable to establish friendships as a result of the abuse and that she was constantly alone, scared and depressed. Her Facebook page and her MySpace pages suggested otherwise. There were hundreds of postings of her at parties, drinking, vacationing, socializing and living life in a manner that was entirely contradictory to her representations. Her testimony quickly became suspect.

Continue Reading