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

| by

In Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur decided earlier this month the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the first degree murder conviction of a woman who killed her husband. The Court recited the following facts:

The victim and the defendant married in 1994. He was sixty. She was forty nine. They lived in West Springfield and Florida during the winter months. The couple had some marital problems centering on finances. In 2004 these problems escalated. There were discussions about divorce and it became evident that that would materialize. On July 28, 2004 the defendant called her son and told him that there was a problem. He arrived at the home and immediately called the police. The police arrived to find the defendant upset and complaining that the victim had hit her. The victim, her husband was found in the dining room dead. He had been stabbed thirty four times in the chest, neck, head and back. It was suggested to responding officers that the defendant had ingested twenty five Klonopins and that she was suicidal. The defendant’s home was Searched. Officers found blood in the master bedroom, on the sheets, bed and pillows. The case was defended on a theory of lack of criminal responsibility. The Commonwealth rebutted with its own expert.

On appeal the defendant argued prejudice due to certain pre-trial discovery orders. A lower court judge ordered the defendant surrender its expert’s reports, correspondence relating to the defendant, tests and evaluations and the materials supporting their results to the Commonwealth’s expert. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that these discovery orders were violative of the defendants’ constitutional rights and granted a new trial. All the a court can order in these situations is that the defendant submit to a court ordered psychiatric examination, not the production of materials protected by the work product privilege, attorney-client privilege or protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.

Read Case:

Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, July 19, 2010

sjc.jpg

This case shows the importance of fighting reciprocal discovery orders. Since Commonwealth v. Durham was decided in 2006 prosecutors have pressed judges to order the defense to provide them with any conceivable piece of evidence that might be offered at trial. The Durham case was decided narrowly, 4-3. Thus, challenges to discovery orders, as done here, may create viable appellate issues and the exceptions to Durham will grow. Defense and appellate counsel did a great job in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

Jorge Fernandez of Waltham and Antonio Rodriguez of Revere have both been charged with Cocaine Trafficking in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn. Bail has been set at forty thousand dollars and one hundred thousand dollars respectively. The charges stem from an incident in Waltham alleged to have occurred on March 8, 2010. It has been reported that on that day an officer heard a loud noise that he was investigating. In doing so he observed a black Mercedes with Florida plates parked in an alley. The officer then saw a large amount of cash on the center console of the car. The officer questioned the occupants, Fernandez and Rodriguez and became suspicious with their responses. The officer then searched the car and located over two hundred grams of cocaine and over eight thousand dollars in cash. Both were charged with Trafficking Cocaine in Excess of Two Hundred Grams.

Read Article:

http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/copsandcourts/x999356885/Grand-jury-indicts-two-men-charged-with-trafficking-cocaine

cocaine trafficking 2.jpg

Middlesex County Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

As I have mentioned in several previous blog posts it is likely that the defense in this case will center on the legality of the Search and Seizure. Based on the facts in this article this one seems tough. Our Courts have held that “[i]f policemen are to serve any purpose of detecting and preventing crime by being out on the streets at all, they must be able to take a closer look at challenging situations as they encounter them…Like many other courts, we have held that HN3the use of a flashlight to look into the interior of a car in such situations does not amount to a search at all.” Here, once the flashlight illuminated the car the officer decided to question the occupants. Their responses prompted more concern and ultimately the search of the vehicle.

Continue Reading

| by

A Beverly, Massachusetts was charged with Open and Gross Lewdness in the Salem District Court. According to reports the man was seen by police sitting on a bench in Danvers. His groin area was exposed. The police were in the area after receiving complaints about the man. Officers stated that the defendant’s genitals were in full view. When they began to approach him the suspect tried to pull his pants up. He then gave the police a fake name. This is said to have occurred just after 7:00 p.m. The defendant stated that he had just finished jogging.

Read Article:

danvers.jpg

Beverly, Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer

Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony in Massachusetts. The crime is set out in G.L. ch. 272 Section 16. The law states that anyone guilty of this crime faces up to three years in state prison. Massachusetts case law suggests that Open and Gross Lewdness and lascivious behavior,” is closely similar to common-law offense of indecent exposure. To satisfy the statute the conduct one engages in must produce shock or alarm. Masturbating in public constitutes a violation of the statute as does engaging in a sexual act in public. For this man the act the police reported likely fits within the definition of the crime. However, if the defendant has no criminal record a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer should be able to get this case continued without a finding.

Continue Reading

| by

In Commonwealth v. Mendez, Slip Op. July 15, 2010 the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that even if the prosecution permits the admission of otherwise excludable evidence it can later embrace the Rape Shield Statutes’ protections. Similarly, a judge can sua sponte exclude evidence that falls within those statutory exceptions. In Mendez the Massachusetts Appeals Court found the following facts:

The defendant was in a bar coming on to the victim. By her account the victim rejected his advances. She was drunk and had an unusually strong reaction to the alcohol. Her testimony suggested that perhaps she had been drugged although there was no evidence of that being the case. She woke up in the back of the defendant’s girlfriends’ car. She objected to the defendant and his girlfriend taking her to either of their homes. She next remembered waking up naked and covered in her vomit. She believed that she had been raped. She was bruised. She then saw the defendant’s girlfriend who brought her into the bathroom. She observed a sink full of sexual aids. She showered. The prosecution called the bartender of the bar where the victim was that evening. He testified that that night she was flirtatious, that being her normal behavior. He testified that she made advances towards him and others in the past. She would always ask him to go in the back room with her. She offered him sexual favors. The prosecutor then realized that that evidence should have been excluded. The prosecutor then requested that the defense not mention the evidence further in the trial. Relying on the Rape Shield Statute the judge agreed and the defense was prohibited from mentioning the evidence further.

The Appeals Court agreed with the trial judge finding that in these circumstances the judge may intervene. Even if the judge failed to intervene the order crafted in this case, i.e. the preclusion of further discussion about this testimony was proper.

Read Case:

Commonwealth v. Mendez.pdf

Here is the problem with this decision. The evidence came in without objection. As a matter of fact, to some extent the questions of the prosecutor elicited this information from the witness. The evidence was before the jury. It was never stricken. It follows that the attorneys should have been able to argue all relevant inferences that could be drawn from the evidence during summation. Perhaps the Supreme Judicial Court will accept further appellate review of this case and take another view.

Continue Reading

| by

Kristen Shields of North Andover, Massachusetts was charged in the Lowell District Court with Assault and Battery By Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault With the Intent to Murder. According to reports, Shields and her boyfriend were engaged in consensual sexual acts with a thirty nine New Hampshire woman. The New Hampshire woman told the police that the three were having sex and that Shields got out of bed and told the two to continue with their business. Shields then re-entered the bedroom and got jealous. She began throwing objects in the room and took a kitchen knife and stabbed her boyfriend in the chest. Shields admitted to the attack.

Read Article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_15503960?source=rss_viewed

threesomes.jpg

Lowell, Massachusetts Stabbing Defense Lawyer

The crime of Assault With Intent to Murder in Massachusetts is identified by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 18. The law states that anyone armed with a dangerous weapon who assaults another with the intent to murder that person faces a state prison sentence of up to twenty years if convicted. I have written before that these cases are difficult to prove in that the prosecution must show the person’s intent at the time the act was committed. The element of intent in crimes of passion often becomes the major point of contention and juries rarely convict people accused of committing this crime. They are much more likely to convict on the Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon indictment that usually gets charged in connection with Assault With the Intent to Murder. I would imagine that Shields’ sentence in this case will be impacted by the desires of the victim. With excellent representation she might be able to avoid prison time.

Continue Reading

| by

Just recently police in Framingham, Massachusetts were involved in an investigation involving Rafael Lopez and a Connecticut man. They had information that Lopez was selling cocaine. Lopez had an apartment in Framingham from which police observed people enter and quickly leave. This they believed to be consistent with drug related activities. Police also engaged in controlled purchases of cocaine. This past Sunday the police executed a Search Warrant to Lopez’s home. They found Rafael Lopez and Julio Lopez inside the apartment with some cocaine cutting agents and cocaine. Also located during the search was the money used during the controlled buy. Both men have been charged with a School Zone Violation, Trafficking Cocaine in Excess of 28 Grams, Conspiracy and Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana. The case is currently in the Framingham District Court but will ultimately be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x104356070/Framingham-men-charged-with-cocaine-trafficking

inositol.jpg

Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney

Many cases are successfully won by Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Lawyers by filing Motions to Suppress and challenging the legality of a search. Police need probable cause to get a search warrant. The threshold for obtaining a warrant is high. The fact that a warrant was issued by a magistrate does not ensure that the search was lawful. Usually, when lawyers win motions to suppress the drugs that were seized by the police officers are excluded from evidence at trial. For all practical purposes this ends the prosecutions’ case.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Thursday Santo “Macho” Suarez of Lawrence, Massachusetts was arrested and charged with Breaking and Entering, School Zone Violation and Distribution of a Class B Substance, Crack Cocaine. He was also charged with Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Person. According to reports Suarez sold Crack Cocaine to an undercover police officer. As officers attempted to apprehend him Suarez took off in his car. He then abandoned the car and fled on foot. He broke into a home and hid in a closet. He then resisted police attempts to arrest him. Suarez also has a prior conviction for Distribution of Cocaine in Lawrence.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1907084331/Police-Man-hid-in-house-after-selling-drugs-to-officer

lawrence district court.jpg

Lawrence, Massachusetts Cocaine Distribution Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32A states that anyone convicted of distributing cocaine after having been previously convicted of the same offense shall be punished by a minimum mandatory three year sentence. This is a felony in Massachusetts. The district court does not have jurisdiction over this crime so unless the district attorney agrees to reduce the charges Suarez is going to be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. Hand to hand sales to undercover officers are very difficult to defend. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyers who try cases like this one often employ an entrapment defense. This requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to committing this crime and that his will was not overborne by aggressive police officers.

Continue Reading

| by

Mark McConnell of Osborne Street in Salem, Massachusetts has been charged with Possession of Child Pornography and Distribution or Dissemination of Child Pornography in the Salem District Court. It is alleged that McConnell had downloaded photos and videos of girls who according to the district attorney had been Raped and Kidnapped. The prosecution stated that McConnell used a file-sharing program to access the illicit material. Bail was set at ten thousand dollars cash. Apparently McConnell was caught by law enforcement logging on to a file sharing service on June 15, 2010. His IP address was accessed and a Search Warrant was issued. McConnell’s computer was seized during the search. Over seven hundred illicit photos were found on the hard drive. It is unclear as to whether this case will be prosecuted in the district court or the Essex County Superior Court. It is also possible that this case will be prosecuted in the Massachusetts Federal District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1907082991/48-year-old-man-charged-with-possessing-child-porn

computers.jpg

Salem, Massachusetts Child Pornography Defense Lawyer

Possession of Child Pornography and Dissemination of Child Pornography are both felonies in Massachusetts. The former is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29C. A conviction for that offense carries a maximum five year state prison sentence. The latter crime is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29B. A conviction for that crime carries a minimum ten year sentence and up to twenty years in state prison. Prosecutors in Massachusetts take the position that file sharing constitutes distribution even if the defendant downloaded the material only and never actually sent the material to someone else. This is a major point of litigation in these cases right now. Anyone charged with one of these crimes in Massachusetts should immediately hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who has defended Child Pornography cases. McConnell will likely have defenses to these charges and pursuing these defenses should start now.

Continue Reading

| by

The defendant was indicted by a Massachusetts Grand Jury and charged with Trafficking Cocaine over 28 Grams. He was also charged with a School Zone Violation. A Motion to Suppress was filed and argued. It was initially allowed and then denied, an unusual set of circumstances to say the least. Certificates of analysis were admitted against the defendant as proof that the substance found by the police was in fact cocaine. The defendant objected to proof made by such means complaining that his right to Confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated. On appeal the defendant argued that the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009) prohibits proof by such means, notwithstanding that that case has prospective application. The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the admission of such evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the officers who testified were not qualified to render the opinion that the substance was in fact cocaine. Whereas there was not overwhelming evidence that the substance was cocaine the admission of the certificates of analysis could not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read Opinion: Commonwealth v. Rivas, 09-P-136, July 6, 2010.

Commonwealth v. Rivas
250px-John_Adams_Courthouse_SJC_Massachusetts.jpg

This result shows the value in hiring a good Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who has experience defending Cocaine Trafficking Cases. The trial lawyer made a timely objection to the admission of the certificates of analysis even before Melendez–Diaz was decided. This preserved the defendant’s right to argue the issue on appeal. His excellent Massachusetts Criminal Appeals Lawyer was able to get him the appropriate relief.

Continue Reading

| by

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has indicted Diane Thistle, 63 of Beverly, Massachusetts alleging that the former hospital secretary stole over two hundred thousand dollars. The prosecution alleges that Thistle was taking cash from the hospital cafeteria. She would then use other funds intended to pay the cafeteria catering to replace the money she had taken. The hospital cancelled its contract with the catering company last year. When the hospital and the catering company went to settle their accounts the latter found discrepancies that led to both parties to Thistle. Thistle has been charged with Larceny by Single Scheme by an Essex County Grand Jury. She will be arraigned in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem towards the end of the month.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x383291223/Secretary-indicted-in-200K-theft

Salem, Massachusetts Larceny By Single Scheme Defense Lawyer

beverly hospital.jpg

Larceny by a Single Scheme in Massachusetts can be a felony or a misdemeanor. Where the amount stolen exceeds two hundred fifty dollars the crime is a felony. It is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Massachusetts law defines Larceny by Single Scheme as successive takings that are actuated by a single, continuing criminal impulse or intent or are pursuant to the execution of a general larcenous scheme, regardless of the extent of the time which may have elapsed between each taking. Usually the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office thoroughly investigates these cases prior to indictment. The prosecution of these cases is supported by corroborative paperwork such as checks, ledgers, payment vouchers and various items associated with bookkeeping. Defending these cases usually involves substantial plea negotiations with the prosecution and at times a judge. Trial is always an option provided there is a viable defense to the allegations such as mistake or coercion. The defendant in this case should quickly engage a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to start preparing her defense.

Continue Reading