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

| by

In Commonwealth v. Dwayne Williams, decided earlier today, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the decision of a district court judge suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence. The facts in Williams are as follows:

A Boston Police Officer responded to a call stating that a man (the defendant) had been stabbed and was being treated at the Boston Medical Center. The detective went to the hospital and tried to speak with him. The defendant refused to answer any questions about the stabbing. He had blood on his clothing. The clothing was placed in a plastic bag by hospital personnel. Over the defendant’s objection the officer took the clothes to the crime lab for testing. Inside one of the defendants boots the officer located some crack cocaine. The judge hearing the motion to suppress the seizure of the drugs agreed that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated and the evidence was suppressed.

The district attorney appealed the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Court agreed with the lower court judge and found that in this case the police presumptively violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by taking his clothes over his objection. The Court held that the defendant retained a possessory interest in his clothing. He never forfeited that right. There was no exception to the requirement that the police obtain a warrant prior to seizing and searching the clothes. Thus, suppression of the evidence was found proper.

4th Amendment.jpg

Massachusetts Search and Seizure Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney defending Drug Cases I handle a large number of drug cases each year. One of the best tools to combat allegations of Drug Possession or Drug Distribution is the motion to suppress. Massachusetts laws and its constitution through Article 14 provide greater protections against police intrusions than does the United States Constitution. A successful motion to suppress usually results in the district attorney not being able to prosecute the case. A dismissal of the charges will often be the end result. This is why it is critical that you choose the right lawyer to defend you against drug charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Our Attorney successfully litigated a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant pleaded guilty to so much of a second-degree murder indictment that alleged manslaughter in the Suffolk County Superior Court. Apparently recognizing weaknesses in the case, the Commonwealth recommended that the defendant be sentenced to ten to eleven years in state prison. Prior to the plea hearing the defendant was aware that a witness had recanted his statement. However, during the plea hearing the prosecutor stated that a number of witnesses had recanted their statements. The defendant, uncertain as to what witnesses the prosecutor was referring to, inquired about the number of witnesses that actually changed their statements. The defendant secured a copy of the transcript from the plea hearing and pursued his claim.

Post conviction investigation revealed that one of the main witnesses for the Commonwealth informed a victim witness advocate that she had lied in the grand jury. Affidavits and witness testimony proved that this information was NEVER forwarded to the defendant or his attorney prior to the plea hearing. Following the hearing, the motion judge allowed the defendant’s motion finding that the Commonwealth had not produced exculpatory evidence.

Depending on the circumstance of a case, a defendant may argue that a guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently tendered because he or she was not aware of exculpatory evidence prior to the hearing. In this case, the exculpatory evidence was the witness’ statement that she lied in the grand jury. The United States Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea must be intelligently made because a waiver of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. See, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) [The issue of an intelligent waiver by the defendant is inextricably tied to the knowledge that he had at the time he pleaded guilty]; Commonwealth v. Correa, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (1997); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962); M.R.Crim.Proc. Rule 12; 43 C M.G.L.A.. [With respect to the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea, the court may consider whether coercion, deception, duress, improper inducements or trickery played a part in the defendant’s decision to plead guilty]; Huot v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 91, 96 (1973); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 493 (1962) [A guilty plea is void if it is involuntary and unintelligent for any reason]. It is also well settled law in Massachusetts that the prosecutor has a continuing duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. Commonwealth v. Lam Hue To, 391 Mass. 301 (1984). Thus, if a defendant has grounds to claim that he or she was not given information that would have effected his or her decision to plead guilty, a viable motion to withdraw the plea should be filed in the appropriate cases.

Continue Reading

| by

Last Friday night Haverhill police executed a Search Warrant at a home in on Cedar Street. They found five occupants, three with hypodermic needles and two others allegedly in the Heroin Distribution business. The interior of the home was described as disgusting and atrocious. It was in complete disarray. Also at the scene was a four year old boy and a twenty one month old girl. Anthony St. Onge and Joanne Belmer, the residents of the home were charged with Possession With the Intent to Distribute Heroin a School Zone Violation and Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept. Also charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept were David Plourde, Tania Cormier and Eric Balsamo. The young girl is Plourde’s daughter. The case in pending in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_086221615.html

heroin and needle.jpg

Being Knowingly Present Where Heroin is Kept

According to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 35, any person who is knowingly present at a place where heroin is kept and is convicted for this crime is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both. Typically first offenders get their cases resolved with a continuance without a finding. Sometimes first time offenses are dismissed. Of course, if the person already has a criminal record the punishment will be greater. Regardless of their record, the defendants in this case will be closely scrutinized due to the fact that children were present at the time of the crime. St Onge and Belmer have a greater. The School Zone Violation charge carries a mandatory two year sentence. To avoid the consequences of this statute both will need a Skilled Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer to defend them.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that nearly seven years ago a significant amount of drug evidenced was stolen from the Dracut Police evidence storage facility. In total about eighty thousand dollars or marijuana was taken from the locked trailer. The officer took the test on December 15, 2009. The results were deemed “inconclusive with suspected countermeasures taken”. The suggestion is that the officer tried to cheat the test. Consequently, on March 3, 2010 another polygraph test was given. This time, it was concluded that the officer failed. Law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts were unable to crack the case. The state statute of limitations has expired and criminal charges cannot be filed against the officer in Massachusetts. However, federal laws provide another avenue for prosecution that permits more time to file charges. An unnamed federal agency is currently investigating this case.

Read Article:

The Law Pertaining to Lie Detector Tests in Massachusetts

lie detector.jpg

Lie Dectector (Polygraph) Tests in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts polygraph evidence is inadmissible for any purpose in a criminal trial. This has been the law for over twenty years since the Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Mendes, 406 Mass. 201 (1989). About seven years later the Supreme Judicial Court retreated from its stance on this position and suggested that polygraph evidence might be admissible in a criminal case provided that its reliability is established by proof that a qualified tester who conducted the test had in similar circumstances demonstrated, in a statistically valid number of independently verified and controlled tests, the high level of accuracy of the conclusions that the tester reached in those tests. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 422 Mass. 385 (1996). This ruling notwithstanding lie detector tests are still not used in criminal cases in this state. The prospect of using one of these tests in an appropriate case is something that I would welcome.

Continue Reading

| by

Both the Lowell Sun and the Lawrence Eagle Tribune report that Johnny Cintron of Methuen, Massachusetts was stopped last night at the intersection of Central and Market Streets in Lowell. Apparently Lowell Police had information that a man fitting Cintron’s description would be in Lowell on Monday night. According to reports Cintron was seen driving his car and was stopped after running a red light. Inside the car officers located over five hundred grams of cocaine. The case is now pending in the Lowell District Court however it will eventually be prosecuted in the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Articles:

Lawrence Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Lowell Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Lawyers

lowell.jpg

Trafficking Cocaine in excess of 200 grams in Massachusetts carries a minimum mandatory fifteen year state prison sentence. If Cintron gets convicted of this crime he will be in prison until he is nearly fifty years old. At that point nearly one third of his life will have been spent behind bars. To avoid this he needs to hire a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer who can help him win this case through either suppression or trial or minimize the consequences by negotiating a resolution that will be as harsh as the statute requires. Three thoughts immediately come to mind when reading these articles. One, what information did the police have regarding Cintron and drug activity. How reliable was this information and to what extent did the police base their actions on that information. The legitimacy of their actions is likely based on that information and its sufficiency or lack thereof might be the basis for a constitutional challenge through a motion to suppress. Two, did Cintron really run a red light. I would suspect he did not unless of course he had no idea that cocaine was in his car. Three, how are the police able to show that Cintron had knowledge that the drugs were in the vehicle. Was the car his? Where were the drugs stored? Was anyone else in the car? Did someone else have access to the car? Did someone else use the car earlier? The answers to these questions might help exonerate Cintron.

Continue Reading

| by

Last week Brenon Monteiro and Rozilene Coelho both from Marlboro, Massachusetts were arrested and charged with Trafficking Cocaine. Apparently police had obtained a search warrant. They arrived at Monteiro’s home and gained entry through a back door. A drug sniffing dog accompanied the officers. The dog alerted the police to a television cabinet where approximately forty three grams of cocaine were found. Also found was a digital scale and assorted drug paraphernalia. In addition to Trafficking in Cocaine both men were charged with a School Zone Violation and Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws. The case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn. The police reported that Monteiro admitted to committing the crimes.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x693814227/Hidden-drugs-found-in-Marlborough-say-police

cocaine packaging.jpg

Marlboro, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer

Here is what each defendant is facing. There is a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for the Cocaine Trafficking Charge since the quantity exceeded twenty eight grams and was under one hundred grams. However two years must be added to that if the defendants are convicted of the School Zone Violation. There is no minimum for the Conspiracy charge. Monteiro’s problems appear much more significant than Coehlo’s. The drugs were found in his apartment. He confessed to the crime. Unless there is something specifically connecting Coehlo to the drugs he has a chance of getting his case dismissed. Both of these men need an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer to defend against these allegations.

Continue Reading

| by

It seemed like a routine disposition on a domestic violence case in Salem District Court. Fifty-four year old Anthony Rosado received a suspended sentence as a result of a domestic incident last November in Beverly Massachusetts. Rosado’s terms of probation included a requirement that he remain drug free and report to his probation officer. Apparently, the terms were too much for the Beverly man and The Salem News reports that two days into his sentence he tested positive for opiates. The News reported that his probation officer also claimed that Rosado tested positive again two weeks later then just stopped showing up. As a result of Rosado’s behavior the probation department issued a notice to him to appear in court and face a surrender hearing. On the day of his court hearing, he was detained by the Court Officers after he set off the alarm. A bottle of liquid was ultimately discovered in his sock. The speculation was that Rosado planned to present this urine in an effort to beat the drug test. After a brief hearing he was carted off to Middleton jail pending a final surrender hearing.

In Massachusetts, a probationer has only a conditional liberty interest. See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61, 64 (2006). The probationer must comply with the conditions of probation. A breach of a condition of probation constitutes a violation, and if the probation officer receives information tending to show that the probationer has breached, the officer may “surrender” the probationer to the court. Id., at 64-65. A probation revocation hearing is not part of criminal prosecution and, thus, a probationer need not be provided with the full panoply of constitutional protections available at criminal trial. See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. at 67, see also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973). “The revocation of probation does, however, result in a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus, the Commonwealth must provide probationers with certain protections at surrender hearings. Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 112 (1990); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. at, 783; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1972). “The hearsay on which the judge relies must be reliable.” Commonwealth v. Nunez, 446 Mass. 54, 58 (2006). The Supreme Judicial Court has written that unlike the confrontation clause, due process demands that evidence be reliable in substance, not that its reliability be evaluated in a particular manner. See Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. at 747 n.9. While the court did not define what it meant by the term “reliable in substance” the high court has set the standards to verify reliability. Evidence that would be admissible under standard evidentiary rules is presumptively reliable for due process purposes. See Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. at 747, see also Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. at 118; Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980), overturned 541 U.S. 36. Hearsay evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence or statute is inadmissible. See Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. at 743-44.

Thus, if you have received notification that you are facing a surrender hearing you must have an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side. Knowing the applicable standards and ensuring that the probation department is held to meet their burden is imperative. Most defendants do not go to jail because of the initial charges in district court. They find their way to the house of correction because the probation department maintains that he or she did not fulfill his or her terms of probation. In most cases, there is a reasonable argument that the defendant did not violate the terms of probation and/or that the probation officer has improperly issued a violation notice.

Continue Reading

| by

The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office has charged seven in connection with Cocaine Trafficking activities alleged to have occurred in Chelsea, Revere and Boston. According to reports, Ferney Pereanez was making about one hundred thousand dollars per week in cocaine sales. This account coincides with the district attorney’s press release claiming that the organization was responsible for moving a kilo of cocaine each week. The investigation into these actions spanned two years. Law enforcement used wiretaps wherein they seized hundreds of cell phone calls. Surveillance cameras were also used in this case. Also arrested in connection with this case were Luis Pereanez, Martha Garcia, Julio Burgado, Maritza Franco, Wilmar Andres Medina and Biviana Lotero Montoya, 36. Bails in this case were set in amounts ranging from twenty five thousand dollars to five million dollars. The quantity of cocaine exceeded two hundred grams. The cases are being prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

Read Article:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1240279&format=&page=2&listingType=Loc#articleFull

cocaine trafficking.jpg

Boston, Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Attorney

I would not expect each defendant to pursue the same strategy in this case. Everyone’s role in this operation was probably unique. There was likely an organizer, runners, purchasers, street level dealers and more. Some of the defendants were charged with Conspiracy, others with Distribution of Cocaine, and a few with Trafficking in Cocaine. The penalties for each differs as does the level of responsibility. The magistrate presiding over the arraignment of the defendants obviously recognized that, thus disparity of bails set. It would not surprise me at all to see sentences in this case range from probation to lengthy state prison sentences. Hiring a Top Massachusetts Defense Lawyer is the first step in helping the cause.

Continue Reading

| by

Thirty four years ago Eleanor Wadsworth was beaten, shot and killed at Pike’s Funeral Home in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Wadsworth was sixty five at the time and she worked and lived at the funeral home. Last March Gloucester police re-opened the case. Their investigation which included interviewing several witnesses suggested that Wadsworth was killed by three people during a robbery. The suspects are Norman Pike, the funeral home owner’s grandson, Kevin Ireland and another man not identified. Pike left Gloucester just days after the incident. Ireland currently lives in Gloucester and was recently arrested on this case. Pike, aka Dan Franklin who now lives in San Francisco if fighting extradition. Ireland is being arraigned today in he Gloucester District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/police_charge_t.html

crime scene.gif

Prosecuting “cold cases” can at times be a daunting task. Witnesses’ may no longer be available to testify. Those who remain can have problems recounting sufficient detail to sustain a conviction. Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers are often able to attack any memory defects and show juries the doubt necessary to sustain an acquittal. If there are no eyewitnesses to the murder as suggested by the article and neither of the defendants cooperates it will be difficult for the prosecution to recreate the events in a way that satisfies its burden. It would not surprise me to see defense lawyers pointing the finger at the deceased suspect and identifying him as the sole culprit.

Continue Reading

| by

Sean Shanahan of Winthrop, Massachusetts has been charged with Enticing a Minor, Indecent Assault and Battery and Rape of a Child. The prosecution is alleging that over the past February vacation a fourteen year old girl was staying at his home visiting Shanahan’s daughter. Shanahan was seen going into his bedroom with the girl. On an earlier and undisclosed date the girl was at the defendant’s home watching a movie during which he supposedly rubbed her thigh underneath a blanket. The prosecution has alleged that he made incriminating statements to his daughter and that he asked his wife to get rid of his computer, suggesting that there was inculpatory material on that item. This case will be prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court.

Read Article:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child_rape_charge_rocks_tsa_logan_employee_pats_down_air_travelers_at_scan_stations/srvc=home&position=2

eastboston.jpg
Statutory Rape Defense Attorneys in Massachusetts

The crime of Rape of a Child in Massachusetts is defined by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23. The law requires the district attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three things. First, that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim; second, that the victim was under the age of sixteen at the time of the crime and third that the sexual intercourse was unlawful. This third element requires the prosecutor to prove that the sexual intercourse occurred outside of a marital relationship. Given the charges in this case and the facts set out in the article it appears that the act was consensual. Shanahan supposedly asked his daughter how she would feel about him dating a girl her age. After confronting the victim after leaving Shanahan’s room the daughter was told by her friend that she would have to deal with things.

The prosecution will try to prove its case by putting the victim, the defendant’s daughter and his wife on the stand. It is unclear how much physical evidence exists in this case, if any however the testimony of the victim alone is often sufficient to secure a conviction. The daughter’s testimony will be corroborative of the victim’s and extremely damaging. The same holds for the wife’s testimony assuming she does not invoke the marital privilege and withhold her testimony.

Continue Reading