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

A Danvers, Massachusetts police officer was stabbed early in the morning after coming across a man who was under surveillance for outstanding warrants. The man, Roy Limbaugh is fifty eight years old and a registered sex offender. He was apprehended in Randolph, Massachusetts. Apparently, once the officer encountered Limbaugh he was stabbed repeatedly in the neck and arm. Charges will initially issue in the Salem District Court, likely for Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault With Intent to Murder or Kill.

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1307531605/Danvers-police-officer-stabbed-early-this-morning
<a href="Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Outstanding Warrants” target=”-blank”>Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, Outstanding Warrants

So what does it mean when someone has outstanding warrants in Massachusetts. In the context of this case it means that Limbaugh had skipped out on court obligations. Whenever someone is supposed to be in court and fails to appear he or she is defaulted. Usually the judge issues a warrant for that person’s arrest. Most of the time, even though the warrant is active the police make little effort to find and apprehend the person. If the person gets arrested for another crime or pulled over for a routine traffic stop, the warrant will surface and the individual will forcefully be brought back to the court that issued the warrant. So what happens then? At that point the defendant’s Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney will offer an explanation to the judge explaining the reason for the default. The default is then removed and the underlying case is rescheduled for its next event. Sometimes a higher bail is set to ensure the person’s attendance in court. Other times the same conditions of release are re-imposed, particularly if the reason for the default is understandable.

Our office gets calls from people with outstanding warrants every day. There are a couple of typical scenarios. The defendant lives out of state and is trying to get a new driver’s license. The default is recognized by the registry of the new state and they will not issue a license. Realizing the need to close out the Massachusetts we get retained. Many times these cases are old and can be resolved without the need for the defendant to come back into court. Here is another typical scenario. Someone is applying for citizenship. The warrant is recognized, usually by the immigration lawyer. We get called to vacate the warrant and resolve the underlying case. Not all warrants are the defendant’s fault. As a matter of fact a large percentage are inadvertent. When someone is called to court through a summons he is notified about his court obligation through the mail. The summons might not be received. This is the case repeatedly for local college students who move back home after the school year and the summons goes to their apartment and is never forwarded to them. These warrants surface through the job application process.

Continue Reading

On or about August 6, 2011 a fifteen year old girl reported that she had consensual sexual relations with a twenty six year old Lowell, Massachusetts man she had met online. The defendant, Robert Conner and the girl made their initial contact through a dating site called DateHookup.com. The two “chatted” online, texted one another and had some phone conversations. They eventually met up and had sex. The girl then told her mother about the encounter. The mother accessed the dating website and contacted the police. The police investigated the allegations. While doing so they met with Conner who denied having sex with the girl. During this interview the police smelled marijuana. The home was searched and a supply suggestive of the intent to distribute the drug was found. Conner has been charged with Rape of a Child, Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana and a School Zone Violation. The case is pending in the Lowell District Court however if the Rape of a Child charge is pursued the case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn. Conner has already been convicted of a Sex Crime in Massachusetts. He served eighteen months for Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child after being convicted of that crime in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Lowell, Massachusetts Rape Lawyer

Statutory Rape laws in the United States are not consistent and in many instances make absolutely no sense whatsoever. In Massachusetts the law is clear that the age of consent is sixteen. That applies for both males and females. This is not the case however in many states. In Arkansas for instance, males must be fourteen to consent to sex whereas females must be sixteen. In Colorado the ages of consent are fifteen and seventeen for males and females respectively. North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee and Wisconsin hold the age of consent at eighteen. In some states a lower age applies when the age gap between partners is small, or when the older partner is below a certain age, usually eighteen or twenty one. In Massachusetts Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime. This means that there is no defense other than the alleged act never happened. Believing that someone has reached the legal age will not help you at trial. Nor will the fact that the victim appears to be older than he or she really is. In this case Conner said that there was no sex. That is a viable defense to these allegations. The victim’s testimony is not always enough to support a conviction, particularly where a competent defense attorney is able to impeach this testimony with inconsistencies or motive. Jurors want to see more. They want to see proof in the form of independent evidence that would support the naked accusation. Did someone see the act? Did the victim go to a hospital? Were tests performed to show penetration or the presence of seamen? If so, was a sample submitted for DNA testing and matched to that of the accused?

Continue Reading

marijuana blunt.jpgJust last week while Robert Smith was driving his Cadillac in Framingham, Massachusetts he had the misfortune of driving in front of a police car. The officer observed some civil motor vehicle infractions and also smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana coming from the car. The officer stopped the car and continued to smell the marijuana. Smith acted nervously and supposedly tried to hide and object in the console. Officers searched and found a some partially smoked marijuana cigarettes there. They also found packages of wrappers and some cash. Smith has been charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance. The case in pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1510866557/Pot-smell-led-to-Framingham-arrest-cops-say

Framingham Drug Defense Lawyer

Cases like this one have become fertile grounds for Motions to Suppress the search. Just a few months ago the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Benjamin Cruz. I blogged on that case the day after it was decided. I remember thinking at that time that this decision would trigger a tremendous amount of litigation, particularly in the district courts where the large majority of marijuana cases are prosecuted. I was right. Almost immediately one of my clients benefited from this decision in the Lowell District Court. We won a motion to suppress and his case was ultimately dismissed.

Sow how will Cruz apply to this case? Well in Cruz, unlike this case, the defendant was a passenger. Similar to this case however, the officers in Cruz approached the passenger side of the car. The driver in Cruz was nervous. Sobriety was not an issue. He was not given field sobriety tests and there was no suggestion that he was operating while impaired. This applies for Smith’s case as well. There is no question that the initial stop was lawful. I imagine that Smith was ordered to exit the car. Thus, a court will have to examine whether the exit order was justified for 1) officer safety purposes or 2) based on reasonable suspicion to believe that Smith was engaged in criminal activity. The Metrowest Daily News article sheds a little light on this: the officer thought Smith was acting nervously and thought he was trying to conceal something in his center console. Massachusetts courts have held that a defendant’s nervous demeanor cannot be the grounding factor on which to base suspicion of criminal activity. See Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 449 Mass. 367, 372 (2007). Cruz supported this holding that “[i]t is common, and not necessarily indicative of criminality, to appear nervous during even a mundane encounter with police, even though, as a passenger, the consequence of receiving a citation is not personal”. The odor of the marijuana might be an integral factor in a judge’s analysis of this case however. Cruz suggested that a strong odor of marijuana might give cause to believe that more than one ounce of marijuana is in a vehicle. If that is the case here then the officer must distinguish between the odor of burnt marijuana and marijuana that had not been yet been smoked. I would argue that a strong odor of burnt marijuana means nothing in terms of the potential quantity in the car. If the officer testifies that he smelled a strong odor of unburnt marijuana in the car his credibility will likely come into question. There is no indication that a large quantity even existed in the car and smelling it in this form while driving behind a car is incredible.

Continue Reading

This past Monday postal workers at the Shrewsbury office were drawn to a thirty pound package that seemed somewhat suspicious. A drug sniffing dog was the brought on the scene. The dog alerted officials that package contained drugs. That triggered an investigation involving Framingham and Natick Police. The addresses, James Auerbach of Natick arrived to pick the package up from the post office in Shrewsbury. He was followed by the police to the apartment he shares with Thomas Barnes, the co-defendant. According to a report in the Metrowest Daily News Auerbach admitted knowing that the package contained drugs. He also admitted to paying for the drugs. Consequently, the police obtained a search warrant. In the apartment they found more marijuana, over twenty pounds in all. The street value of the drugs is estimated in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Upon entering the apartment the police observed a .38 caliber firearm. Both defendants have been charged with Conspiracy and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance. Auerbach has also been charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Unlawful Possession of Ammunition. The case is pending in the Framingham District Court. However, Auerbach’s prior criminal record suggests that this case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1852604279/Natick-pair-arrested-after-getting-15-pounds-of-pot-in-the-mail

The good thing for Barnes is that there is no mandatory minimum jail or prison sentence associated with any of the crimes with which he has been charged. In cases like this, provided the defendant has no prior record there is always a chance that jail time can be avoided. Auerbach on the other hand may not be as lucky. The article states that he has been convicted on two prior occasions of either two serious drug offenses or one serious drug offense and one violent crime. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10G, he is facing a minimum mandatory fifteen years in state prison. As I have mentioned in several prior blog posts there are defenses to accusations such as this one. What first comes to mind is suppressing Auerbach’s statements or admissions that the drugs were his. Suppressing the search is an obvious approach as well. Moving to dismiss the firearm charge may be viable. What evidence do the police have that suggests Auerbach is the owner of the gun as opposed to Barnes. Remember, Auerbach was out of the home picking up the package. There is no indication that Barnes was with him at that time. Did he admit that the gun was his? Was the gun printed? The answer to both of these questions is probably not. Here is another thought. Auerbach might want to try to vacate his prior convictions so that the minimum mandatory portion of the gun violation loses effect.

Hiring an attorney is an important decision no matter what type of charge you are facing. This case is a perfect example of that. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers realize that there can be future consequences for criminal convictions. Auerbach’s case is the perfect example of this. His prior convictions may very well effect how this case is defended.

Continue Reading

Just after midnight yesterday Beverly, Massachusetts police were called by a woman claiming that her boyfriend had beaten. The woman reported that she and Craig Blum, the defendant got into an argument. Blum then threw a pizza at her, shoved her, hit her and tried to strangle her. Blum was outside of the home when the officers arrived. He told the police that his girlfriend was out of control. The woman was taken to the hospital for treatment. It is alleged that she suffered injuries to her arms, legs, neck and body, all of which were photographed. The prosecutor moved for detention pending a dangerousness hearing. Blum is being prosecuted in the Salem District Court. He currently faces charges of Domestic Assault and Battery, Attempted Murder, Intimidation of a Witness and Threatening to Commit a Crime.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1555802374/Man-charged-after-girlfriend-hospitalized

When reading this article I immediately noticed that Blum’s lawyer argued that he acted in self-defense. At first blush one would think this is unlikely. The police respond to a call, find a woman crying hysterically, visibly bruised and complaining that her boyfriend beat her. That seems pretty bad for Blum right? Well maybe not. Most Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers have defended Domestic Assault and Battery Cases where the “victim” was the actual aggressor and the defendant who usually happens to be male acts solely to defend himself. This may include grabbing the woman to prevent her from continuing her assault or subduing her for that same purpose. Keep in mind that in Massachusetts and in most other states a person is allowed to act in self defense and it is the obligation of the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense. To prove that someone did not act in self defense the prosecutor must show either:

1. That the defendant did not reasonably believe he was being attacked or immediately about to be attacked, and that his safety was in immediate danger; or
2. That the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force; or
3. That the defendant used more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Blum’s lawyer is probably going to want to know where the pizza was found. If it was thrown at the woman as she claims one would expect to find it splattered on a wall or across the room where it was allegedly thrown. Did the police photograph this piece of evidence? Was the woman covered with pizza? How far was Blum from her when he allegedly threw the pizza? What did the neighbors hear, if anything? Were there any other witnesses to this incident?

Continue Reading

A forty six year old Saugus, Massachusetts man was just charge with Rape of a Child. He was arraigned yesterday in the Lynn District Court. It is alleged that the man was having a relationship with his son’s former girlfriend for a two year period. Apparently, on August 1, 2011 the man’s wife called the police and reported her suspicions. She told authorities that her fourteen year son had been broken up from his girlfriend for about two years but that the girl was a frequent guest at the home after the breakup. The ensuing police investigation revealed the following additional facts:

• The victim admitted to the relationship. She told the police that after she and the defendant’s son broke up the defendant began texting her using a code name;
• The defendant made sexual advances towards her;
• The defendant touched her inappropriately in his car on more than twenty occasions, sometimes in Saugus, sometimes in Lynn, other times in Revere;
• The two had been “caught in the act” by Lynn, Massachusetts police;
• The victim told her friends about the acts;
• The defendant had given the victim gifts;
• Some of these acts occurred at the defendant’s home in Cape Cod where the victim slept over.

The case in currently pending in the Lynn District Court. The case will probably be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Essex County Rape Of A Child Rape Defense Lawyer

So how do you defend a case like this one? The first thing a Massachusetts Rape of a Child Defense Attorney will want to do is see if the allegations are in any way corroborated by physical evidence. Start with the obvious. Did the victim save the text messages? Do phone records confirm contact between the defendant and the victim? Is there actually a Lynn, Massachusetts Police report confirming the victim’s statement that police caught the two? This in and of itself seems unlikely. If that did in fact occur I would expect the police to have made some sort of arrest and/or have contacted the girl’s family. Can anyone verify that the two were alone for significant periods of time? What if anything did the girl tell her friends and can they confirm the disclosure. Simply denying the allegations before a jury is usually not enough in cases like this to secure an acquittal. However hammering away at lies, exaggerations or gross inconsistencies can make jurors suspicious of the witness’ credibility. The defendant’s lawyer might also want to investigate the alleged victim’s motive to make such statements. There is a suggestion that the defendant endeavored to take care of the girl due to a troubled home life. Did the caretaking stop or was it reduced in any way that prompted the girl to contrive this story?

Continue Reading

North Shore Mall.jpgThis past May Peabody Police Detectives were conducting surveillance in the parking lot of the North Shore Mall near the Barnes and Nobles Bookstore. A gray Honda in which David Ledbury of Malden, Massachusetts was a passenger was stopped for an alleged routine motor vehicle violation. Ledbury was observed making a furtive movement towards the lower part of the vehicle as the police approached. A search revealed 31 opana pills and over one thousand dollars cash. Ledbury was charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B Substance. He will be prosecuted in the Salem Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://itemlive.com/articles/2011/08/06/news/news06.txt

Opana is a relatively new drug to the streets. It is a pain reliever. It is also a prescription drug very similar to morphine yet significantly more potent. Opana is basically twice as strong as OxyContin. It is extremely habit forming. It can be fatal when taken with alcohol. Opana also has some side effects such as hives, swelling of the tongue, throat, face or lips. It can slow your heartbeat and cause dizziness or confusion.

So what is Mr. Ledbury going to do to defend his case. Even though the article provides very little detail I can almost guarantee you that his Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer will file a motion to suppress the stop of the car and particularly the search of Ledbury and the vehicle. Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and cases embracing the provision hold that the police may not order a passenger or driver out of a vehicle following a routine traffic stop unless there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the officer or others prior to ordering the occupants out of the vehicle. There is an objective test that requires viewing the facts and circumstances of the stop to determine whether the police have a reasonable apprehension of danger warranting the exit order. Put another way, a court will look to see whether a reasonably prudent person in the position of the police officer would be warranted in believing that his safety or the safety of others was in danger. To sustain an exit order the prosecution must show facts that objectively create a heightened awareness of danger. A hunch or mere suspicion that Ledbury was involved in illicit activity does not permit the police to order him to get out of the car and conduct a search of Ledbury and the vehicle.

Motions to suppress illegal searches and seizures derive much of their factual support from police reports or police generated materials. However, in cases like this one there will usually be some sort of surveillance security video that Ledbury can secure to determine whether the police report is accurate or exaggerated.

Continue Reading

As most in the legal community know, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana has been decriminalized in Massachusetts. That does not mean that it is not “against the law” to possess and ounce or less of marijuana, it simply means that a fine is the potential penalty, similar to a speeding ticket or another traffic violation. If the individual is an adult a $100.00 fine is imposed and the marijuana is confiscated. In the event that a person under eighteen is found to be in the possession of the substance, he or she must attend a drug awareness program. However, the legislature has not decriminalized possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, distribution of marijuana or trafficking marijuana. Furthermore, operating under the influence of marijuana is a criminal offense.

In Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011) , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discussed the effects that the decriminalization of a possession of marijuana can have on traffic stops by police officers and subsequent searches of the car, driver and passengers. In Cruz, the Court upheld the lower trial court’s suppression of evidence holding that a civil citation should have issued for the car being parked next to a hydrant however, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was necessary to further detain the driver and probable cause is necessary to support an exit order and search of the car. Thus, from a defense point of view, the decriminalization has been a step in further securing an individual’s right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures.

As briefly discussed above, the law does not exempt an individual from all crimes that relate to marijuana. A person can still be charged with illegal possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, distribution of marijuana and trafficking of marijuana, even if the amount is under an ounce if other factors are present. Furthermore, if the intent to distribute or distribution occurs in a school zone a defendant can face a mandatory sentence of two years in jail. Items that are often associated with the distribution of marijuana are scales, baggies, razor blades, cutting agents and a large amount of cash.

A practical approach to defending a client charged with any drug offense include examining the facts to determine whether a motion to suppress the stop, motion to suppress the evidence and motion to suppress the search should be filed. Furthermore, a motion to dismiss is also often appropriate in circumstance in which there is clearly not enough to infer that the defendant actually distributed or intended to distribute the substance.

Continue Reading

Janelle Grasty of Framingham, Massachusetts was engaged in an act of Prostitution with Nev Lima, another Framingham resident. After consummating the act Lima went to pay Grasty. She accepted her fee and pulled a knife on him, demanding the rest of his money. Lima defended himself and was bitten in the process. At least that is the story Lima told the police. Grasty on the other hand claimed that the money was hers, all one thousand two hundred dollars of it. According to a police report the two were fighting in a hallway, naked when the police arrived. Both have been charged with criminal offenses out of the Framingham District Court as follows:

Janelle Grasty
Prostitution,
Assault and Battery,
Armed Robbery

Nev Lima
Assault and Battery
Disorderly Conduct
Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1510861880/Framingham-woman-tried-to-rob-john-after-sex-police-say

proctor street.jpg

Framingham Sex Crimes Lawyer

So how is this case going to work out? A lot depends on what the police saw and more importantly whether anyone else witnessed this incident. According to the article the knife was found in a bathroom. Thus, it is difficult to determine who in fact is telling the truth here, at least about the Robbery allegation. It is true that prostitutes often get robbed. They also rob their customers. To prove the robbery allegation the prosecution will need a percipient witness. There is not one here. Here is another problem with this case from a prosecutorial point of view. Since both have been charged with criminal offenses it is probable that neither will be offering testimony against the other. Both Grasty and Lima will likely invoke their Fifth Amendment Privilege. That right, guaranteed by the United States Constitution provides that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. If Grasty and Lima decide to testify then they are waiving this privilege and, in the context of this case probably incriminating themselves. It would imprudent for either of them to do so, particularly where testifying truthfully would possibly result in an admission to the charges pending against them. The invocation of this privilege will make prosecuting this case virtually impossible. I would bet that the charges against these defendants get dismissed on the day of trial.

Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers have to help their clients make decisions like this one every day. It is important that your lawyer not only knows the law but that he or she knows how to utilize the law to help with your defense. The end result of criminal cases in Massachusetts and throughout the country often results on the strategies employed by the defense attorney. Knowing your rights and properly embracing them is a good formula for success.

Continue Reading

According to a representative from the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, police officers saw Luis Hernandez, a known drug dealer in the Framingham and Natick areas engage in a drug deal in the parking lot adjacent to his apartment. It is alleged that Hernandez sold to to Gina Stucchi, Jennifer Mackey and Maria Woods, all of whom were in Stucchi’s car. The police followed Stucchi’s car and apprehended them right before they injected Cocaine in the car alongside Route 9. Woods told the police that she bought the drugs from Hernandez. In the meantime, Hernandez had gotten into a car being driven by Geraldine Martinez. Alisha Conti was also in the car. Conti was dropped off. She was later questioned and admitted to buying Heroin from Hernandez. Police then observed a drug deal between Hernandez and an unknown male. Hernandez was arrested. Martinez was questioned. She admitted that there were drugs in the car and that Hernandez kept drugs in a safe in his apartment. The safe was located and inside police found Heroin, Drug Paraphernalia and Cocaine. The charges against the seven defendants are as follows:

Luis Hernandez:
Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws
Resisting Arrest
Distribution of Heroin
Gina Stucchi:
Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws
Distribution of Cocaine
Maria Woods:
Conspiracy
Possession of Cocaine
Possession With the Intent to Distribute Cocaine
Providing a False Name to a Police Officer
Intimidation of a Witness
Geraldine Martinez:
Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substances Laws
Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class “B”
Possession With the Intent to Distribute Class “A”
Alisha Conti:
Possession of Heroin
Jennifer Mackey:
Distribution of Class “B”, Cocaine
Drug Conspiracy

William Roberts:
Resisting Arrest
Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws
Possession of Class “A”, Heroin
Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/features/x633529259/Framingham-drug-suspects-arraigned

There are some interesting legal issues that spring from this case, one of which was addressed by Hernandez’ lawyer at the arraignment and bail hearing. The Distribution of Heroin charge can only be proved if Stucchi, Mackey or Woods testify against him. They probably will not in that they too face criminal charges thus enabling them to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. It is highly unlikely that the officers’ observations alone are sufficient to sustain this charge. The same applies for the Conspiracy allegation. As to Possession With Intent to Distribute Class “A” Heroin there might be a legitimate grounds for suppression or a required finding at trial. An experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer would be able to show a jury that Martinez, Hernandez’ roommate, is likely the owner of the safe as opposed to Hernandez. This would make proof against him much more difficult and possibly result in a successful motion for a required finding of not guilty.

Continue Reading