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

| by

A homicide detective working for the Massachusetts State Police was on his way home from work when he saw something that caught his eye. Three cars were driving suspiciously in a residential neighborhood in Braintree. The cars pulled over and a large piece of luggage was transferred from one vehicle to another. The trooper had information that involved other drug transactions in that neighborhood. So, the officer approached the group to ask what they were up to. They claimed to be lost and looking for the South Shore Mall. They then left. The trooper then called another officer who effectuated a stop of one of the vehicles, the one where the suitcase was placed. This occurred in Milton on Route 93. The driver, Thu Viet Tran of Revere, Massachusetts was arrested. He has been charged with Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance and a School Zone Violation. Over forty pounds of marijuana was seized. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Norfolk County Possession With Intent Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who reads this article is no doubt thinking the same thing. What right did the officers have to pull the car over? Well, maybe none. Tran’s lawyer will file a motion to suppress. The judge is going to have to decide whether the stop was justified in the first place. To get past this point the district attorney will have to prove that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Tran was committed, had committed or was about to commit a crime. This suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts that flow from the officer’s experience. The test is an objective one. A hunch will not suffice. Nor for that matter will being present in a high crime area. In cases like this one where the officer makes the decision to stop and search based on his first hand observations the determination of reasonable suspicion focuses on the totality of the circumstances. Here, the district attorney will probably argue that the trooper’s observations led him to believe that he had just witnessed a drug transaction thereby prompting him to stop and search the defendant’s car. However absent the recognition of anyone in the group as being involved with drugs in the past this observation stands to be challenged.

Motions to Suppress Searches are tools used by defense lawyers to get cases thrown out of court. When these motions succeed the fruits of the illegal search, in this case the forty pounds of marijuana, get suppressed. They cannot be used as evidence against the defendant. As a common consequence, the district attorney is unable to proceed against the defendant and the case gets dismissed. Hiring a lawyer who understands the law of Search and Seizure is important, particularly in drug cases where searches are prevalent. With the right lawyer you can avoid jail time and possibly a criminal conviction. In this case, the School Zone Charge mandates two years in jail so Tran’s choice of a lawyer is going to be very important.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Salem News, last week a Beverly, Massachusetts man went into a Tedeschi convenience store wearing a mask and a hoodie. The store clerk was arranging items in the store. He heard someone come into the store. He then saw a man carrying a large semiautomatic weapon demanding money. He complied with the demand and gave the robber between one hundred fifty and two hundred dollars. When he realized exactly how much money he got the defendant expressed disappointment and fled. No arrest was made that day. By the way, the store clerk never saw the face of the man. A few days later the clerk believed that he saw the person who had committed the Armed Robbery just outside of the store. The reason he thought this was the culprit: the man was wearing the same pants and had the same gait. The police obtained an arrest warrant and on Saturday the defendant was arrested. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Salem District Court. Bail was set in the amount of ten thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer – – Mistaken Identification

Armed Robbery.jpg

A central issue to many criminal cases in Massachusetts is the identification of the accused as the person who committed the crime alleged. In Massachusetts it is the obligation of the district attorney to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt. Mistaken identifications are not uncommon making your choice of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer one of paramount importance. Since the arrival of DNA testing there are many people who have been freed from jails and had convictions reversed. Many of these convictions were based on eyewitness identifications that were made in error. I sometimes wonder whether some of these convictions could have been avoided with a better attack on the identification testimony.

Jurors in Massachusetts are instructed on the issue of identification if it becomes a live issue at the time of trial. Judges tell jurors that the witness must have had an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant. Jurors can consider a lapse of time from the time of the commission of the crime until the identification was made. Similarities between the person identified and other people who might have been near the crime scene or had the motive to commit the crime can also be a factor that impacts jury deliberations. An initial failure to make an identification is a factor to scrutinize when deciding guilt or innocence in a case such as this one.

The defendant referenced in this article has a lot work with in terms of presenting his defense. His lawyer did an excellent job arguing mistaken identification issues. I am surprised that the bail was set so high in this case given the suggested weakness of the identification. It would not surprise me to see the bail lowered in this case. I have had cases like this one and tried them to an acquittal. Mistaken identification cases require the services of an Experienced Massachusetts Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

If you are looking for an experienced and successful defense attorney for any drug crime, firearm offense or violent crime Our Attorney will bring good results and hard work to your case. She recently successfully litigated a motion to dismiss and suppress evidence in a Massachusetts Superior Court. The defendant was initially charged with being a career criminal, illegal possession of a firearm and improper storage of a firearm as the result of a search of a motor vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. Our Attorney filed a number of pre-trial non-evidentiary motions including a motion to dismiss the career criminal portion of the indictment. She argued that the grand jury was not presented with the requisite number of previous offenses to charge the defendant as a career criminal. A superior court judge agreed and allowed the motion without a hearing. This eliminated the mandatory minimum state prison sentence that the defendant faced. This, however, was not the end of the case.

The defendant was still facing the illegal possession of a firearm charge that carried a mandatory committed sentence of eighteen months in jail if convicted. Our Attorney conducted a thorough pre-trial investigation and filed a motion to suppress evidence based on the illegal search of the car that the defendant was a passenger in.

The Commonwealth claimed that local police officers responded to a local street after receiving a report that there was a “suspicious” car idling outside one of the buildings. During an evidentiary hearing Our Attorney established that when the police arrived there was no car “idling.” The police officers approached the car that the defendant was in and questioned the driver. Apparently, the driver did not have a valid driver’s license and was arrested. The defendant, passenger in the vehicle, was allowed to go the nearby police station to bail out the driver. In the meantime the police conducted what they claimed was an inventory of the car and found a firearm and two ski masks.

Successful defense attorneys file these motions to zealously defend their clients. The motions usually assert that the evidence should be suppressed for the following reasons:
• said evidence was not seized pursuant to a lawful arrest;
• it was not in plain view;
• there was no probable cause;
• there was no warrant;
• there were no exigent circumstances;
• the search was not pursuant to a lawful stop-and-frisk;
• the search was not consented to;
• the search, stop and/or inquiry of the defendant was conducted without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or exigent circumstances;
• the search was a “pretextual search”;
• the search was not done in conformity with written police inventory policy;
• the stop of the defendant was unlawful;
• the search of the defendant and the car was unlawful;
• the stop and search was in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and G.L. c. 276.

In Massachusetts, individuals have an expectation of privacy in their homes, person and in appropriate circumstances a motor vehicle. Our Attorney filed a motion to suppress claiming that he police had no right to tow the car because it was parked in a private area and the owner of the building, or anyone for that matter, did not call requesting that the car be towed. Following an evidentiary hearing the superior court judge agreed with Our Attorney and allowed the defendant’s motion. Thus, the Commonwealth will not be allowed to introduce the gun and masks into evidence. The result is that the government does not have a case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to an article in today’s Lowell Sun, Thomas Hutchinson has been indicted by a Middlesex County Grand Jury on multiple Massachusetts Sex Crimes. The former Billerica, Massachusetts man was arrested this past July and initially charged in the Somerville District Court. It is alleged that Hutchinson pretended to work in the modeling field and that he would contact females through the internet. One girl sent him photographs and videotapes of herself in the nude. Hutchinson then threatened to post the nude images and videos live if the girl did not have sex with him. Hutchinson’s home and car were searched by police from Tewksbury and Medford. The Search revealed Child Pornography images, chats with apparently underage girls and additional evidence of sex crimes. Now Hutchinson is facing charges of Rape of a Child, Indecent Assault and Battery, Attempted Extortion, Child Enticement, Assault with the Intent to Rape and Possession of Child Pornography. The case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court in Woburn, Massachusetts.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Child Enticement in Massachusetts is a felony. The law proscribing this behavior is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 26C. The law states that anyone who entices someone under the age of sixteen to enter or leave a building or vehicle with the intent to commit one of several enumerated crimes is guilty of Child Enticement. A violation of this law and a conviction for that violation subjects the defendant to five years in state prison. The word entice can mean lure, solicit, invite, persuade, coax or induce. There is an interesting aspect to this law. There is no requirement that the person enticed be a real person. Thus, there is no defense of factual impossibility. The clear intent of this law is to catch and prosecute people who victimize children and to deter this type of behavior.

Attempted Extortion in Massachusetts is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 25. That law makes it a crime to threaten to accuse someone of a crime or to use power or authority to extort money or a monetary advantage from someone. This crime is also a felony and is punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison.

The two crimes discussed above might just be the least of Hutchinson’s worries. The Rape of a Child and the Possession of Child Pornography cases are perhaps the most serious allegations in this case. While the Rape allegation is not detailed in the Lowell Sun article I surmise from the context of this indictment that the girl “agreed” to having sex with Hutchinson to avoid the publishing of the nude photos and videos. In a legal sense this constitutes “force”. What just might save Hutchinson from an extremely lengthy sentence would be his age. He is nineteen, not much older than the victim.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report in the Quincy Patriot Ledger Nicholas Chase of Rockland, Massachusetts went into a local Game Stop. Around noon last Friday Chase proceeded to convince the store employees that he intended to purchase a PlayStation3. He then asked the employee to get him something from another part of the store. When the employee complied with the request Chase took off with the video game machine. Oops! He forgot his phone. So what did he do? After a few hours passed Chase asked passers-by to go into the store to get his phone for him. Some of these people actually asked the store employees about the phone. The police were contacted. They eventually located Chase in his car in the parking lot. Oh, by the way, Chase’s phone had his pictures in it. He is being charged in the Hingham District Court with Larceny Over $250 and with several Motor Vehicle Crimes.

Read Article:

Hingham Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney

By any account it appears that Chase will have some problems defending this case. First, the store employees are witnesses and can likely make an identification. Second, Chase’s cell phone, left at the crime scene with his photos in it make his defense more difficult. Third, the identifications that can by made by the people in the parking lot will likely hurt his defense significantly. Lastly, his return to the scene of the crime where he was apprehended is tough to overcome. So what happens in a case like this? If Chase has no criminal record then his lawyer might have a shot at getting this case continued without a finding. Of course the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Offenses might have to be packaged with the Larceny Over $250 case. If Chase has a criminal record then a continuance without a finding (CWOF) will be more difficult to obtain. There are likely many options available to Chase for disposition of this case.

If you ever want to read about stupid crimes go to the website www.clumsycrooks.com. What Chase is accused of doing pales in comparison to the things that people get caught doing every day. Just take a look at the first two articles posted on that website today: “Two men called police looking for help after two men stole their drugs and money late Saturday night, police said.” and “Police in Michigan said a 9-year-old girl who was pulled over while driving for her drunken dad told officers she had been ‘driving good.'”. This website puts out stupid criminal stories every day. The stories are true. At times they are mind boggling. At times the defendants are Massachusetts residents and/or people being prosecuted in the Massachusetts courts.

Continue Reading

| by

Shortly after midnight two men from Lawrence, Massachusetts entered a Park Street home. There, they assaulted, beat and attempted to rob the occupants. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune report that the victim and his girlfriend were at home watching television when Javier Fernandez and Eduardo Amill broke. The assailants demanded drugs and money. According to the man the accused threatened to Rape his girlfriend if he did not comply with their demands. Both victims were taken into the bedroom. The woman was sexually assaulted. The defendants then heard a knock on the door and tried to leave the home. They were met by the police who had been called for a “disturbance” at the home. The man was bleeding and bound. Both Fernandez and Amill were quickly apprehended. Both men will be charged with Armed Home Invasion. Amill had outstanding warrants for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. He is also going to be charged with Indecent Assault and Battery, Possession of a Firearm and Possession of Ammunition.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Violent Crime Defense Lawyer

home-invasion.jpg

Armed Home Invasion in Massachusetts is one of the most serious felonies. Proving the crime requires the district attorney to prove beyond several elements, all of which appear provable at least from this article. Those elements are that the defendant or defendants entered the home of someone else without consent, that they did so knowingly, that they had reason to know that someone would be home, that they were armed with a dangerous weapon and that they used force or threats on the occupants. From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer it is going to be difficult for the defendants to simply sit back in this case. Rather, they are going to have to offer some sort of defense that either mitigates their actions or shows that what the “victims” are alleging here never happened.

The Massachusetts Home Invasion Cases that I have defended successfully typically involve some sort of drug deal gone bad. The deal itself usually takes place in the home and the accused were often invited in prior to the problems arising. This fact, if proven defeats the Home Invasion charge in that the defendants were in the home consensually. Factors that help with this defense are the criminal records of the victims, particularly for Drug Offenses. There are still the remaining allegations however once the Home Invasion charge is questioned the remaining indictments are not as strong. Jurors are suspect of witnesses who come into court with baggage. In many of these cases I have found the victims reluctant to come forward. Remember that in this case the police were called to the scene by what appears to be someone other than the victims.

The gun charges will likely be the biggest hurdle for these defendants. Amill has even bigger problems given the existence of outstanding warrants, one involving a Violent Crime. It would not surprise me to see him work some sort of a plea bargain to avoid having to go to trial and to wrap up all of his cases.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Lynn Item, back in August of this year Michael DeStasio of Revere, Massachusetts entered a CVS pharmacy in Beverly, Massachusetts. He presented the pharmacist with a prescription for Percocet. The prescription was for an elderly woman. It was also a bad prescription. The police were called. They confronted DeStasio who claimed that he got the prescription from a man in a bar. DeStasio, who has two prior convictions for the same offense is being prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. He is being charged with Uttering a False Prescription, a Second and Subsequent Offense.

Read Article:

Revere Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

Uttering a False Prescription is a felony pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 33. The law prohibits anyone from uttering a false prescription and from possessing controlled substances through forgery or other deceptive means for the purpose of getting the drugs from someone permitted to dispense the substances, i.e. in this case a pharmacy. A conviction for this offense carries up to four years in state prison. A conviction for a second and subsequent offense, as is the case for DeStasio carries as sentence of up to twice that for first time offenders.

The law is pretty straightforward. As a matter of fact, it is so straightforward that there is virtually no significant case law discussing the subject in Massachusetts. There are some defenses to this crime discussed in limited detail in the Lexis annotations to the statute. There might be a defense of duress, or of coercion or perhaps necessity. The defense of necessity requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence one of the following three elements: 1) that the defendant was confronted with an imminent danger, one that was clear and not subject to debate; 2) that the defendant had a reasonable expectation that his conduct would reduce or eliminate the danger and 3) that there was no legal effective alternative. This defense is rarely used. I recall using the defense of necessity successfully on one occasion. That case involved a defendant who was operating a motor vehicle on a driver’s license that had been suspended for OUI. One of his family members suddenly became severely ill requiring immediate medical attention. He called 911 and after waiting for over ten minutes he placed the family member in his car and sped off to the hospital. There was a record of his 911 call and the delay in the EMT response was well documented. The trial proceeded without a jury and the defendant was acquitted.

In the context of this case I have difficulty seeing the viability of the defense mentioned particularly where this is not DeStasio’s first offense. If he has a known substance abuse addiction or problem perhaps his Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will have some success in getting this case resolved without the need of having to go through with a trial. Massachusetts judges and prosecutors are often sensitive to these types of problems and case dispositions tend to focus on rehabilitation and cure rather than lengthy periods of incarceration.

Continue Reading

| by

Last year a Marblehead, Massachusetts man was arrested following a bizarre incident involving the improper use of Facebook. Apparently the forty one year old man and the woman knew one another. She claims that they were just friends. On one occasion while alone with the man the woman fell asleep. She eventually told him that she did not want to spend time with him anymore. He then opened a Facebook page using her name and personal information. He also posted pictures he had taken of her during their relationship. A friend told the woman about the Facebook page and the pictures. The police were called. Their investigation led them to the man. The investigation also suggested to them that the woman had been digitally raped. Charges of Rape, Photographing a Person in the Nude Without Consent, Indecent Assault and Battery and Identity Fraud have been filed. The case was indicted and is now pending in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. The article goes on to say that the defendant has a dating profile on “Plenty of Fish”. His profile boasts having sex in public and threesomes.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Rape Case Defense Attorney

As would be the case with most Massachusetts Criminal Attorneys this case intrigues me. Not because of the actual charges but due to the timing of the accusations. It is clear that nothing came about in a criminal context during the pendency of the “relationship”. Rather, once the Facebook page was posted the woman clearly became angered and felt victimized. Rightly so given that her pictures were posted on Facebook without her consent. Even according to the Salem News, the defendant’s lawyer concedes this point. And yes, the charge of Identity Fraud seems viable and perhaps indefensible. The other charges are not as easily provable. The defendant will probably defend this case on the theory that all acts were consensual, including the photographing of the woman naked. It will be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these acts were not consensual. First off, when were these pictures taken? The woman is going to say that it all occurred when she fell asleep. What links that date to these photographs? How is the prosecution going to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt an absence of consent. To the average juror it will appear that the relationship was somewhat significant. After all, how many people fall asleep in the presence of others with whom they feel anything less than comfortable? Here is something else to think about. Did the woman meet the defendant through the dating site? If she did she must have know of his sexual proclivities and found them intriguing at a minimum. How long had they been together and what was the nature of their relationship?

The Identity Fraud statute in Massachusetts is G.L. c. 266 Section 37E. The crime is a misdemeanor meaning in Massachusetts that no state prison sentence is authorized. This is minor compared to the remaining charges the defendant is facing. The Rape charge is a life felony and the Indecent Assault and Battery charge is punishable by up to five years in state prison.

Continue Reading

| by

carjacking2.jpgThe Brockton Enterprise reports that Brandon Cain and Alberto Velasquez both from Brockton, Massachusetts have been indicted for Carjacking and Armed Robbery While Masked. The charges follow an incident alleged to have occurred this past August. The victims reported that they were meeting with a friend whom they owed five hundred dollars. On August 23, 2011 at approximately 1:00 p.m. the two arrived at the meeting place. Two men then approached their car brandishing firearms. One of the men fired. The victims were ordered out of their car. The defendants fled making off with about one thousand two hundred dollars. One of the victims reported that Velasquez wore a mask over the lower half of his face. The police found the car abandoned and then found the defendants in the woods. In the vicinity of the defendants the police found a .22 caliber rifle and a black BB gun. Charges of ammunition possession and firearm possession were filed against Velasquez in addition to the Armed Robbery and Carjacking indictments. The case will be prosecuted in the Plymouth Superior Court.

Read Article:

Brockton Carjacking and Armed Robbery Lawyers

When evaluating potential defenses to a case Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers often look at the facts and ask a simple question. What is wrong with the picture? In this case it is a little strange that the victims would be sitting in a car to pay a debt rather than simply going up to the door of the creditor and making their payment. Keep in mind it is reported that the creditor is a friend. Why then wait in the car? Next, this occurred in the daytime in a densely populated middle class residential neighborhood. There is no mention of witnesses seeing a masked man walking up to a parked car. There is no mention of any witnesses hearing a gunshot. There is no mention of anyone seeing someone carrying a .22 rifle as the report states. Don’t you think that someone would have seen this? Finally, why would the defendants be “hiding” in a wooded area near the location of the abandoned car? This makes absolutely no sense. Oftentimes in cases like this it turns out that the “victim” knows the defendant and the actual facts are nowhere near as egregious as initially reported. Sometimes these types of accusations arise from disputes over ownership of the vehicle, arguments over debts or drug deals gone bad. I would expect much more than was initially reported is behind these accusations.

Carjacking in Massachusetts is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 21A. The law states anyone who steals a car by putting someone in fear is guilty of carjacking. The attempt does not have to be successful to satisfy the elements of the crime. Both the Massachusetts Superior Courts and the Massachusetts District Courts have jurisdiction over this crime. Nevertheless, Carjacking in Massachusetts is a felony. There is an additional aspect of this law that is pertinent to this case. If the accused uses a rifle a conviction mandates a five year state prison sentence. The district courts do not have jurisdiction over this portion of the statute. The armed robbery statute has similar language. There is a five year mandatory minimum for the masked portion of the offense as well as the use of the firearm in connection with the commission of the crime.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lowell Sun, seventeen year old Sergio Figueroa, a student at Lowell High School was escorted out of school and charged with a number of criminal offenses in Lowell District Court including threats, disturbing a school assembly and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. According to the Sun, after a teacher told him to leave the classroom the student made a motion similar to shooting and made threats to the teacher. Apparently, after the police caught up with Figueroa, he did not have a binder with him that he had with him when he left school. The authorities eventually searched his locker and found a bag containing four smaller baggies of what they believe is marijuana and one-hundred thirty five dollars in cash.

Although all of the facts of the case are not known at this time, it would be important for an experienced defense attorney to examine all of the facts that led to the decision by law enforcement to search the student’s locker. In Massachusetts an individual has a right to an expectation of privacy on his or her person and in his or her home. Depending on the circumstances, this “expectation” can extend to cover motor vehicles. Whether a student has an “expectation of privacy”in his or her locker could depend on the rules promulgated by the school. An argument can be made that it is a privilege to go to school and the students must abide by the rules. However, the constitutionality of any “rules” and whether the proper procedure was followed can often be the subject of a viable motion to suppress evidence.

Filing a motion to suppress evidence is one of the many tools that an aggressive defense lawyer has in his or her arsenal. In cases in which a person is charged with illegal possession of an item i.e., a firearm or a controlled substance, examining the circumstances surrounding any stop, search and seizure is a good place to start in mounting a successful defense. In the event that evidence is suppressed, and the Commonwealth cannot prove its case, the case is often dismissed by a judge or nolle prossed by the prosecution.

In Massachusetts, if a defendant loses a motion to suppress, in most circumstances that decision cannot be appealed unless, and until, the case goes to trial and a defendant loses and appeals his case. Thus, even if a defendant loses a motion to suppress, that he or she should have won, if a defendant then pleads guilty, the defendant cannot then appeal the improper denial of the motion to suppress. However, if the Commonwealth feels that a motion was improperly allowed, the prosecution can appeal. The rationale for this is that the Commonwealth will not be able to prosecute without the evidence so in the interest of fairness, they are allowed to appeal the allowance of motions to suppress. However, if a defendant is found not guilty, the Commonwealth has not right of appeal.

Continue Reading