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

| by

Ken Morgan of Middleboro, Massachusetts was arrested and charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D substance. He was charged with Cultivation of Marijuana as well. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise police executed a search warrant at Morgan’s Cherry Street residence. Inside they found seventy five small plants growing. Outside on the property police located several six foot tall plants. The police also located irrigation, lighting and fertilization systems used to grow the plants. Charges are pending in the Wareham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x227168708/Pot-farm-busted-in-Middleboro

Massachusetts Marijuana Cultivation Defense Lawyer

marijuana cultivation.jpg

Cultivation of marijuana is not the most popular of the drug crimes in Massachusetts in terms of prosecutions. The reasons are simple. The climate in this part of the country is not as conducive to growing the drug. Nor for that matter is there adequacy privacy to do so without risking detection. Growing marijuana, particularly for distribution purposes requires among other things light, air and a moderate temperature. Rich soil and a nearby water source are necessary was well. This combination of factors is not easy to come by in eastern Massachusetts.

Growing marijuana indoors presents problems for the growers that often leads to arrest and prosecution. Thermal Infrared Imaging devices can detect difference in temperature that might alert law enforcement officials to illicit cultivation activities particularly where they are targeting a particular suspect. However, about ten years ago in the case of Kyllo v. United States, the United State Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device in certain situations constituted a search. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution such a search requires law enforcement to obtain a Search Warrant. Another factor that might trigger an investigation into marijuana cultivation activities are unusually high utility bills. Unusually large purchases of fertilizer might prompt an investigation into Marijuana Cultivation activities. Suspicious neighbors alerted to excessive traffic at a home also factors into police efforts.

So what is Morgan looking at? A lot depends on just how defensible this case is. If there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant suppression might be viable. As I have mentioned in the past, suppression often if not usually leads to a dismissal of the charges. If Morgan does not have a criminal record certainly probation and perhaps a reduction of the charges to a misdemeanor is possible. A continuance without a finding would not be outside of the realm of possibility either. Keep in mind that rarely do first time offenders get criminal records for first time marijuana charges, especially where the quantity is less than the trafficking threshold.

Continue Reading

| by

The Metrowest Daily News reports that Kelly Temple and Shay Lund, two women who lived in a Hudson, Massachusetts apartment have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 28 Grams, Possession of Cocaine, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Conspiracy. As part of an ongoing investigation the police obtained a Search Warrant permitting them to enter and search the women’s Lake Street apartment. During the search officers found scales, cutting agents, packaging materials, crib sheets, cash and over twenty eight grams of cocaine. It is alleged that these materials were inside of a closet in the bedroom the two shared. Temple was present at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Lund was found in a nearby bar. She was carrying bags of cocaine consistent with an intention to sell. She has been charged with a School Zone Violation as well. The cases are pending in the Marlboro District Court. It is likely that these cases will be indicted and prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn. There is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence associated with the trafficking charges.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x227168440/Police-charge-two-women-with-cocaine-trafficking-in-Hudson

As is typically the case in Search Warrant matters, Temple and Lund’s defenses will focus on the integrity of the police investigation. Police need probable cause to obtain and execute a search warrant. Inasmuch as the details in this article are scant it is safe to assume that much of their investigation centered on assistance from an informant. For the warrant to survive constitutional scrutiny the informant must have a basis of knowledge to conclude that the controlled substances would be where he claimed they would be. He must also be deemed reliable. This is often referred to as the Aguilar-Spinelli test. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers frequently mount challenges to these searches by showing a judge that the informant lacked the requisite basis of knowledge or the he or she was not reliable. Successful challenges usually result in suppression of the drugs seized and ultimately a dismissal of the criminal charges.

One of the things that interests me here is the layout of the Lake Street apartment. The article suggests that Lund and Temple shared a room. However it also states that Lund lived in Rhode Island and that the Temple was the tenant in the apartment. Was this a one bedroom apartment? If so, what evidence suggests that the two shared the room. If the challenge to the issuance of the search warrant fails it looks at first blush like these two have competing, conflicting defenses that might result in an acquittal of the trafficking charge as to one or the other.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that forty year old Shawn Kelley has been charged with assault with intent to murder and assault and battery relating to an incident that occurred on Tuesday, September 6th during the evening. It has been alleged that a woman reported the incident the following morning claiming that Kelley choked and threatened her. Following his arraignment in Lowell District Court, Judge Thomas Brennan ordered that Kelley be held on $10,000 cash bail. In the event that the bail is posted, Brennan ordered that Kelley have a mental health and a substance abuse evaluation, refrain from abusing the victim and have no access to weapons. A probable cause hearing is set for October 6th.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 section 13A provides that the punishment for a defendant convicted for assault or assault and battery is up to two and one half years in prison or by a fine of not more than one-thousand dollars. The charges of assault and assault and battery are considered felonies because the potential penalty in this case is a “house of correction” or “jail” sentence. When a potential sentence that a defendant can receive includes a state prison commitment, the charge is considered a felony.
In order to be convicted of assault and battery the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an intentional and unjustified touching, however slight, on another OR that a defendant intentionally engaged in wanton or grossly negligent conduct that cause injury to another person. Thus, the charge of assault and battery is often described as having two “branches,” the “intentional” branch and the “wanton” or “negligent” branch. The government can prove their case by establishing either theory. The crime of simple assault can also be committed in one of two ways. One can be convicted of assault by “attempting a battery” on another or by putting another person in fear of an immediately threatened battery. Relative to the “attempted battery” type of offense, it is not necessary for the “victim” be put in fear.

Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, it appears that the reason for the delayed reporting should be investigated for the defense. Furthermore, while the case is still “new” it may be appropriate for the defense team to employ an investigator to determine whether there are any witnesses to the alleged incident other than the defendant and the complaining witness.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, it will be important to establish if there is a viable claim of self-defense, defense of another, accident, misidentification or that the incident simply did not happen. Relative to a claim of self-defense or defense of another, the Commonwealth has the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and then to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense or in defense of another.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lynn Item reports that William Townsend of Lynn, Massachusetts has been charged with Assault With the Intent to Commit Murder, Rape and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. The charges follow a weekend where the complainant, Townsend’s former girlfriend fell off the wagon and engaged in a lengthy partying binge.

The police responded to a call for Domestic Violence at an undisclosed address. When they arrived they found the complainant barefoot in the rain. She purportedly displayed bruises described as both old and new. She told the police that Townsend tried to throw her out of a window on the second floor. She was eventually taken to a local hospital. There she told attending personnel that Townsend had repeatedly raped her. Meanwhile, back at the scene police went up to the second floor, kicked the door in and arrested Townsend.

The complainant told police that she had been sober for fourteen months and that she fell off the wagon this past Friday. She met up with friends and family and began drinking heavily. She then went to visit Townsend who was apparently her first boyfriend. There, she continued drinking with the defendant. On Monday evening the woman reported that Townsend demanded the two have sex. Having AIDS she declined. The two continued to drink for several more hours, passing out. The next day Townsend continued to demand sex. The woman again declined and Townsend passed out yet again. She claims that when she went to wake him up Townsend grabbed her, smashed her head against a wall and threatened to throw her out of the second floor window. He threw her out of the apartment and the police were called. Charges are now pending in the Lynn District Court
Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer

Any Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell you that cases like this often enjoy a multitude of defenses. Think about this from a purely factual standpoint. The complainant’s credibility is suspect from the start. She started drinking on Friday and continued until she passed out on Monday night. Just how much of that weekend could she have remembered with any degree of detail? She claims that Townsend demanded sex and raped her notwithstanding the fact that she has AIDS. How many people are willing to risk contracting a deadly disease? Now think about the independent corroborating evidence in this case. What do the hospital records show? Did the two in fact have sex? Was the bruising both new and old as characterized by the police? How about the complainant’s head. Were there bruises or cuts corroborative of her account of having her head smashed into the wall. Remember that Mr. Townsend’s account of the weekend is probably much different than the woman’s. Defense lawyers rarely share the details of their defense at an arraignment. If bail was set in the amount of three thousand dollars as stated in the article then the judge probably got a good read on the viability of these charges. It would not surprise me to see this case remain in the district court.

Continue Reading

| by

cyber crimes.jpgA sixty three year old Braintree, Massachusetts man was charged in 2009 with thirty one counts of Possession of Child Pornography and Distribution of Child Pornography according to a report in the Quincy Patriot Ledger. The man, Francis Austin’s competency became an issue resulting in a two year delay of the case. It is alleged that Austin’s involvement in these acts was first detected by authorities in California who alerted Massachusetts officials to the activity. A Search Warrant was obtained for Austin’s home. His computer was seized and on it investigators located the illicit materials. The case is being prosecuted in the Norfolk County Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x948304417/Braintree-man-faces-child-pornography-charges

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

There are times when a prospective client will “suggest” to me that he is incompetent to stand trial. They become disappointed very quickly when I explain to them the law on competency to stand trial in Massachusetts and the consequences of employing that approach. The test in Massachusetts for determining the competency of a person to stand trial is simple. The accused must have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and he must have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Challenges to competency to stand trial are governed by statute, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123 Section 15. That statute essentially works like this. At any time a judge can order a defendant to be evaluated for competency to stand trial. The defendant will then be examined by a qualified psychologist. The defendant can also be sent out for a twenty day period of observation. The time can be extended to forty days if necessary. At the end of the observation and evaluation period there will be a hearing on the issue of competency. If the judge finds that the defendant is not competent to stand trial then the case will be continued until he is ready to stand trial. So, as I tell my clients, they will most likely have to face the charges at some point. Until they do so they will be incarcerated, likely in the Bridgewater State Hospital, waiting for a determination that they are competent to stand trial. This is probably what happened to Austin. He was indicted in 2009. A challenge to his competency was made. The case was delayed and now he is competent to face the Child Pornography charges.

In sum, challenging a defendant’s competency to stand trial is not a defense to a crime. It merely delays the prosecution. There will be a strong likelihood that during the delay the defendant will be incarcerated in a treatment facility. Eventually he will be in court defending the charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Paul Teves was an eleventh grade school teacher working at the West Bridgewater High School. He also coached track. Now the thirty five year old stands charged with Distribution of Child Pornography in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, Teves used a screen name and described himself as a mother willing to pimp out her eleven year old daughter. Chats were either monitored or seized wherein Teves communicated with someone from Albuquerque who, once arrested cooperated and led officials to Teves. Teves was interviewed by investigating FBI agents. He admitted exchanging videos and stills of Child Pornography with others. It appears that Teves is not currently in custody.
The statute under which Teves is being prosecuted is likely 18 U.S.C. §2252. That law states that anyone who receives or distributes material that involves this use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and that depicts such conduct is guilty of a felony. A conviction of this offense is punishable by a minimum mandatory five year prison sentence.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

Investigating these cases is often difficult and frustrating for law enforcement. People who engage in this type of conduct often do so from their homes. The mere fact that several people can live in one home and share the same IP address makes identifying the actual perpetrator difficult. Even if a person lives alone law enforcement officials know that unsecured IP addresses can be accessed by neighbors. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers can exploit this fact when filing Motions to Suppress unlawful Searches and Seizures. While identifying the source or origin of the illicit activity may be easy, putting a suspect’s fingerprints on the keyboard is a much more difficult task. More often than not law enforcement agencies solidify their cases when they contact the suspect and get him or her to talk. The accused usually panics talk to the authorities. They think they can minimize the damage by admitting to wrongdoing and being cooperative. They are wrong. I have been practicing criminal law for over twenty four years and never once have I had a client who “talked his way out” of a criminal problem. The police are skilled at asking questions. The questions are designed to elicit certain answers. Once they get those answers their case strengthens. Also, rarely does a client come into my office, look at a police report and tell me “that is exactly what I said to them”. The response is almost always “that is not what I said”. This is why I always advise clients to say nothing and hire a lawyer. Lawyers are paid to protect you and to make sure that you do not jeopardize your legal rights by acting foolishly or on impulse.

Continue Reading

| by

The Hingham, Massachusetts Patch reports that two Dorchester, Massachusetts men have been charged with Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Act and Distribution of Heroin. According to the report, last week Braintree, Massachusetts Police were conducting surveillance of a well known drug area. They observed a Hingham, Massachusetts woman drive up and meet with the men. She approached their car. After a brief interchange they parted ways. The woman was stopped and was found to be in Possession of Heroin. Apparently, information provided to the police by the woman was in their minds sufficient to stop the two defendants. Their car was searched and inside a cigarette package officers found heroin. The defendants, Noel Vasquez and Orlando Negron are facing Drug Charges in the Quincy District Court. In addition to the drug charges Negron was charged with giving a False Name to a Police Officer and Operating with a Suspended License. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court. Over one thousand dollars was seized at the time of the arrest from the men.

Read Article:

http://hingham.patch.com/articles/hingham-woman-involved-in-heroin-deal

Quincy, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer here is what strikes me as most interesting about this case. In better than ninety five percent of the cases I have defended with facts similar to this the buyer (here the unnamed woman) gets charged with Possession of Drugs and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws for his or her involvement in the crime. Most of my colleagues welcome this approach for one very simple reason. It makes it very difficult for the district attorney to show that the purported drug dealers were actually selling the substance. Here is why. The buyer will get charged with Possession of Drugs. These charges are often resolved in a way where the buyer will not have a criminal record; i.e. a continuance without a finding or pre-trial probation. The buyer will hire a lawyer. The buyer will,through counsel invoke his or her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to offer cooperation against the sellers. It is then extremely difficult to show who if anyone sold the drugs to this person. The case against the sellers might be dismissed. Or perhaps, recognizing the difficulty in prosecuting the case the district attorney will offer a deal for the sellers that is difficult to refuse. In this case it is quite likely that the police decided not to charge the woman with the expectation that she will testify against the two men. If she changes her mind I would expect charges against her to issue. Regardless, this woman should be represented by an attorney. The police do not have the authority to cut deals for suspects in criminal cases. That is done through the district attorney’s office and should be scrutinized by a criminal defense lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune recently reported that twenty-seven year old Luis Nunez of Lawrence Massachusetts has been charged with possession of maijuana with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in a school zone, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and resisting arrest. According to the Tribune, police responded to the area of Bennington Street and saw a parked car and heard loud music coming from inside. Apparently, a man was seen dancing in the Bennington Street area.

The paper indicated that when the police checked Nunez’s pockets they found a substance that they believe is cocaine. When the defendant was being booked at the police station the authorities claim that he was in possession of three small bags of what they think is marijuana. The defendant was charged with the above described drug related crimes and resisting arrest.

Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, it appears that the defense should examine the circumstances that led up to the police “finding” the alleged controlled substance in the defendant’s pocket. The Fourth Amendment to The United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, individuals in this country enjoy a reasonable expectation or privacy relative to their person, home and other protected areas such as in their office and car. Here, Nunez had an expectation of privacy on his “person” unless the government can demonstrate that the authorities had probable cause that Nunez was committing, had committed or was about to commit a crime. Another exception could arguably be that there were “exigent” circumstances that eliminate the need for the police to get a warrant before searching Nunez. These circumstances generally include a situation in which the officers are in fear for their safety or for the safety of others. Based on the available information from this article, it does not appear that there was any indication that Nunez was armed or dangerous thus, this is likely not an exception that would apply to the facts in this case.

An experienced Massachusetts Criminal defense lawyer would likely file a motion to suppress in this case. The defendant could move to suppress the stop and search of the defendant at the Bennington Street area and the search of him during the booking process. The defendant may claim that the fact that the police were called to Bennington Street did not justify them searching Nunez’s pockets. In fact, depending on the circumstances, once the police arrived and saw the defendant, they could have just told him to turn down the music and be on this way. Even though there was apparently music coming from the car, the defendant was not charged with any criminal or civil violations relative to the operation of the vehicle. Thus, a viable argument could be made that the police had no right to search Nunez at the scene. If the search at the scene it held to be unconstitutional then the marijuana confiscated from the search of Nunez at the police station would also likely be suppress as “fruits of the poisonous” tree.

Continue Reading

| by

The Salem News reported that a Salem District Court Judge dismissed one criminal count of threats to commit a crime against a Marblehead police officer, forty-one year old Christopher Adkerson of Lynn. Apparently, a distraught Adkerson told his wife that he was going to kill himself and that he would take them too. However, when his estranged wife questioned who he was referring to, Adkerson never specified anyone.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 275 section 2 and Massachusetts decisional law provides that in order to be convicted for “threats” to commit a crime a defendant must have both the intention and the ability to carry out a threat and the circumstances must justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat. Furthermore, the recipient of a threat does not have to be the victim of the threatened crime. For example, in the recent case of Commonwealth v. Hamilton,, 459 Mass. 422 (20110) the Supreme Judicial Court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict a defendant for threats to commit a crime when the defendant threatened a probation officer’s daughter because there was evidence that the defendant intended that the threat be forwarded to the officer’s young daughter through the probation officer. A defendant who blocked the path of a car, glared at its occupants, addressed the individual’s with closed fists stating that he would “wipe the grin” off the victim’s face and stopped his car twice close to victim and looking at the victim and his son with a “menacing grin” was appropriately convicted for criminal harassment.

In the Adkersen case, the judge held that Adkersen’s threat was not directed at a specific victim and therefore, the conduct was not conduct forbidden by the statute. According to the News, Adkerson’s conduct had recently been “erratic” however, his wife claimed that he had never been physical with her or their daughter.

Continue Reading

| by

Rockland.jpgIn July police started surveilling a home in Rockland, Massachusetts after receiving a report from a confidential informant that a woman and her daughter were selling Cocaine, Oxycodone and Crack Cocaine from the residence. The surveillance lasted over two months during which controlled buys were conducted and several hand to hand transactions were observed. As a result of these observations, police obtained a Search Warrant. They waited until this past Friday to execute the Search Warrant. Just prior to the search officers were told that a minivan would arrive at the home to deliver drugs to the occupants for distribution. The home occupants, Deborah Crowley and Amanda Crowley, her daughter were present during the search as was the driver of the delivery truck, Ana Olivera. Also present during the raid were Ian Curran and Vanda Oliveira. Everyone was arrested. Curran, Vanda Oliveira, Ana Olivera and Amanda Crowley were charged with Distribution of Cocaine, a Class B Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws. Deborah Crowley was charged with Conspiracy, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Possession of Class A Heroin, Class B Cocaine and Class C Vicodin drugs. Ana Olivera expressed concerns about her supplier harming her or her family. The cases are pending in the Hingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/breaking/x865769705/Cops-Raid-disrupted-drug-supply-line-to-Rockland

Usually in cases like this one the culpability of the defendants varies significantly. Some of the defendants are being accused of small level street sales. Others perhaps being charged simply for their presence at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Others for having a larger role in illicit drug trade such as supplying the street level drug dealers. Where the culpability of each is different so too is the approach to their defense. Was someone simply present only for the transaction? Was someone coerced into this activity? Was someone simply a drug user who was present at the time of delivery to obtain some drugs? The resolutions of these cases will differ dramatically. Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyers love cases like this one. It is easy and common to deflect responsibility to someone other than their client particularly if the cases are severed.

For many additional reasons these cases can be difficult to prosecute. Jurors are suspect of evidence supplied by informants. Informants are typically rewarded for their services. Usually they are given leniency for pending cases. Their motive to assist with a successful drug investigation often results in them being overly aggressive in soliciting “drug dealers”. They often have tendencies to exaggerate their ability to access major drug dealers and instead introduce law enforcement to small time street level dealers. Jurors are also suspect of cases where there are purported sales of drugs but the arrests are delayed until a later date. The typical juror wonders why the defendant was not arrested at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Unless the defendants were recorded in the act there is no evidence other than the word of the informant or person who conducted the controlled buy. Determining the surveillance locations is critical to establishing a defense. We have won several cases by showing the jury that the officers could not see what they claimed they could have scene from that particular surveillance location. There appears to be so much to this case that the challenge will more likely lie with prosecuting than defending.

Continue Reading