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

| by

Two nights ago Guarionex Pratts of North Andover, Massachusetts was arrested at his apartment by North Andover Police and DEA agents. Apparently a call to the DEA Tipline alerted authorities to the existence of Drug Dealing Activities at the apartment. The tip stemmed from neighbors concerns about an odor suggestive of drug activities in the building. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune is reporting that Pratts consented to a search of his apartment. During the Search officers found hundreds of Oxycodone pills, a significant sum of cash and over two pounds of Heroin. Packaging products or Drug Paraphernalia was also found and seized during the search. The smell that alarmed the neighbors was determined to come from cutting agents used to dilute the drugs being that were being packaged for street level sales. The heroin was valued at around one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Pratts has been charged with Trafficking Heroin and Trafficking Oxycodone. There is a mandatory minimum fifteen year sentence for a conviction of the Heroin Trafficking Offense. Pratts, who is thirty two years old, is believed to be supplying Drug Dealers in Lawrence, Massachusetts. If the Massachusetts state courts retain jurisdiction of the case it will likely be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1517687098/Accused-heroin-dealer-arrested-at-Royal-Crest-apartments

As a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney who has handled hundreds of drug cases in Essex County something immediately hits me when I read this article. Did Pratts really consent to the search of his apartment? The sheer quantity of drugs found suggests that whoever was responsible for these substances was not a novice. He or she had extensive experience in the Massachusetts drug underworld. Anyone with this level of familiarity with the drug trade would not simply consent to the search of his apartment. They would say no to the request to search. Massachusetts laws require a valid search warrant to justify a search of someone’s property. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. Consent is one of those exceptions. Large scale drugs dealers however never consent. This leads me to conclude that there was no consent or the consent was coerced. In either case a Motion to Suppress the search will likely be filed to try to get the searched declared unconstitutional. If there truly was consent to the search this fact will have some significance for Pratts as well. It will be argued that no one is likely to consent to a search under these circumstances unless he or she had absolutely no involvement with the underlying Drug Distribution Activities. Pratts legal road is a long one. This makes his decision to hire the right lawyer to defend him one of the most important of his life. He must start an aggressive defense right away.

Continue Reading

| by

In a somewhat rare move local authorities have charged Dilip, Navin and Ashok Patel, owners of a local Days Inn with a criminal complaint that they permitted immoral conduct at their Methuen, Massachusetts hotel. According to a report in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune the hotel has been catering to drug usage, permitting minors to drink alcohol and for Prostitution. For nearly a four month period the Methuen Police have filed about twenty complaints at the hotel against various people. Efforts of the authorities to meet with the Patels have been fruitless according to the report. The Methuen police chief went so far as to say that the motel owners will not meet with the police. Here is a summary of some of the incidents alleged to have occurred at the motel recently:

• An underage drinking party in February wherein nine people under the age of twenty one were summonsed into court for a criminal application
• A March prostitution sting following complaints from restaurant customers in the motel. The customers were offered sex for a fee. Investigating the complaint officers set up an undercover operation. They met with two women who offered their sexual services. Both were arrested. During the arrest Cocaine was found in their possession. Criminal charges followed. There is a suggestion that a backpage.com operation has been run out of that establishment
• A baby was delivered at the hotel in a room in April and found dead in the room
• An investigation at the motel disclosed that an individual was using the establishment to Derive Support from a Prostitute (Pimping). The pimp was allegedly Distributing Class E substances as well
• There have been thefts from the bar at the hotel
• There have been fight in the bar resulting in Assault and Battery charges issuing
• There have been arrests made in the motel parking lot for Drug Distribution

• There have been charges of Domestic Assault and Battery filed as a result of incidents at the motel
• There was a death resulting from a drug overdose at the hotel
Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1517686290/Police-Methuen-hotel-a-hotbed-for-criminals

It appears that the district attorney will prosecute this case under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 Section 26. That law permits the prosecution of anyone who knowingly permits his motel to be used for “immoral solicitation” or “immoral conduct”. A conviction for this charge can result in a one year jail sentence. This crime is a misdemeanor. The defendants’ Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer will likely defend this case by arguing that the defendants did not know what was going on in their motel and that they never permitted that type of conduct. This case will be difficult for the prosecution to win. The fact that the defendants refused to cooperate in the investigation cannot be used as evidence of their intent. It cannot be used as evidence at all. Attributing knowledge to the owners might also be difficult if they were rarely on the premises. This article suggests that the motel was managed by someone other than the owners. That suggests that they had no idea what was happening when these incidents allegedly took place. Getting a conviction for these charges will be difficult if not impossible.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Sunday Tammy Ward was arrested when a security guard at a Salem department store saw her take a pocketbook out of a shopping cart. The victim is a sixty six year old woman from Peabody. Ward, was a familiar face to the security officer. He had seen her in the store in the past and believed that she was involved in some Shoplifting incidents. Once arrested Ward was charged with Larceny From a Person 65 or Older. The complaint issued in the Salem District Court. While it was being prepared, the Salem police prosecutor and the Danvers police prosecutor were involved in normal discourse about their cases. Hearing the facts of this case the Danvers prosecutor became interested in Ward, especially where a similar incident had taken place a few days earlier in Danvers. In that case a seventy year old woman had her pocketbook stolen from her shopping cart. The officer quickly compared a booking photo of Ward to a surveillance video photo. Concluding it was the same person another complaint was issued against Ward. Bail was set in the amount of two thousand dollars. Ward is also facing a Probation Violation Hearing as a result of these new cases.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x962125874/Woman-accused-of-stealing-purses-from-2-shoppers

Ward.jpg

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 25 states that anyone who steals (commits larceny) from a person who is sixty five years old or older is guilty of a felony. The punishment for a conviction of this offense can be as much as five years in state prison. Anyone convicted of second or subsequent offense of Larceny From the Person must serve at least two years in jail. This law is designed to protect the elderly and to deter predators from victimizing older people. In this case, the Peabody woman never knew that her pocketbook was missing and it is likely that without the observations of the security officer this crime would not be solved.

Each year about two million elderly people become crime victims. They are most often victimized by strangers, however caretakers and family at times play a role in their victimization. The elderly are more apt to get hurt than are younger persons. Many Massachusetts district attorneys offices have prosecutors dedicated to exclusively prosecuting crimes involving elderly victims. The sentences for convictions of these crimes is often harsh and is reflective of society’s intolerance for victimizing people less capable of defending themselves. This is why having an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney is critical if you are in the position that Ward now finds herself in.

Continue Reading

| by

A thirty-eight year old Haverhill Massachusetts woman, Dorothy Driscoll, will enjoy the summer at MCI Framingham following her conviction for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and shoplifting as the result of an incident at the Family Dollar Store located in New Hampshire. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Driscoll threw hot coffee in the face of an assistant store manager after attempting to steal several items from the store. Driscoll apparently admitted splashing the coffee in the employees face when she was confronted shortly after the incident. The Tribune reports that Driscoll punched a store clerk before she left the store leaving the items behind. Neither employee was seriously injured. Driscoll pleaded guilty in the Haverhill District Court and Judge Stephen Abany sentenced her to five months in jail. She received credit for twenty-nine days she served awaiting disposition.

In Massachusetts, the crime of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon is a felony. A felony is any crime where a defendant faces the possibility of serving a state prison sentence upon conviction. However, even though a defendant may face the potential of receiving a state prison sentence, there is often a jail or house of correction alternative. In addition to proving the elements for assault and battery, the Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed with a “dangerous weapon” to prove the crime of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon includes more than items that would routinely be considered dangerous such as a knife or a gun. A dangerous weapon can be an ordinary item that is used in a dangerous manner. For example, a cigarette that is used to burn a person or a shoe that is used to kick a person would be considered a dangerous weapons in Massachusetts.

Depending on the facts of the case, viable defenses to a charge of assault and battery and/or assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon include misidentification or self-defense or defense of another. In the event that a defendant asserts the defense of self-defense or defense of another, the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense or in defense of another.

Continue Reading

| by

Jeanette Bearden of Carson, California was arraigned in the Lynn District Court yesterday after undercover police officers arrested her for Prostitution. Bearden, 44 had placed in advertisement on www.backpage.com in which she offered unspecified services. Responding to the ad were local police officers. One of the officers called the number listed by Bearden. Bearden referred him to her website which provided a service and rate chart. With a surveillance operation in place the officer went to Bearden’s hotel room in Saugus, Massachusetts. She solicited him telling him that he would have to take his clothes off. The surveillance team entered the room and effectuated an arrest. The operation took place this past Wednesday. Bearden has been charged with Sexual Conduct for a Fee. Bail in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars was set.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Prostitution Defense Attorney

Backpage has become the most popular website for this type of activity. Its popularity has soared since Craigslist got rid of its domestic erotic services section back in September of 2010. Making arrests for this activity is relatively easy however curtailing the activity is not. You can read internet articles and see that arrests are made daily using the investigative techniques that resulted in Bearden’s demise. However, compare this to the number of advertisements that are placed daily and you will see that eradicating this activity is impossible. Many of the people arrested in these operations are from out of state. They fly into a different city, set up their operation, work and leave after a short stay. This makes monitoring their activity difficult if not impossible. Prostitution laws differ from state to state. The prostitutes know this. Websites post comparative laws for prostitution convictions. This enables the more savvy participant the opportunity to keep his or her operation fluid and more likely to avoid detection.

Sex For a Fee in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor. There is a maximum one year house of correction sentence that can be imposed upon a conviction for the offense. For first time offenders a good Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney might be able to get the charges dismissed on court costs or convince the district attorney to agree to pre-trial probation. This makes your selection of a criminal lawyer all the more important. Before hiring a lawyer for a Prostitution in Massachusetts charge make sure that the lawyer has explained to you all of your rights and options. You also want to make sure your lawyer has experience in the court where you have been charged and that he or she has appeared before the judges who sit in that courthouse.

Continue Reading

| by

The Brockton Enterprise reported that Theresa Foley of Stoughton, Massachusetts was arrested at her workplace following an investigation in which police allegedly witnessed her sell drugs on six separate days. The investigation began earlier this month when a Dedham Police Detective gained information that Foley was dealing drugs. Police investigating the allegations set up surveillance. They witnessed Foley leave work, travel to nearby parking lots and engage in hand to hand sales. It is further alleged that Foley was observed selling drugs from her home as well. Armed with this information the police followed Foley one last time. Following her established pattern she was seen selling to a man in a pickup truck. The man, a resident of Norwood was stopped by the police. In his possession they found a couple of bags of heroin. The purchaser was charged with Possession of Heroin and Conspiracy. Foley was then arrested. She has been charged with Conspiracy, Distribution of Heroin, a School Zone Violation and Possession of Class A With Intent to Distribute. The case in pending in the Dedham District Court. Foley was also found in possession of Drug Paraphernalia. It is reported that she confessed to these crimes.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x157799408/Police-Stoughton-woman-caught-dealing-drugs-on-lunch-break

Theresa Foley.jpg

Dedham Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

The strength of the district attorney’s case here lies in what Foley possessed when she was arrested, as well as in her confession. While observing the sales might constitute circumstantial evidence that she was involved in drug dealing it would not be enough to sustain a conviction if that was the only evidence in the case. I have blogged on this before. When someone is seen selling drugs and the buyers are caught with the drugs the prosecution cannot usually prove the sale. This is because the buyer has a constitutional right not to testify due to his or her involvement in the criminal activity. Thus, if the buyer is himself not caught with drugs in his possession there is not nexus between the seller and buyer sufficient to sustain the prosecution. Simply put, the district attorney needs the buyer’s cooperation, something that is extremely rare. However, the police observation certainly gives rise to reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the seller. If the seller is found in possession of the drugs the prosecution then becomes more viable.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report on boston.com Norman Barnes of Dorchester, Massachusetts Kidnapped a fifteen year old girl on May 7th, kept her against her will and forced her to work as a prostitute. On Thursday the girl was able to escape from her hotel room. She went to the hotel lobby and contacted some relatives. One of the relatives got hold of a state trooper who was nearby. The trooper arrested Barnes. It is alleged that Barnes made the girl work as a prostitute in Dorchester, Danvers and Quincy. Authorities have also accused Barnes of raping the girl.

Read Article:

Boston Rape Defense Lawyer

It appears from this article that Barnes is going to be charged with Rape, Kidnapping and Inducing a Minor Into Prostitution at the very least. The latter crime is the only one with a minimum mandatory sentence. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 4A states that anyone who induces a minor to becoming a prostitute must serve at least three years in state prison. The law requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor was not already engaged in the business of prostitution. This is a unique law in that it permits the defense to introduce evidence that the minor was in fact a prostitute prior to the defendant’s involvement with her. In most cases, the Rape Shield Statute prohibits evidence pertaining to a victim’s sexual history. At times prosecutors drop this charge and proceed with other charges that arguably keep the door closed on evidence that might show a victim’s sexually active or suspect past.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Brockton Enterprise, Jesse Sheridan of Norton, Massachusetts has been arrested and charged with Drug Trafficking, Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Possession With Intent to Distribute Oxycodone. The article states that Sheridan was arrested after a “months-long investigation”, the specifics of which were not disclosed. The charges are pending in the Taunton District Court however it is likely that this case will be prosecuted in the Bristol County Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1292319642/Norton-police-seize-170-oxycodone-pills-from-Village-Way-condominium

So what exactly is Oxycodone? It is a prescription drug advertised and prescribed to relieve moderate to severe pain. It comes in liquid and tablet forms. It is a highly addictive drug. It can be habit-forming. Studies suggest that Oxycodone addicts have a tendency to turn to heroin as a cheaper alternative once their prescriptions run out or they are unable to pay for the drug. Oxycontin pills with 80 milligram strength can sell for as much as one hundred dollars per pill on the streets. Heroin on the other hand can be accessed in small yet temporarily satisfying quantities for under ten dollars per hit. Prosecutors in Massachusetts understand the dangers of Oxycodone and they endeavor to punish the dealers with stiff, unforgiving sentences. It is at times the job of the Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer to educate the prosecutors and sometimes the judges that not all of these dealers are in it for a profit. Many sell these drugs simply to support their unfortunately severe habits. The trafficking operations of these people are often shoddy and disorganized. Their motives, i.e. to satisfy their habits will be obvious. In these situations, if the case is not suitable for trial or a successful Motion to Suppress plea negotiations come into play. Here is where the experience of your lawyer becomes critical.

Continue Reading

| by

Andrea Davio-Michaud is forty years old. She is an inmate at M.C.I. Framingham. She has been convicted of Identity Fraud and Credit Card Fraud and is serving a sentence for those crimes. In October of last year Davio-Michaud reported that she had been raped at a halfway house where she was serving out the remainder of her sentence. She claimed to have been approached from behind by an unknown man while she was in the bathroom, dragged to her room and raped. A police investigation disclosed inconsistencies in her story. Then, her husband told authorities that Davio-Michaud had made several other false rape claims in the past and that she would injure herself to support her fictitious story. Yesterday, Davio-Michaud pleaded guilty to Filing a False Police Report and was sentenced to six months to be served concurrently with the sentence she is now serving. The case was prosecuted in the Framingham District Court.

davio-michaud.jpg

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1990774051/Woman-pleads-guilty-to-false-rape-report-in-Hopkinton

Framingham Rape Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 13A states that anyone who knowingly makes a false police report is guilty of a misdemeanor and can be punished for up to one year in the house of correction. In the context of this case it seems like a rather minor charge given that if someone had been charged with Rape as a result of the lies that person’s life would be turned upside down. He would suffer the stigma of a heinous accusation, possibly lose his job and have to spend money retaining a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who defends Rape Cases. Based on this article it appears that Davio-Michaud had a great lawyer representing her.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Levy, SJC 10778. A brief history of the case is as follows: The defendant filed and argued a Motion to Suppress a search in the Brockton District Court. The motion was allowed. The district attorney appealed the decision. The appeal was allowed the ruling of the lower court was reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court permitted further appellate review. It agreed with the lower court and overturned the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s decision.

Read Decision:

Commonwealth v. Levy

The district court judge found that in January of 2007 a surveillance was set up by Brockton Police monitoring the use of payphones near a market. It was believed that those phones were being used to conduct drug transactions. One particular evening around 10:00 p.m. two women and a male pulled up to the payphones in a car. The man got out and made a brief call. The three then left in the car and drove a short distance away. The man got out of the car and paced up and down the street. Minutes later another vehicle containing three occupants approached. The man got into the car for a short, thirty second drive. He then got out of the car and got back into his own vehicle. Believing that a drug transaction had occurred the police stopped the second vehicle. The defendant was seated in the front passenger seat. He was asked to get out of the car. He was searched and in his boot officers found twenty eight packages of crack cocaine.

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Levy and to search his boot. In support of that decision the Court found that no police officer witnessed any sort of exchange indicative of a drug transaction. None of the parties were known drug dealers or users. Reasonable suspicion did exist justifying a stop and questioning. The search however required probable cause which was not present in this case.

Continue Reading