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

| by

At 4:00 a.m. yesterday morning police responded to 27 Washington Street in Lawrence, Massachusetts for a call regarding commotion at that address. A patrolman knocked on the door waiting for someone to answer. While doing so he saw the defendant, Sandy Santos placing “something” underneath a seat cushion. The patrolman was then permitted to enter the home. When he did he looked under the cushion and saw a loaded .38 caliber handgun. Santos was arrested and charged with Carrying a Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition and Possession of a Loaded Firearm. The report states that the gun is being tested for fingerprints and DNA. The case is being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_068001139.html

handgun.jpg

Massachusetts Gun Case Defense Lawyer

The charge of Carrying a Firearm carries with it a mandatory minimum eighteen month house of correction sentence. However, the statute prohibiting that activity, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10(a) exempts such conduct where the activity occurs at home or at work. Here, the article states that Santos was at home at the time of the incident. I am also curious as to why the gun would be tested for fingerprints. The article states that the officer saw Santos place the gun underneath the seat cushion. Why then would it be necessary to have it printed or tested for DNA evidence. It is also suspect that Santos would offer entry to the officer. There was no search warrant. There was no probable cause to arrest. The officer had no legal right to enter the property. Why then would Santos open the door and let him in? This case is full of issues that bode well for the defense.

Continue Reading

| by

Roberto Perez is eighteen years old. Authorities allege that on Saturday night he stabbed a sixteen year old male, also from Rockland. The victim was airlifted to a Boston hospital where he was listed in stable condition. Perez is facing charges of Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault With Intent to Murder charges. Several people called 911 to report a group of people fighting. Responding police found the victim and subsequently found and apprehended Perez. The case is now pending in the Hingham District Court but will likely be indicted and prosecuted in the Plymouth County Superior Court in Brockton.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/man_arrested_in_12.html

stabbing.jpg

Assault With Intent to Murder in Massachusetts

Witnesses have described the incident as a fight. Self-defense is commonly employed to counter allegations that a defendant was the aggressor in a fight. When a defendant utilizes a self-defense argument the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Defendants have the right to use self-defense when they reasonably believe that they are being attacked or immediately about to be attacked and that their physical safety is at immediate risk. They can use no more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances of the case to defend themselves. The defendant must also try to avoid combat before resorting to force. Depending on how the fight evolved Perez might be able to defend his case on this theory.

Continue Reading

| by

Yesterday police in Westport, Massachusetts arrested Dean Macedo of Fall River and charged him with five counts of Identity Fraud. Apparently Macedo, who was working as a sub-contractor for a construction company got a copy of certain contractor’s licenses. Using that information he secured building permits in New Bedford. Macedo had his own roofing company. An employee at one of the jobs Macedo obtained through the permit scam was injured and filed a workman’s compensation claim. Authorities quickly learned that Macedo had been pulling permits using the identity of others in several towns. The case will be prosecuted in the New Bedford District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.abc6.com/news/86389667.html

identity theft.jpg

Identity Fraud and Identity Theft in Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 37E prohibits Identity Fraud and Identity Theft in Massachusetts. The law states that anyone who uses someone else’s personal identifying information for the purpose of making a financial gain shall be punished by up to two and one half years in the house of correction. This is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. These crimes are becoming more prevalent in Massachusetts each day. It would not surprise me to see the potential punishment increased by the legislature in the near future, particularly in light of cases such as this one where someone is injured and without financial recourse due to the fraud.

Continue Reading

| by

Rong Zhang was arrested at her Billerica, Massachusetts apartment and charged with Prostitution after police investigated incidents leading them to believe that she was running a prostitution ring from her home. The investigation started when neighbors complained about an unusual volume of activity at Zhang’s home. Apparently men would enter the property and leave about one half hour later. Police began watching the apartment and confronted a man they saw leave and enter Zhang’s home. The man said that he had responded to an add for a massage. Armed with that information the police, acting in an undercover capacity arranged for a massage of their own. When the officer entered the home he saw Zhang wearing seductive clothing. She started to negotiate fees for sexual acts. The officer then placed her under arrest. The case is pending in the Lowell District Court. Zhang has been charged with Sexual Conduct for a Fee.

Read Article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_14503995

prostitution 2.jpg

Lowell Prostitution, Sex For a Fee Lawyer

Provided Zhang has no criminal record it is likely that she will get out of this mess without a criminal record. First offense prostitution cases are either dismissed or continued without a finding. Hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer in this area can help to secure such a result. The crime is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum one year jail sentence and no minimum sentence. The act does not have to occur for the prosecution to get a conviction. Zhang was released on her own recognizance suggesting that she has either no criminal record or a very insignificant history.

Continue Reading

| by

Carlos Vergara of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Ana Maria Feliciano of Brockton were arrested after undercover police officers purchased drugs from the pair in the South Shore Plaza parking garage. According to reports this was not the first transaction involving the two in recent times. It is alleged that Vergara and Feliciano sold drugs in the Stoughton area and will be facing charges there as well. As to this incident, officers arranged to meet the two at the mall. An officer entered their car where he bought four bags of heroin and four bags of cocaine. Surveillance officers immediately descended and made the arrest. Both now face charges of Conspiracy, Distribution of Cocaine, Distribution of Heroin and a School Zone Violation. The article does not say how officers initially learned of the drug dealings of the two. Charges are pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x699611902/Couple-charged-with-selling-drugs-in-South-Shore-Plaza-garage

Heroin 2.jpg

Hand to Hand Sales of Drugs in Massachusetts

Drug sales to undercover police officers are rarely a cut and dry completely indefensible matter. Usually the officers get to the suspects through informants who provide information about the person’s drug activities. Many times the information is inaccurate. Informants often get paid for their services. They might get cash. They might get some consideration for a pending case of their own. Their pending case might even get dismissed. Police who use informants are obligated to prove that the informant was reliable, the the information he provided was truthful and at times must be sufficiently corroborated. If these standards cannot be met then the undercover “controlled” purchase might be suppressed. I have no doubt that Search and Seizure issues will come into play in this case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to the Metrowest Daily News Melissa Barbor and Larry Fitzpatrick, both of Framingham, Massachusetts have been charged with Massachusetts Drug Crimes. It was reported that shortly before 7:00 a.m. police arrived with a search warrant at their Alexander Street home. There is no indication about where the police located the drugs nor did the article reference the quantity of the substance seized. The two will be arraigned in the Framingham District Court. It is likely that the prosecution will remain in that court.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x49438535/Two-arrested-on-drug-charges-in-Framingham

cocaine packages.jpg

Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyers, Possession With Intent, Cocaine, Framingham

From this article I can assume a couple of things. One, the quantity of cocaine is less than fourteen grams. Had the police located and seized fourteen or more grams the charge would have been Trafficking rather than Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine. Two, the apartment lies within one thousand feet of a school zone. There are often successful defenses to cases such as this. If the search warrant was not properly issued the defendants can mount a constitutional challenge to the search. If a judge agrees that their rights were violated the remedy is usually suppression of the illegally seized substances. The result will be a dismissal of the case. Sufficiency of the evidence is also a defense in many cases like this one. The district attorney must prove that both defendants not only knew that the drugs were in the home but that both shared the intent to distribute the substances. Absent corroborating statements from the defendants this can be a difficult burden to sustain as to both defendants.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Sunday Sokhanara Chea of Lynn, Massachusetts was arrested in Lawrence after allegedly discharging a firearm into the air on Franklin Street. Shortly after midnight police officers patrolling that area heard four to five shots fired in the Common Street area. When they arrived at the scene they observed two men walking away from one another. One of the men opened a car door and placed something in it. Having just seen the police the individual then started to run. When he was apprehended he fought with the police. The firearm was located under the seat of the car. Five shell casings were located on the sidewalk nearby. Chea has been charged with Carrying a Firearm, Discharging a Firearm Within 500 feet of a Building and Leaving a Firearm Unattended. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Lawrence District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_055003908.html

glock21.jpg

Lawrence Massachusetts Gun Cases

Carrying a Firearm in Massachusetts is a felony in Massachusetts proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10. A conviction of this offense carries a mandatory minimum eighteen months in the house of correction. Discharging a Firearm Within 500 Feet of a Building carries no minimum mandatory sentence. To prove the carrying charge the district attorney must show that Chea had possession of the gun. This begs the question: Did he put the gun in the car? If he did and he was not licensed to carry the firearm he faces the mandatory minimum sentence. The article states that the police did not actually see him place the weapon in the car. Rather, his actions suggested that he was secreting the weapon in the car to avoid detection. This makes no sense. When the police arrived they saw two men walking in opposite directions seemingly trying to avoid the police. One of them, supposedly Chea, opened the car and put the gun in the car under the seat. This takes time and seems unlikely for someone who is trying to escape from a crime scene. A more natural reaction would be to run and throw the gun somewhere. Whose car was this? People in that neighborhood do not usually keep their cars unlocked. If it was Chea’s car why would he walk towards it and put the gun inside knowing the police were after him. As to the second charge, there is no indication that anyone actually saw him shoot the gun. This might be a defensible case.

Continue Reading

| by

Authorities allege that Michael Fitzpatrick of Malden assaulted an Arlington woman at gunpoint in the Dock Square garage yesterday at 1:00 in the afternoon and took off in her SUV. Apparently this incident was witnessed by two other women who sheltered the victim and got her out of the garage. Fitzpatrick made his escape from the garage by driving through the gate. He later drove into a taxi cab fleeing that scene as well. Fitzpatrick got into another accident in the North End and was apprehended shortly thereafter. A loaded firearm was recovered at the scene and Fitzpatrick was positively identified by the first victim. At arraignment it was learned that the defendant had been drinking a half gallon of vodka per day. This case is being prosecuted in the Boston Municipal Court. Fitzpatrick also has a case pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/man_arrested_af_5.html

carjacking.jpg

Massachusetts Carjacking Lawyers

The law on Carjacking in Massachusetts is set out in M.G.L. ch. 265 Secton 21A. It states that anyone who steals or tries to steal a motor vehicle by putting a person in fear or by assaulting the person is guilty of Carjacking, a felony. If the crime is committed with a firearm there is a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence that must be served. Given his criminal history and the nature of this offense it is likely that the district attorney will be looking for Fitzpatrick to serve some serious state prison time. A possible defense or certainly a mitigating factor is the quantity of alcohol that the defendant had ingested at or near the time of the crime.

Continue Reading

| by

Yesterday morning at about 9:30 a local taxicab driver called 911 claiming that he had been robbed at gunpoint. The complainant stated that he picked Shayne Sullivan up at his home on 256 Market Street, drove him to an address on Pawtucket Boulevard and then back to 256 Market Street. Sullivan supposedly paid the driver then placed a gun against his head and stole from him some money. When police responded and located Sullivan they were told that he had made some threatening statements. Consequently the SWAT team was called to the scene. Sullivan was apprehended. He was charged with Armed Robbery on a person over sixty years old. The case is pending in the Lowell District Court.

Read Article: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_14447660

Taxi Cab.jpg

Lowell Criminal Defense Lawyer Robbery Cases

Armed Robbery is a felony that carries with it a possible life sentence. Many times robbery cases are reduced to Larceny so that the case can be prosecuted in the district court. This occurs when the district attorney believes that there can be a fair resolution of the case can be reached without having to send the defendant to state prison. The gravity of the defendant’s actions, the impact to the victim and mental health concerns are some factors that can prompt the prosecutor to reduce the charges. Here, the gun was not real, the victim was not physically injured and the defendants’ irrational actions (i.e. robbing someone in front of his own home) suggest the possibility that this case might not be indicted.

Continue Reading

| by

In January of this year, in the case of Presley v. Georgia the United States Supreme Court ruled that included in the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is the right to have the courtroom open during the jury selection process. Presley was tried and convicted of Cocaine Trafficking in Georgia. Before the impanelment process began an individual was observed sitting in the courtroom. The person was Presley’s uncle. Over objection the trial judge excluded the defendant’s uncle until after the jury had been chosen. After his conviction Presley appealed to the Georgia appellate courts. Both its Court of Appeals and its Supreme Court affirmed the verdicts. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Georgia court rulings. In doing so the Supreme Court relied on the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Included in this right is the jury selection process. The Court in Presley recognized that in an earlier ruling under the First Amendment the public could not be excluded from the jury selection process.

United States Supreme Court.jpg

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed this rule in Commonwealth v. Cohen. Both the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court have suggested that there may be situtations where closure is necessary. In those instances however the trial court must find that the party looking to close the courtroom have an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be limited to that need and no more, the trial judge must consider reasonable alternatives and the trial court must make findings supporting the decision to close the courtroom.

Click here to read Presley v. Georgia.

Continue Reading