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

| by

On May 20, 2011 I blogged on a similar case involving the same defendant. Norman Barnes, age twenty eight. He was arrested at a hotel in Quincy, Massachusetts after the victim used Facebook to contact a relative who immediately went to the hotel. Police were called to the scene and Barnes was apprehended. The Salem News now reports that Barnes crimes spanned several counties. The allegations are extremely severe. It is alleged that Barnes kidnapped the fifteen year old girl on May 8, 2011 after giving her friend a ride and dropping her off at a local T station. Barnes convinced the victim to remain with him with the promise of taking her home. He did not. Rather, he took her from hotel to hotel throughout various counties in Massachusetts forcing her to engage in acts of prostitution and raping her several times. It is alleged that the girl was forced to have sex with as many as eight men one of the days she was at a motel in Danvers and seven men on another occasion, also in Essex County. The case against Barnes now pending in the Salem District Court charges him with Enticing a Minor Into Prostitution, Deriving Support From Prostitution of a Minor and Statutory Rape. Bail was set in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars cash, by agreement. When Barnes was arrested he had nearly twenty thousand dollars in his possession.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1241069618/Police-Girl-was-forced-to-sell-sex

In cases like this one, where a defendant is charged in several counties for the same conduct and a single victim, the issue of consolidation is often considered. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) permits a defendant to file a motion for the transfer and consolidation of cases. The judge hearing the motion is to consider the convenience of the request relative to the witnesses and parties. The prosecutor for each county must agree to the request if it is to be permitted. This rule is designed for the purpose of judicial economy by eliminating the need for multiple trials committed in different counties. From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer this rule has a different value. If Barnes were to have separate trials in each county, and if he were to lose each trial, the circumstances of these cases might prompt a judge to consider a consecutive state prison sentence. This might be due to the fact that one judge might not believe that the first judge’s sentence was severe enough. Or, it might be because the victim was forced to relive the horrors of her ordeal through her trial testimony on multiple occasions. Consolidation will result in one trial and one sentence. Consolidation for trial purposes is rare. The practice is much more common when someone is offering to plead guilty to criminal charges pending in multiple superior courts.

Continue Reading

| by

Monday night members of the Lynn, Massachusetts Police Department were conducting surveillance near Ida Street and Western Avenue. They observed the driver of a car, later identified as Agapito Rivera of Lynn acting suspiciously. He was looking around as if he were waiting for someone. Within a few minutes another car being driven by co-defendant Juan Martinez of East Boston pulled up. Rivera got into the passenger seat of Martinez’s car. At that time one of the surveillance officers appeared. Rivera then made movements towards the underside of the seat in which he was sitting. The officer then saw money and a plastic bagging in the center console. Rivera was asked to get out of the car. He complied. The officer then found a bag of cocaine under the seat. It turns out that there was in excess of fourteen grams of cocaine in the vehicle. Both Rivera and Martinez were arrested. They have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 14 Grams. The case is currently pending in the Lynn District Court. If the weight of the Cocaine is confirmed at over fourteen grams the district attorney will likely indict this case and the prosecution will take place in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Bail for each of the defendants was set at fifteen thousand dollars.

Read Article
Lynn, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Anytime I read an article like this one I immediately become suspicious. Were the police conducting the surveillance based on information that focused on one or both of the defendants or was the surveillance being conducted to target a known drug distribution area. The difference is significant to Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers who are defending Rivera and Martinez. In both cases the defense lawyers will be looking to suppress the search by attacking its constitutionality. If the officers were basing their efforts on information supplied to them by an informant the approach to suppression focuses on the credibility of the informant. What was his or her basis of knowledge? Was he or she reliable? Was the information supplied sufficiently corroborated? If the officers were in this area conducting a random surveillance then the focus for an attack on the search centers on the reasonableness of the police officers actions. What exactly did they do when the approached the car? What specifically were Rivera and Martinez doing or appearing to do while the officers approached? What were the officers’ actions? What did the officers say if anything when approaching the car or once they got to the car? Motions to Suppress unlawful police activity are one of the most effective tools that Lynn, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Lawyers can utilize in defending their clients.

Continue Reading

| by

The Salem News reports that Patricia Papa, a former employee of the Sheriff’s Department for Essex County Massachusetts has been charged with having sexual relations with an inmate. Papa worked at the Lawrence Correctional Alternative Center, commonly known as the farm. The allegations focus on a one month period covering most of March of this year. The case is being prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=sessexterminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Facilities&sid=Sessex&b=terminalcontent&f=lawrence_cac&csid=Sessex

Lawrence Farm.jpg

It appears that the statute under which Papa is being prosecuted is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 21A. That statute makes it a crime for any corrections officer or anyone employed by a correctional institution to engage in sexual relations with an inmate. A conviction for this offense can result in a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and a five year state prison sentence. Consent is not a defense to these charges. So, how can Papa defend against these allegations? Obviously a lot depends on the evidence against her. Did someone see her engaged in sexual activities with the inmate? Were the acts caught on security and surveillance videos? Or was it the inmate himself who made the accusations? You would think that if this were happening that Papa would avoid such actions in view of any electronic monitoring equipment. As an employee of the sheriff’s office she would arguably know that such devices existed and the location where the cameras were operating from. Eyewitness testimony in cases like this one are often suspect as well. Keep in mind, these people are convicted criminals sentenced to a period of incarceration. Their credibility is suspect. Jurors have difficulty believing the testimony of someone who is serving a jail sentence. The first thing that goes through a juror’s mind when listening to an incarcerated person’s testimony is “what is in this for this guy? Why is he testifying for the prosecution?” There almost always has to be substantial corroboration for jurors to convict someone based on an inmate’s testimony. None was mentioned in this article. Rather, simply bare allegations that Papa had sexual relations with an inmate.

I can recall a case like this one many years ago where proof against the defendant was an easy task for the district attorney. The defendant was a woman, correctional officer at a state prison. She had a relationship with an inmate at a much more secure facility that the Lawrence Farm. She got pregnant and had the inmate’s child. She was terminated. In Papa’s case there is no indication that the prosecutor’s case is that clear cut.

Continue Reading

| by

This week the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Rivera, SJC – 10802 Commonwealth v. Rivera, a case in which the defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping. The facts presented in Rivera are as follows:

In early September of 2008 in the afternoon a boy was walking on a busy street in Dorchester. The boy was picking up a prescription for his mother. A car driven by the defendant came up next to him. The defendant told the boy to get into the car. The boy said no. He then went into the store to get the prescription. The entire incident took about two seconds. A witness saw the car. She took the defendant’s plate number. She then saw the boy leave the pharmacy. She asked him what happened and then she called the police. The police arrested Rivera. During an interrogation Rivera admitted that he wanted the boy to go back to his home and listen to some music. After the district attorney presented the prosecution’s case the defense moved for a required finding of not guilty. The motion was denied. The jury convicted Rivera. He was sentenced to two years in the Suffolk County House of Correction with six months to serve. He was also required to register as a sex offender.

Reversing the conviction the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reasoned that the district attorney failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that Rivera had the intent to “forcibly or secretly” confine the boy, an element necessary to sustain a conviction for attempted kidnapping. The Court cited Commonwealth v. Banfill, 413 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1992), a case with similar yet more egregious facts still not sufficient to sustain a conviction for these charges. In Banfill, the defendant had interaction with a girl for a longer period of time; twenty five seconds. As in this case, the defendant in Banfill told the child to get in his truck.

The lone dissenter in this case stated that the defendant’s act of ordering the boy into his car with the admitted intention of taking him to his home satisfied the requirement of an overt act designed to “secretly confine” the boy. The dissent argued that the evidence could permit a jury to conclude that Rivera intended to abduct the boy. This was demonstrated by both his actions on Dorchester Avenue, the scene of the incident and his admission to police upon his arrest.

law books.jpg

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman handles Criminal Appeals throughout Massachusetts state and federal courts. A conviction by a jury or judge does not mean that your case is over. In this case, had Rivera not appealed his conviction he would have had to register as a sex offender.

Continue Reading

| by

Yesterday Saul Morales of Lynn, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Lynn District Court after being charged with Rape. The Lynn Item reports that police responded to a call in the Albany Street area. They arrived to find a woman and someone else on the sidewalk. The woman was crying. She told police that she visited Morales to charge her cell phone. While there, Morales began grabbing her. She tried to walk away. Morales then grabbed her, pulled her pants down and raped her. The woman was taken to the hospital for treatment. The Lynn Item further reports that the woman’s boyfriend arrived at the defendant’s home after not having heard from her for a while. When he got to the home he could hear the woman crying inside. A few minutes later the woman left the homing claiming that she had been raped. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Rape Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer the first thing that comes to mind is the credibility of the complainant in this case. There is too much “coincidence” suggested by this article. The woman goes to Morales’ home to charge her cell phone and finds herself sitting on his bed. Then all of the sudden he starts a sexual assault that ends in Rape. Meanwhile, her boyfriend becomes concerned that he has not heard from her for a while so he decides to check out the house. Ironically, he hears her cries yet he never calls the police. Instead, he does what no other man would do. Nothing. He waits until she comes out of the home. Now she is crying. She complains that she had just been raped. The two embrace on the sidewalk until the police arrive. Think about this for a minute. Why would the woman have to charge her phone at a friend’s home? Why would the boyfriend become concerned when he had not heard from her? How could she call him when her phone was charging? Why didn’t the boyfriend try to help her? Why didn’t the boyfriend call the police? Something smells bad here. I have had cases like this in the past. Sometimes the “victim” has consensual sex with someone. She regrets this. Someone finds out about the act and she immediately cries rape. I am interested in learning about the physical evidence in this case. Were there any defensive wounds on Morales. What do the hospital tests reveal. Was the woman injured in any way. Why is there no mention of her physical appearance at the time the police arrived. I am sure that Morales’ Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer will investigate these things while preparing Morales’ defense.

Continue Reading

| by

Joshua Rockwood and his wife Jessica Rockwood, twenty seven and thirty one years of age respectively, are going to have to remain in jail for a while according to a judge sitting in Taunton, Massachusetts. Both have been charged with Trafficking Heroin in the Taunton District Court. The complaint follows a July 1, 2011 arrest during which police from several local law enforcement agencies conducted a raid pursuant to a search warrant at the couple’s home. During the search police found over one thousand four hundred bags of heroin with a street value estimated at fourteen thousand dollars. Officers also found a sawed off shotgun during the search. Only Jessica Rockwood was home at that time however the next day Joshua was arrested and found in possession of over two hundred bags of heroin and two thousand dollars cash. In addition to Heroin Trafficking the pair was charged with Possession of a Firearm and Receiving Stolen Property Over $250. Both defendants have been charged on several occasions with crimes as indicated by the district attorney during the arraignment and bail hearing. The article does not mention the quantity of heroin allegedly trafficked however it is likely that this case will be prosecuted in the Superior Court in New Bedford.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1850042721/Couple-in-drug-case-denied-bail

What interests me most about this case as a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer is the information law enforcement might have possessed prior to applying for a search warrant. I am sure that prosecutor provided the judge with a history of facts he felt deserving of a no bail order. None of these are however mentioned in this article. The quantity of heroin, the presence of a firearm and the criminal records of the defendants in this case without more might warrant the imposition of a high bail but not detention without bail. So what other facts might have been imparted to the judge at the bail hearing? Were there controlled buys made by undercover officers, informants or both? Were sales where the purchasers were apprehended witnessed for an extensive period of time? Perhaps most significantly, what involvement did each spouse have in the operation. Many times our office has been approached by couples who simply because of their relationship have been get charged together. Many times however the case against one of the spouses gets dismissed due to inadequacies in the evidence against him or her. However, almost always will the district attorney charge both the husband and the wife when a search warrant is executed at a home and drugs are found. Having an experienced lawyer is the best way to ensure that justice is done and that an innocent spouse does not suffer for the crimes of the other.

Continue Reading

| by

Today the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Gore, 08-P-2067, a case in which the defendant claimed that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The facts of the case are as follows:

In October of 1995 a complaint issued in the New Bedford District Court charging Gore with Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under the Age of 14, two counts. In November of 1995 a warrant issued for Gore’s arrest. He was not notified of the outstanding charges. Two years later he picked up a case on Rhode Island. Gore was convicted of the cases in Rhode Island and given a prison sentence. He became eligible for parole in November of 2006. Rhode Island was at all times aware of the New Bedford case, a fugitive complaint was filed and Gore never waived extradition. In 1999 the fugitive complaints was dismissed. In December of 2006 the prosecutor in New Bedford applied for a governor’s warrant. In January of 2007 the defendant was ordered extradited to Massachusetts. Gore was arraigned in New Bedford in February of 2007. A motion to dismiss was filed and denied in March of 2008. Gore set out as grounds a violation of his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Trial started in the spring of 2008. About twelve and one half years had passed since the complaint issued. Gore was tried convicted and sentenced to in the 1995 cases. He appealed.

Citing a United States Supreme Court case the Appeals Court evaluated four factors in determining whether Gore’s speedy trial rights were violated. Those factors contemplate 1) the length of the delay, 2) the reason for the delay, 3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial and 4) the prejudice to the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Finding the delay here unreasonable the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that Gore’s decision not to waive extradition does not mean that he waived his right to a speedy trial. A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial. Additionally, the prosecution could have obtained a governor’s warrant earlier than 2007. A twelve and one half year delay is presumptively prejudicial at least in the context of this case. In this decision the Massachusetts Appeals Court also embraced Article XI of the Massachusetts Declaration or Rights which states that everyone in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the right to a speedy trial. In addition to federal law state law was violated by the inaction of the district attorney’s office.

Continue Reading

| by

A Haverhill Massachusetts man, Michael Donnelly, was arrested and charged with assault and battery at 3:15 in the morning, released and rearrested for the same offense at 11 a.m.. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune the police were called to the Haverhill home twice in a short time span because of a fight with his girlfriend and a “violent outburst.” Donnelly appeared in the Haverhill District Court where the Assistant District Attorney requested that he be held on $3,000.00 cash bail. Judge Stephen Abany declined to set the bail that high but held the defendant on $450.00 cash bail. The Tribune reported that the defendant claimed that the disagreement stemmed from the fact that he wanted to end the relationship with the complaining witness.

Although all of the facts of the case are not known at this time, in these types of cases there are many ways that an experienced Boston area defense attorney can build a defense. One area that must always be examined is whether a defense of self-defense or defense of another is viable. In the event that there was an altercation in which both parties sustained injuries, a self-defense theory must be explored. In the event that self-defense or defense or another is presented during a trial, the Commonwealth must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt the assault and battery but must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense or in defense of another.

These types of cases are often referred as “domestic violence” cases. In addition to facing criminal charges, a defendant may also have to oppose the issuance of a restraining order. In situations where the parties have a “substantial dating relationship,” are family members or roommates a complainant may apply for a “209A” restraining order. In the event that the plaintiff can establish that a defendant’s actions put him or her in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm a judge may grant the order. Keeping in mind that at the time an initial order is granted a judge only hears one side of the story, the order often issues at the outset. Typically, a return date is given and at that time the defendant or opposing party will have the opportunity to present his or her side of the story. A defendant opposing a 209A restraining order MUST be mindful that anything he or she states during the civil restraining order hearing may be used against him or her during the criminal prosecution. Thus, depending on the circumstances, it may not always be wise for the defendant to speak in open court but have an experienced domestic violence lawyer speak on his or her behalf.

| by

Late Monday night members of the Boston, Massachusetts Police Department responded to a call after it was reported that two people had been stabbed. The police arrived at Huntington Avenue to find two Cambridge, Massachusetts residents being treated by emergency medical personnel. The unnamed victims are men ages twenty two and twenty six. The Lynn Item reports that the alleged victims were in a group that was approached by another group who demanded to know where they were from. A fight erupted and the two men who were stabbed and some of their friends entered a taxicab and fled the area. Once police arrived an investigation began. Ultimately, Jose Soriano of Lynn, Massachusetts was identified as the assailant. Bail was set in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars in the Boston Municipal Court. Soriano has been charged with Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

stabbing 2.jpg

So exactly what is Soriano looking at? Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon in Massachusetts is a violent felony punishable by up to ten years in state prison and a five thousand dollar fine. The crime is codified in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 15(A)(b). The court where this case will be prosecuted depends on the severity of the stabbing and Soriano’s criminal record if any.

As a Massachusetts Stabbing Defense Lawyer I am concerned about the identification process and understanding just how it came about the Soriano was identified by the alleged victims. In Massachusetts the prosecution must prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt. Identification witnesses do not always have an adequate opportunity to view their assailant. Incorrect identifications are made all of the time. It is the duty of the defense attorney to ensure that any tainted identifications are suppressed. It is also the duty of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to make sure that any subsequent “in court” identifications are not suggestive. Sometimes suspects are presented in person to the identification witness. While Massachusetts has approved this procedure it is the least reliable method of identification and the most vulnerable to attack. This article makes me somewhat suspicious about the identification procedure that might have been used. Soriano is from Lynn. It is unlikely that he was identified so quickly from a photographic array in that the arrays would likely contain photos of Boston men. This procedure can take a long time due to the volume of photos that have to be assembled and viewed by the victims. The incident occurred around 11:30 Monday night and Soriano was arraigned in court yesterday. More likely, the police conducted a “show up” procedure. The circumstances of this process might lend themselves to an attack on the legality of the identification of Soriano. This might be his best defense to these charges.

Continue Reading

| by

A Haverhill Massachusetts man, Anthony McLaughlin, has been charged with operating under the influence of alcohol for a third time. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, McLaughlin was arrested at 4:40 Saturday morning as he slept behind the wheel of his car. The arresting police officer, Penny Portalla, claimed that the headlights and taillights to the car were on and the car was running. She also claimed that the interlock device that was inside of the center console was unplugged. Defense counsel argued that if the interlock device was unplugged the car could not have been running. Apparently, neighbors became concerned about the car. When Portalla arrived to check out the situation she claims that she had a hard time waking up the defendant.

The Essex County District Attorney’s office moved to have McLaughlin held without bail and be found as a danger. Following a “dangerousness hearing” Judge Stephen Abany declined to hold the defendant without bail and ordered that he be held unless and until he can post three-thousand dollars cash bail.

In order for the Commonwealth to prove its case it must prove that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle, on a public way while under the influence of alcohol. In this case, they have the additional burden of proving that the defendant was convicted two times previously.

Although all of the facts are not known at this time, it appears that the government may have a problem proving operation and public way. The Massachusetts model jury instruction relative to operation explain that “operation” is not only doing all of the well-known things that drivers do as they travel on a street or highway, butalso when doing any act which directly tends to set the vehicle in motion.The law is that a person is “operating” a motor vehicle whenever he or she
is in the vehicle and intentionally manipulates some mechanical or electrical part of the vehicle — like the gear shift or the ignition — which, alone or in sequence, will set the vehicle in motion. Thus, a person may be found to be operating a car even if he or she is not actually driving the car down the street or highway.

The Tribune indicated that the car was parked off the road, thus the defense may be able to claim that the motor vehicle was not on a public way. To prove that the defendant operated the car on a “public way.” In Massachusetts a public way is any street that is open to the public and is controlled and maintained by the government. This obviously would encompass a state highway and municipal roads. Indicia of a public way include testimony that the road was paved, has streetlights, street signs and fire hydrants. The presence of these items indicate that the roadway is likely maintained by a municipality. This may be one element that the defense can focus on to seucre a not guilty verdict.

In order to prove that a defendant has previously been convicted of operating under the influence the Commonwealth must have certified copies of the prior convictions in which the defendant is clearly identified and it can be shown that he or she was represented by counsel or waived an attorney. There is not time limit on how many years back the prosecution can go to prove the prior offenses.

Continue Reading