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

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reports that last Friday members of a local drug task force arrested twenty to year old Katelyn Boutiette after what has been called a “months-long” investigation. Authorities believed that Boutiette might have been selling drugs in the greater Bridgewater area for the past year. The investigation resulted in the police obtaining and executing a Search Warrant at Boutiette’s home. During the search police located Drug Distribution Paraphernalia as well as eight grams of class “A”, enough to charge her with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin. Boutiette’s car was seized as evidence as well. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney there are many additional facts I would like to know about this case. What did the year or “months-long” investigation show? Was Boutiette seen distributing drugs? What are her drug habits? Is she a heroin user? Does she live alone or with someone else? Where were the drugs found during the search? Was anybody else present during the search, i.e. a friend or roommate? Was Boutiette present during the search? What information did the police have to get the Search Warrant in the first place? Was the warrant properly issued or is there a reasonable constitutional challenge to the search based on an absence of probable cause to search? The answers to these questions will likely guide the defense of this case.

So what happens to Boutiette? Suppression of the evidence seized during the search might occur if the search is declared unlawful. Or, if Boutiette does not have a criminal record then do not be surprised if the case gets continued without a finding. If Boutiette is able to show that she has a heroin habit then an acquittal of the charges is possible and a conviction for simple Possession of Heroin might be all that she faces. Certainly 8 grams of heroin can be consistent with personal use. The district attorney’s office will disagree with this. They will call a witness (expert), usually an experienced drug detective to say that the quantity, possibly coupled with other factors is consistent with an intent to distribute. There is a flaw in that characterization however. Unless the detective knows the accused and his or her habits any testimony on this issue can be viewed as speculative. Furthermore, the defense attorney can ask the detective how many times he has testified that a particular quantity (eight grams) is consistent with something other than an intent to distribute. I will bet that the answer is never. That, in and of itself speaks to the integrity of that testimony. Make no mistake about it. Heroin habits can easily exceed the eight gram per day threshold. The possession of eight grams can be the product of a lesser habit as well. Using some of the product over a short period of time is not unusual and a reasonable explanation for the possession of this amount of the drug.

Continue Reading

| by

According to an article in the Melrose Patch, eleven people were arrested and charged with various Massachusetts Drug Crimes including Trafficking Cocaine Over 200 Grams. Ten of the individuals are from Massachusetts. The investigation began in March. Official were looking into activities of a Boston North End man who was alleged to have run the drug network. He allegedly dealt out of an accomplice’s apartment in Boston and Revere. In June Search Warrants were obtained resulting in the seizure of over five hundred grams of cocaine and seventy five thousand dollars cash. The article and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office press release identify the following defendants: Gerald Esposito of Boston, Steven Tracia of Revere, Kettia Piris of Revere, Anthony Giannetti of Revere, Adam Saggese of Melrose, Marino Velasquez of Revere, Anthony Vigorito of Boston, Ferdinando Daniele of Revere, Anthony Ascenzo of Boston, Salvatore Lazzari of Winthrop and Paul Mattarese of Maine. Charges range and vary from defendant to defendant and include Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws, Trafficking Over 100 Grams of Cocaine, Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of Cocaine, Trafficking Over 200 Grams of Cocaine, Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone and more. The cases are being prosecuted in the Suffolk Superior Court.

Read Article:

Suffolk County Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

In cases like this rarely do all eleven defendants go to trial. Many of the defendants are charged with crimes that do not contemplate mandatory minimum sentences. Depending on their records they may be able to resolve the case with probation or perhaps a continuance without a finding. All of this depends of course on the extent of their involvement in the operation. The defendants facing Drug Trafficking Charges are in a more difficult predicament. They will either have to get the items seized suppressed, plea bargain their cases down to something less than the crime with which they are charged or go to trial. In cases like this there are almost always varying levels of culpability from defendant to defendant. Each defendant’s defense will be unique and there is always the risk of finger pointing. Sometimes one of the defendants, usually one who possesses substantial information about the operation and a lesser amount of culpability with cooperate with the prosecution against the others. I expect you will see lots of evidentiary motions filed in this case. I also expect that one by one these cases will be resolved leaving one or two left to go to trial. These cases also become a managerial nightmare for judges and court staffs. It is nearly impossible to get eleven criminal defense lawyers together for hearings, motions, status conferences and related court appearances.

Sometimes in larger cases you see a lawyer representing more than one defendant. Rarely is this a good idea. At a minimum I believe it is necessary to consult with your own lawyer. Oftentimes conflicts of interest arise as cases progress making the representation of multiple parties controversial. These conflicts may not be apparent at the time of arraignment or when the initial discovery materials are produced. However, once they become evident you can be at risk if you and someone with a competing defense had the same criminal attorney.

Continue Reading

| by

Yesterday a man from Framingham, Massachusetts was arraigned on charges that he was in Possession of Child Pornography and for Distribution of Child Pornography. The charges stem from an investigation that started in July and that was conducted by the Massachusetts State police. The article in the Metrowest Daily News states that the investigating officer was searching the internet for these illicit images and used a program to determine the origin of download for the materials. The results suggested to the officer that the man’s computer was the source of the photos. At the arraignment hearing prosecutors offered that when confronted with the allegations the defendant denied having any computers. He further denied using peer-to-peer file sharing programs. A Search Warrant was applied for and granted. Officers raided the defendant’s home and found a laptop with a large quantity of Child Porn on it. He was released on a modest bail. Right now charges are pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

I very often I have clients retaining me on Distribution of Child Pornography Cases in Massachusetts. Those who did in fact download the illicit material, either deliberately or inadvertently, are baffled when they are charged with distribution. They make clear that they never distributed the material to anyone and that a forensic examination of their computer will prove this. Well, what they do not know is that by accessing the material through file sharing programs or peer-to-peer networking they are in fact in violation of the Massachusetts and Federal Child Pornography Distribution laws. Now how can that be? File sharing as we know it today started with Napster, about ten or twelve years ago. Researchers believe that there may be as many as eighty million people in the United States who use file sharing programs in some way or another.

Peer-to-peer file sharing or P2P permits people to download files, games, music videos and more from other computers that are connected or “peers”. What happens however is that now others can access that material from your computer. For legal purpose, at least right now, that constitutes distribution in Massachusetts and in Federal Court.

So what are some defenses to cases like this one? Certainly the defendant’s intent can be argued to a jury. That a person intended to download only or simply “possess” the material is a decision that the jury can make. After all, distribution must be made knowingly. If the district attorney cannot prove that the person using a peer-to-peer program knew that his actions constituted distribution then an acquittal might be possible. Proving knowledge rests on many factors that may or may not be present in this case. What experience did he have with computers? This can be determined not only from the testimony of witnesses who are aware of his proficiency but also from an examination of his hard drive. What is actually on the hard drive? Was the defendant selling this material online? Was he engaged in chats that alerted people to the location of this material? Remember that the article states only that the state trooper conducting the investigation learned that Conley was downloading the materials. The forensic report for the hard drive in this case will answer many of these questions and to some extent guide the defense efforts.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that a Marblehead man, Richard Burke, faces charges of a second offense operating under the influence of alcohol, driving an uninsured motor vehicle, driving after his license was suspended and related motor vehicle charges in the Salem District Court. The charges stem from a collision that his car had with a minivan on Sunday during the early afternoon. Apparently, the two car accident left the defendant and two others in the hospital. Unfortunately for Burke, these new charges have been lodged while he was released on bail for another drunk driving case in the Woburn District Court. For that reason the judge ordered that he be held for up to sixty days without the possibility of posting bail and/or until the case is resolved. Although the defense attorney argued that there were other conditions including alcohol monitoring and a curfew that cold be imposed short of incarceration, the Salem District Court Judge did not go for it. It was represented that the defendant has a previous “continuance without a finding” on a previous operating under the influence from 2005.

According to reports, the car driven by the defendant traveled into the path of the minivan and hit it head on. Police officers and an EMT indicated that they smelled an odor of alcohol from the defendant. The defendant did not submit to a blood alcohol test at the hospital.

According to the Tribune, the defendant’s first case was “continued without a finding.” A “continuance without a finding” means that a defendant admitted to sufficient facts but the judge did not find him or her guilty. In many of these situations, the judge continues the case for one year and orders that a defendant enter and complete and “ASAP” alcohol program, pay court fees and not get rearrested. In the event these conditions are satisfied the case is dismissed. The benefit of this type of disposition is that a defendant can state that he or she has not been convicted of a crime. In situations in which a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury, that is considered a criminal conviction. However, it is important to understand that even a continuance without a finding on the charge of operating under the influence of alcohol counts as a first offense, even though it is not considered a conviction. Therefore, if a defendant is arrested for operating under the influence or drunk driving after receiving a continuance without a finding, it will be considered a second offense.

The Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable to secure a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The prosecutor must prove that a defendant was driving a motor vehicle on public way and was under the influence of alcohol. In order to prove “operation” it is not necessary for the government to prove that a person was driving a car down the street in the traditional sense. Simply having a key in the ignition is sufficient in many cases. A public was is a way in which the public has a right to access. For example, a mall parking lot or a restaurant parking lot is usually considered a “public way” even though they may technically be “private property.” They are considered “public” because the public has the RIGHT to access the area. However, a driveway or private property like a private access road is not considered a public way. The most litigated area is the “under the influence” element of the crime. The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant was “drunk.” The prosecutor must however prove that the defendant’s ability to safely drive a motor vehicle was impaired from alcohol.

Continue Reading

| by

Cynthia Vaughn has been charged with Larceny Over $250, Conflict of Interest and Filing a False Claim in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts. The charges stem from allegations that Vaughn, who was working for the Andover, Massachusetts water treatment plant was falsely submitting records for hours worked while running a business on the side. Now Vaughn is seeking to suppress statements she made to police officers who investigated the case. According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune on May 5, 2010 five Andover police officers went into her office. They brought her into the water treatment plant’s conference room to be questioned. She was advised that an investigation was being conducted on behalf of the town manager and that there were potentially criminal allegations. Vaughn invoked her right to counsel until she was assured that she was not the target of any criminal investigation. The investigation they said only had to do with the treatment plant superintendent. Vaughn’s Suppression Motion challenges the voluntariness of her statements. She claims among other things exploitation of an anxiety condition, trickery and deceit.

Read Article:

Essex County Criminal Defense Lawyers

This article states that Vaughn is challenging the voluntariness of the waiver of her constitutional rights. She claims that the waiver of Miranda was not made knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily. The challenge here focuses on Vaughn’s emotional stability, her lack of experience with the legal system, her mental condition at the time of the interview, improper inducements prompting her to waive her constitutional right to silence and aspects of the police practice (i.e. five officers coming into her work place) and their false assurances. Both Massachusetts and Federal case law make clear that specific challenges such as this could, in certain instances warrant suppression. More importantly, Vaughn has protected herself by hiring an excellent criminal defense attorney. There is no better criminal defense lawyer in Massachusetts than Larry McGuire. His commitment to defending the accused is unparalleled and his results are excellent.

I will forever continue to reiterate that nothing good comes from talking to the police. Police officers, particularly detectives have specific reasons for talking to someone. Their questions are thought out in advance. Their questions are designed to elicit specific responses. They do not question people simply for informational purposes. They usually have an abundance of information that leads them to the person they seek to interrogate. They do not share that information with the person they are interviewing. Rather, they use it to get additional information. Most people who get convicted do so because they spoke with law enforcement personnel. You do not have to do this. You never have to speak with police officers. As a matter of fact, no one in this state should ever speak with the police before consulting with a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer. Knowing your rights and properly exercising them can save you from a criminal prosecution. The percentage of people who get charged with a crime simply because they spoke with the police is staggering. Do not do it without first consulting a lawyer.

If you are in trouble you need a lawyer. When hiring a lawyer make sure you hire someone who has a significant amount of experience. You should always contact a criminal lawyer when your constitutional rights are at stake. Waiving a constitutional right prior to obtaining legal advice is never a good idea.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Tuesday shortly after the lunch recess a dangerousness hearing was being conducted at the Lawrence District Court. The courtroom doors opened abruptly and a police officer sitting in the courtroom observed Stephanie Urena trying to hold Keila Rodriguez to prevent her from testifying. Urena, a Chelsea, Massachusetts resident was grabbing the witness and pulling her back. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that Rodriguez was attempting to testify on behalf of her boyfriend. Urena and Rodriguez were separated by police officers. Officers then attempted to interview Urena and were interrupted by a lawyer advising Urena not to talk to the police. The report states that the lawyer represents Rodriguez’s ex-boyfriend, the defendant in the dangerousness hearing. Urena denied that the man was her lawyer and denied knowing the lawyer. Urena has been charged with Intimidation of a Witness and Assault and Battery.

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

This article brings up an interesting issue that Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers frequently face, that being conflicts of interest. So what exactly is a conflict of interest in the legal sense? Well, for one thing, representing more than on defendant in a criminal matter can in some instances create this problem. Both Massachusetts and United States Supreme Court cases have held that representing codefendants at the same trial can at times result in a detriment to one of the parties that constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment and warrants reversal of a conviction. These cases go on to say that both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions mandate that an attorney give his undivided loyalty to his client. If an actual conflict of interest is shown there might be no need to show a loss of a substantial defense and a conviction might be reversed.

Conflicts of interest might implicate problems for the lawyer as well as the client. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility make clear that an attorney’s loyalty to his client is essential to the lawyer’s relationship to a client. These rules further state that ordinarily a lawyer in a criminal case should decline to act for more than one codefendant. Common representation is permissible where interests are similar and the risks of adverse impact to one client are minimal. Representing codefendants is a somewhat of a slippery undertaking. Conflicting defenses often arise as defense preparation and investigative efforts develop. The better practice is not to represent codefendants and to suggest to one of the accused that he or she retain their own lawyer.

So where does that leave this case? From a purely legal standpoint it is difficult to find the existence of an actual conflict between the defendant and Urena. They are not actually codefendants. Rather, Urena is a witness on the defendant’s dangerousness matter and now she is a defendant on another criminal matter linked to the dangerousness matter. However, the fact that she denied that this lawyer represented her (if this is in fact what she said) might be problematic and could be viewed as an intention to obstruct the police officers’ investigation. Hopefully this person’s zealousness will not be viewed this as obstructive.

Continue Reading

| by

A twenty-eight year old Salem Massachusetts man, Michael Marino, will spend the next six years behind bars after pleading guilty to stabbing his mother’s former boyfriend seven times. According to The Salem News, Paul Goodwin told the Superior Court Judge that this situation was the most “horrifying thing in [his] life.” Goodwin wanted Marino to be sentenced to the maximum of thirty-five years, twenty years for the count of assault with intent to murder and fifteen years for count of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury. The prosecutor described the incident as a “brutal attack” and requested that the defendant be sentenced to a seven to ten year sentence. Superior Court Judge David Lowy imposed a six year sentence followed by a probation term when Marino is released from prison. Marino was ordered to participate in drug and alcohol counseling and attend an anger management class during his probationary period.

According to reports, the victim explained to the Judge that the defendant sliced his throat and then opened up his belly “like a fish.” Apparently, Goodwin, [who had previously received a restraining order against his former girlfriend and mother of the defendant, Brault] went to Brault’s mother’s house after she had been kicked out. As Goodwin and Brault were speaking, Brault received a phone call from her son, Marino who appeared at the scene. An altercation ensued that left Goodwin with lacerations to his liver, lung and diaphragm and fighting for his life. Defense counsel explained that his client did not land the first blow and was not sure what to expect when he arrived at the scene. Counsel further explained that Marino was under the influence of Klonepin and alcohol. The struggle landed Marino in jail and Goodwin in the hospital.

In many cases where a defendant is charged with a violent crime there are a number of defenses to pursue. Obviously, the type of defense that is mounted depends on the facts of the case. For example, if a defendant was not identified at the scene and the accuser and the defendant are unknown to one another, a defense of misidentification should be evaluated. That type of defense would not make sense in a case such as this because the parties knew each other.

Although all of the facts of this case are not known, it appears that if the case went to trial a viable defense would be that Marino acted in self-defense. In cases in which a defendant claims self-defense the Commonwealth must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon occurred AND must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did NOT act in self-defense. However, in cases of self-defense and individual has the obligation to retreat if possible and can only use as much force as is necessary to defend oneself. Thus, the fact that Marino introduced a knife into the struggle could be problematic to the claim of self-defense. In these types of cases the size of the individuals involved in the altercation can be important as a slighter person may need to use more force to protect himself from a bigger, stronger person.

Continue Reading

| by

A disagreement over a debt landed one neighbor in jail and the other crying and calling the police. According to The Danvers Herald, forty-four year old Jayniene McCarthy of Danvers barged into a neighbor’s apartment, kneeing a two-year old toddler before putting a knife to the boy’s mother’s throat and taking a wallet from the kitchen table. According to reports the front door of the victim’s apartment was kicked in and McCarthy faces charges including armed robbery, assault and battery on a child causing injury, breaking and entering, assault and battery to collect a loan and malicious destruction of property. The assailant allegedly took a knife from the dish rack and put it to the victim’s neck demanding repayment of a $100.00 loan. When the police arrived she was crying and the child had a bruise on his head. Both were evaluated at the hospital. According to the paper, the suspect allowed the police to search her apartment and the wallet was found in the suspect’s apartment.

Apparently, the defendant was held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing set for this Wednesday. The District Attorney’s Office files a request for a “dangerousnsess hearing” in the event that they believe that an individual is a danger to herself, himself, a particular individual or the community and there are no other reasonable means to ensure the safety of the public without having the defendant held in jail without bail. The prosecutor must also be able to present probable cause that the defendant committed the offense. In the event a judge finds that an individual fits this criteria he or she may be held without the opportunity to post bail.
Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, if the defendant does not have a record that is a positive factor that should be emphasized by a qualified defense attorney. In cases in which is is alleged that a defendant engaged in violent behavior which may concern a Judge, arguing that the defendant could routinely report to probation and abstain from alcohol and or drugs (if they were involved in the offense) may help an individual be able to be eligible for bail. If things are not looking good, it is sometimes a good idea to argue that the individual be placed on a “bracelet” and only allowed to go to work and other enumerated activities.

In this case, it appears that the defendant consented to the police entering her apartment and searching it. In Massachusetts the police must get a search warrant in order to search a person’s home. A few exceptions to that rule are if there are “exigent circumstances” or if a person in control of the premises “consents” to the search. “Consent” must be given freely and without coercion. An experienced defense lawyer will often file a motion to suppress evidence based on illegal entry, search of an apartment and seizure of evidence from a home in situations in which law enforcement did not get a warrant prior to entry and there was not exigency or consent. Whether an individual “consented” to a search is often the subject of litigation during a motion to suppress evidence.

Continue Reading

| by

Back in 1993 Herbert Racine, now forty three years old, was convicted of one count of Rape. He was ultimately classified as a Level 2 Sex Offender by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board. It is now alleged that Racine committed an Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person Over the Age of Fourteen and that he has committed the crime of Enticing a Minor. The details of the incident as reported in the Lowell Sun are scant. The victim is between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and the gender of the victim was not identified. Racine is also being charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender and an unrelated Assault and Battery case. The cases are pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Law Firm

Racine.jpg

The laws in Massachusetts for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender are very strict. In essence, anyone who after 1981 was convicted of a designated sex offense must register. The word conviction included adjudications of delinquent and adjudications of being a sexually dangerous person. The offenses triggering the requirement of registration include rape, assault with the intent to rape, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping a child, enticing a minor into prostitution or for sexual intercourse, drugging persons for sexual intercourse, inducing a minor into prostitution, sharing or living off of the earnings of a minor prostitute, possession and distribution of child pornography, engaging in unnatural acts and more. Level two and level three sex offenders are obligated to register at the police department in the city or town where they live.

The penalties for violating this law are severe. For first time offenders, there is a minimum six month house of correction sentence and up to five years in state prison. For second and subsequent violators of this law there is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence. Hiring an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer is always advisable for anyone who is charged with a crime, particularly where there is a minimum mandatory sentence associated with the crimes charged.

So what exactly does this mean for Racine? Well, the article does not provide much detail however I would expect that the minor victims in this case have been and will continue to be cooperative with the district attorney. If not then the case probably would not have gotten this far to begin with. Also, since this case is being prosecuted in Middlesex County I expect an indictment to issue and the prosecution to be handled in the Superior Court in either Woburn or Lowell. While at times Massachusetts prosecutors might exercise restraint in terms of the aggressiveness with which they pursue the accused, they are less likely to do so when the defendant is a repeat offender and the victim is a minor. Also, the fact that Racine failed to register as a sex offender and has an outstanding complaint for a Massachusetts Violent Crime leads me to believe that this case will not be prosecuted in Ayer for very long.

Continue Reading

| by

drugscocaine.jpgLawrence, Massachusetts police along with North Shore Gang Task Force officers had been conducting an investigation into a local Cocaine Distribution Operation. A confidential informant conducted controlled Cocaine Buys from Jose Ramos, a forty six year old Lawrence man. Also present and allegedly involved in at least two of the deals was Jose Robles, also from Lawrence. Three total sales were reported in all, two taking place last month and one this past Sunday. During the last deal Robles drove Ramos to a designated location to consummate the deal. Realizing that the police were watching Ramos threw the money into an alley. Both men were arrested. Ramos then waived his Miranda Rights and spoke to the police. He admitted to being a middle man in a local drug trade. He would receive orders and contact Robles who would bring him the drugs. Both men have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine, Distribution of Cocaine and a School Zone Violation. The case is now pending in the Lawrence District Court but may be presented to a grand jury and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court .

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Laywer

Miranda Rights have been in force since 1966 following the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966). That case conferred on a criminal suspect the right to be warned of certain constitutional rights prior to a custodial interrogation. Statements taken in violation of the Miranda Rights are inadmissible at trial as is the evidence located as a result of the violation. Miranda warnings require the following advisement: that prior to an interrogation the person has the right to remain silent, that anything he says will be use against him in court, that he has the right to consult with and attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning and that if he is indigent an attorney will be provided to him at no cost.

These rights were conveyed to Ramos. But what did he do? He waived those rights and decided to talk to the cops. And how did that work out for him? Not well. Here is why. Ramos is now charged with the same crimes as is Robles. What is worse for him however is that he admitted to having committed the crimes of Trafficking Cocaine, a School Zone Violation and Distribution of Cocaine. He would not necessarily have been found guilty of these crimes absent his admission. What else happened to Ramos? He got his name in the paper, not only for having committed these crimes, not only for having admitted to having committed these crimes but also for implicating his buddy Robles in these crimes. Guess what folks? This is why we have constitutional rights. To avoid putting yourself in a worse position than you were already in and to ensure an ability to defend yourself against accusations that might not be accurate. Ramos did not help himself by cooperating without the police. As I have stated in several previous blog posts, no one ever talks himself out of criminal charges. Talking to the cops only gets you in more trouble. Anyone in this situation should avail himself of his constitutional rights and Hire a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer. Certainly Ramos should have.

Continue Reading