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

| by

According to the Newburyport News Cody Harkness of Amesbury, Massachusetts is being charged with Unarmed Burglary, Home Invasion, Malicious Destruction to Property Valued at More Than $250 and Breaking and Entering. The victim is a downstairs neighbor who was sleeping when Harkness broke into her home. Apparently the defendant opened a door in a common area of the home that led to the victim’s closet. From there he entered her room and touched her body. The victim woke up and yelled. Harkness left. Harkness, who had not been identified by the victim at that point asked her what had happened. She in turn told the police that he might have information about the intruder. The police contacted Harkness and noticed that he had in his possession that the victim said the suspect was wearing. Other evidence suggested to the officers that Harkness had in fact committed the crime. He eventually admitted involvement. The charges are now pending in the Newburyport District Court. Bail was set at two thousand five hundred dollars.

Read Article:

http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x1613327262/Amesbury-teen-charged-after-home-invasion

Massachusetts Home Invasion Defense Lawyer

This article is somewhat confusing as to what the actual charges are that Harkness is facing. The headline states Home Invasion. Home Invasion in Massachusetts is criminalized under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18(c). It is a felony and a conviction carries with it a mandatory twenty year state prison sentence with a maximum life possibility. The Newburyport District Court does not have jurisdiction of this crime and I would imagine that the district attorney’s office will use its discretion and reduced the charges to something within the district court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, if the article is correct it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove a couple of necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove that Harkness was armed with a dangerous weapon. There is no indication that he was. Also, the prosecution must prove use of force or the threat of the imminent use of force. None of that seems to be present her. The body of the article, as opposed to the headline states that unarmed burglary is the charge here. The statute addressing that crime is G.L. c. 266 Section 15. There is a requirement that the district attorney prove however that in addition to the breaking and entering, that Harkness intended to commit a felony while inside the victim’s home. There is no evidence supporting that element. This crime also must be prosecuted in the Superior Court so again I believe that there will be a modification of charges so that the district court can keep jurisdiction of the case.

Continue Reading

| by

Mark Balboni and Chelsea McKay were arrested last night and are facing charges this morning in the Brockton District Court. The Brockton Enterprise reports that after months of investigating police officers from East Bridgewater, West Bridgewater and Whitman Searched a home at 2 Natalie Drive. During the Search officers found hundreds of prescription drugs, mostly painkillers. Balboni has been charged with Trafficking OxyCodone and Possession With the Intent to Distribute other substances. McKay has been charged with Conspiracy, Possession With Intent to Distribute Oxycodone and Marijuana. The case will be prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court in Brockton. It is alleged that Balboni trafficked over twenty eight grams of oxycodone.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1714274838/Police-seize-hundreds-of-painkillers-from-East-Bridgewater-home

Plymouth County Superior Court Drug Lawyer

Trafficking Oxycodone in the amount is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32E(c). Anyone convicted of committing this offense in Massachusetts is guilty of a felony and must serve a minimum mandatory seven year sentence. The lack of detail in this article makes analyzing the defendant’s chances of success difficult. Questions that a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney would like answered are: 1) did the officers have a search warrant; 2) if not, did they have consent to search and if so, from whom; 3) what evidence do the officers have that links each individual to the drugs he/she is accused of intending to distribute; 4) where these defendants targeted as part of this investigation and for how long. Massachusetts Courts provide great protections against unlawful Searches and Seizures. Many cases are won by showing that a search was illegal. When consulting a lawyer make sure you go over each of these rights to see if your case is one that might be dismissed due to unlawful police conduct.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Brockton Enterprise police in Raynham, Massachusetts have found some success in an year long investigation. They just arrested Peter Cardin of Raynham and Ainsley Jennifer Long of Bridgewater, Masschusetts. Both have been charged with Trafficking Heroin. On December 1, 2010 officers executed a search warrant at Cardin’s home. During the course of the search they found over fifteen grams of heroin, enough to charge Trafficking. They also located assorted Drug Trafficking Paraphernalia. Cardin has been charged with Conspiracy, Possession of Class E, Possession of Class C and Trafficking Heroin. Long has been charged with Possession of Class E, Trafficking Heroin, Conpiracy and Being Present Where Heroin is Kept.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x88621348/Raynham-police-charge-two-with-heroin-trafficking

raynham.jpg

Before the prosecution can convict either of these defendants of a crime many gaps in this article have to be filled. Aside from the usual question, i.e. the probable cause to get a search warrant, the district attorney will have to show how it is that each are responsble for these crimes. On several occasions I have written that “mere presence” at the scene of a crime is insufficient to satisfy the prosecutor’s burden. There is an instruction that judges give jurors in cases like this one that says just that. The prosecution must prove more. It must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally exercised dominion and control over the substance with the intent to distribute the product, and/or that he or she aided or abetted in the act. This article is silent as to those details.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lynn Item reports that Todd Ciepiela of Peabody, Massachusetts has been indicted by an Essex County Grand Jury for Carjacking stemming from a September incident. In the morning hours of September 26th a fifty six year old woman went to a local 7-11 store. As she went to get into her car she was grabbed and forcibly pulled away from her vehicle by Ciepiela who also grabbed her keys. The woman was also thrown to the ground. Fortunately she suffered no injuries. Several days later the defendant was arrested in Revere, Massachusetts. Ciepiela has been charged with Unarmed Robbery and Carjacking. The case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

Essex Superior Court Criminal Defense Lawyers

711.jpg

Often times when someone is arrested for a crime like this days after its occurrence the primary issue at trial becomes one of identification. These crimes occur quickly and victims are not always able to make positive identifications of their assailants. Additionally, people who steal cars in this manner do so with the intention of obtaining objects of value such as pocketbooks, wallets or other items left in consoles or glove compartments. Sometimes the vehicle is stripped and parts or components are sold. It is rare that the individual will continue to drive the vehicle for an extended period of time as the district attorney claims Ciepiela did. Many cases are won by challenging the integrity of identifications.

Continue Reading

| by

Elizabeth Roger of Ashland, Massachusetts and Elizabeth Powers of Worcester, Massachusetts were arrested in the early morning hours after being pulled over for a minor Motor Vehicle Violation. Specifically it is alleged that Powers ran a stop sign. During the stop officers located just over one ounce of marijuana. The two teenagers have been charged in the Framingham District Court with Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Class D Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Massachusetts Drug Laws.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1743711391/Two-women-accused-of-dealing-marijuana-in-Framingham

framingham.jpg

Just last year Massachusetts changed its drug laws relative to possession of marijuana. The new law, codified by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32L states that anyone who possesses one ounce or less of marijuana shall be guilty of a civil offense only, punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars. If the offender is under the age of eighteen he or she must attend a drug awareness program. Unfortunately for Roger and Powers the quantity of marijuana exceeds one ounce. However, the article is not clear as to whether the substance was weighed while packaged or if the packaging was taken off prior to weighing the substance. This can make a huge difference in the outcome of this case. The weight of the substance cannot include the packaging. I just finished a case where the quantity of the drug (in this case cocaine) was initially weighed at just over fourteen grams, subjecting my client to a mandatory minimum sentence. When the cocaine was re-weighed without the packaging the total weight was less than fourteen grams, thus making the crime one that was not subject to minimum mandatory sentencing. The defendants here, Roger and Powers might be able to move to suppress the search depending on what occurred at the time of the stop and what the arresting officer reported.

Continue Reading

| by

Darrell O’Malley of Wilmington, Massachusetts and Steven Santella of Lowell, Massachusetts have been charged with Drug Crimes violations after police saw O’Malley provide Santella with Heroin in an affluent Westford, Massachusetts neighborhood. According to a report in the Lowell Sun the act occurred at about 10:30 in the morning in the area of Oak Hill Road. Apparently detectives had been watching the two for a period of time. The police believed that drug deals had been occurring. Both men have been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Heroin, Class A, Possession of Heroin, Class A, a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy. The case is pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

Westford Drug Crimes Defense Attorney

westford.jpg

Westford, Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer

Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws in Massachusetts is proven by showing three things beyond a reasonable doubt. One that the defendant joined with one or more people in an agreement, two, to do something unlawful or something lawful by unlawful means and three, that the defendant joined the conspiracy knowing of the unlawful plan and with an intent to carry it out. Conspiracy in the context of drug cases in Massachusetts is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 40. Whether or not the acts of O’Malley and Santella amount to conspiracy depends on what information the police had pertaining to an agreement. Given the information provided by this article Conspiracy might be difficult to prove in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

Edwin Pagan is from Ashland, Massachusetts. Around 3:30 in the morning yesterday someone reported seeing a man “acting suspiciously” near the Happy Swallow. The police responded and found Pagan lurking in the area. The officers also learned that Pagan had been in a car parked nearby. They went to investigate. They looked into the car and in “plain view” found what they believed to be cocaine in a plastic bag. The officers also found prescription pills in the car. They then learned that the owner of the car was the bartender at the Happy Swallow. The bartender was questioned. He stated that he had given Pagan permission to use the car until 3:00 in the morning, but not after. The bartender denied ownership of the drugs. Pagan was then charged with Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle, Possession of Cocaine, a Class B Drug, and Possession of Class E Substances. The case in pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1485353729/Ashland-man-arrested-on-drug-charges-in-Framingham

happy swallow.jpg

Framingham Drug Crime Lawyer

If this article is accurate Pagan has a very defensible case. The bartender’s story makes little sense. Think about it. How many people would say it is okay to use their car until three in the morning but no later, particularly in a situation like this one. Obviuosly Pagan needed to use a car. From this you can assume he also needed a ride home. Pagan lives in Ashland and the bar is in Framingham. Logic suggests that the bartender was his ride. Massachusetts law permits bars to be open until 2:00 a.m. Most close earlier. Towns can regulate the hours of bar operation. If the Happy Swallow is open until 2:00 a.m. you can assume that the bartender will be working later to clean and set up for the next day. Three or three thirty is probably the time he would get off work and drive Pagan home. So when the police question the bartender what does he do? He distances himself from Pagan. He is not going to accept responsibility for the drugs in his car. He blames Pagan and says that Pagan has exceeded his authority to be in his car by thirty minutes. With the help of an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Pagan stands a good chance of winning this case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to a report in the Brockton Enterprise, police yesterday arrested Ivon Almeida and charged him with Trafficking Heroin in Excess of Twenty Eight Grams and a School Zone Violation. Police claim that Almeida was the passenger a car driven by Steven Mendes that committed certain traffic violations. After the stop police found an open container of alcohol. They then frisked both the driver and Almeida. A plastic bag was supposedly protruding from Almeida’s shoe. Police seized it and found it to contain thirty two grams of heroin. The act took place within one thousand feet of a School Zone. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court. This case will most likely be indicted to the Plymouth County Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x96440595/Brockton-traffic-stop-leads-to-heroin-trafficking-arrest

Brockton District Court.jpg

Once again we visit the issue of the legality of the frisk. Assuming the article is accurate no one would challenge the stop itself. The police officers witnessed someone driving a motor vehicle and committing some civil infractions. This permits the officers to stop the vehicle, obtain information from the driver, and in some circumstances the passenger. The officer can then issue a citation, or if the driver or passenger have outstanding warrants an arrest can be effectuated. If not, no frisk is permitted. A police officers can be no more intrusive than necessary to effectuate a safe conclusion to the motor vehicle stop. A pat frisk is for protective purposes. It is to make sure that the person or people lawfully stopped are not carrying weapons. Pat frisks are not for investigative purposes. Here, it appears that the officers suspected without reasonable suspicion that the defendants committed or were about to commit a crime. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a plastic bag protruding from someone’s shoe. There is a likelihood that the police actions were violative of Almeida’s rights and warrant exclusion after hearing a Motion to Suppress.

Continue Reading

| by

Earlier today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Carr.pdf affirming the trial judge’s suppression of evidence seized unlawfully. The facts of the case are as follows. On Valentine’s Day, 2007 a Boston College police sergeant received a call from a residential director (RD) of a dormitory who had information from students that a dorm resident possibly possessed a weapon. The RD brought the students to the campus police. The students stated that the defendant had been bullying students and bragged about having a knife. An anonymous student reported seeing the butt of a gun in the defendant’s room. The student stated that the gun might have been a toy. Armed with this information campus police went to the defendant’s room. They knocked on the door and identified themselves. About a half minute later the door was opened. There were three men in the room. An individual who denied living in the room was asked to leave. The officer then inquired about the gun. One of the defendants admitted to previously having a fake gun and throwing it away. He was then read his rights and asked where the gun was. He replied that it was under the bed. There, the officers found a replica gun. With further prompting and prodding from the police the other defendant produced a knife. Officers found another knife and a martial arts weapon also. The police then asked the defendants to sign a Miranda waiver form and a consent to search form. Both signed the former. Neither signed the latter. The officers then conducted a search and found drugs and drug related paraphernalia. The trial judge allowed the defendants’ Motion to Suppress. The Appeals Court reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial judge’s rulings holding as follows:

The district attorney never established that the defendants consented to the search. One of the officers testifying agreed to that during cross-examination. He backtracked on re-direct by testifying that the defendants gave verbal consent to search. The judge found this to effect his credibility. The evidence as to consent was equivocal in the judge’s opinion and not sufficient to sustain the search. The trial judge also held that even if the defendants had consented the consent was not made voluntarily. She found that the campus police actions of immediately demanding the defendant’s identities, ordering the person who did not live in the room to leave, blocking the doorway, showing distrust for the defendants and ordering rather than requesting to search undercut the voluntariness requirement of consent.

This case is another example of what can happen when you hire an experienced lawyer. The lawyers in this case did a fantastic job for the defendants. They were able to show the trial judge that the defendants’ constitutional rights were violated.

| by

Osei Kwame of Waltham, Massachusetts has been charged with Kidnapping in the Quincy District Court. According to reports Kwame picked up a couple in Boston just before 2:00 a.m. The pair wanted to go to Billings Street in Quincy. They ended up on Billings Road instead. One of the passengers asked the defendant to take him to the correct address. The male later got out to pay and Kwame took off with the female in the back. The woman and remaining passenger called the police from her cell phone. Kwame failed to stop for the officer. He was ultimately apprehended. Kwame has been charged with Kidnapping and Failing to Stop for a Police Officer.

Read Article:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/features/x290096037/Cabbie-charged-with-kidnapping-passenger
Waltham Taxicab Driver.jpg

The crime of Kidnapping in Massachusetts is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 26. To convict someone of this offense the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that without authority the defendant forcibly confined another person within Massachusetts against the person’s will. A conviction for kidnapping in Massachusetts carries with it a potential ten year state prison sentence. Kidnapping charges are prosecuted in the Superior Courts. The crime is a felony. Failure to Stop for a Police Officer is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 25. There is a one hundred dollar find associated with someone being responsible under that statute. The bail in this case was only seven hundred fifty dollars. This suggests a couple of things. First, Kwame’s Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer did an excellent job arguing bail. Second, perhaps the facts are not nearly as egregious as the article seems to indicate.

Continue Reading