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

| by

Shortly before eight o’clock yesterday morning police arrested Fausto Garcia was arrested at his home in Haverhill, Massachusetts. Then, police obtained a warrant to search his home. They searched the premises and found one hundred forty grams of cocaine and more than twenty grams of heroin. Both quantities are sufficient to justify the charges of Trafficking Heroin and Trafficking Cocaine. In fact, that is exactly what Garcia has been charged with doing. The case is currently pending in the Haverhill District Court. No doubt the Essex County District Attorney’s Office will present this case to the grand jury and obtain indictments. Ultimately this case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court that usually sits in Salem. The newspapers state that weapons charges have been filed against Garcia as well.

Read Article:

Haverhill, Massachusetts Man Present When Search Warrant Is Executed Gets Charged With Trafficking After Heroin And Cocaine Seized

So what does this mean for Garcia. Well he better hire an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer who handles drug cases. He is looking at a minimum mandatory ten year sentence on the cocaine case and another five years on the heroin case. The sentences can be higher than this but usually when someone gets convicted of multiple drug offenses the sentence on the less severe cases runs concurrent with the sentence on the case requiring a greater minimum mandatory. Anytime I get a case like this one I immediately look to see if the defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated. If so, I filed a Motion to Suppress the Illegal Search and Seizure. Most of the time when these motions succeed the case gets dismissed. In this case it is critical to know what the police observed prior to arresting the defendant and what information they had, if any that drugs were in his home. It is also important to learn who else lived in the home and from what location in the home the items were seized. Sometimes these cases are triable as well, particularly where there is a strong suggestion that someone other than the defendant had possession of the drugs.

Continue Reading

| by

A Dorchester District Court Judge denied the request of a female Boston Police Officer to extend a temporary restraining order issued against a male colleague. According to The Boston Herald, the female officer claimed that the fellow officer raped her back in August when they attended a shooting competition in Connecticut and shared a hotel room. Boston.com reports that during the hearing the woman claimed that she was raped three times on August 25th in a hotel room that she shared with two other officers. According to reports, she reported the rape after determining that she was pregnant and that the defendant could be the father of the baby.

The plaintiff testified that despite her position that she is in fear of the defendant, she sent over 100 text messages to him following the alleged rapes. Additionally, she admitted that after the alleged incidents she requested to be transferred to the Special Operations Unit where the defendant was working. Although all of the facts of this case are not known, the obvious question is, if she was fearful of the defendant, why did she want to be transferred to his unit?

In Massachusetts M.G.L.c. 209A states that a person “suffering from abuse” by a “family or household member” may seek protection from such abuse by application to the court for an order requiring the defendant (among other measures) to refrain from abusing or contacting the victim. “Abuse” is defined by the statute as acts “(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm; (b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm; or (c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.” In deciding whether to issue such a c. 209A order, a judge must consider carefully whether serious physical harm is imminent. “Generalized apprehension, nervousness, feeling aggravated or hassled, i.e., psychological distress from vexing but nonphysical intercourse, when there is no threat of imminent serious physical harm, does not rise to the level of fear of imminent serious physical harm.” Criminal cases that result from an alleged violation of a restraining order are often categorized as cases of domestic violence.

According to the Boston Herald, in this case the judge held that the plaintiff could not establish the type of “relationship” that is required by the statute to extend the order. It also appears, that based on these facts, the plaintiff really did not fear the defendant because she continued to contact him. Also, the fact that the alleged incident occurred over a month ago could impugn her position that she was in fear of “imminent” physical harm.

Continue Reading

| by

“JR'”, a pseudonym, of Randolph, Massachusetts was charged with Armed Assault With Intent To Murder, Discharging a Firearm Within 500 Feet of a Building and Improper Storage of a Firearm after a dispute with his neighbor over a fence ended up in a shooting. According to reports JR and his wife were in their yard last Friday night when the neighbor went onto JR’s property to discuss an ongoing dispute regarding a fence that separates the neighbor’s properties. The discussion turned violent when JR hit the neighbor who responded by throwing a beer can at JR. Supposedly JR then pulled out a gun and shot the neighbor in the stomach. Afterwards JR tried to stop the bleeding and tended to the man’s wound. JR’s wife told police that he had been out drinking earlier in the evening and that he becomes violent when he drinks. JR is licensed to carry firearms. His bail was set at twenty thousand dollars by a judge in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Man Shoots Neighbor During Dispute Over Fence

A couple of thoughts come to mind when reading this article. Did JR act in self-defense? Even if he did the law in Massachusetts makes clear that people can use force in self defense however no one can use more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances of this case. In a case like this jurors will consider the relative sizes of the combatants, their actions and the location of this incident. Keep in mind that this happened on JR’s property suggesting that the neighbor could have been the aggressor. The neighbor used a dangerous weapon on Leonard prior to the shooting. Further actions by the neighbor not addressed in the article could give rise to a legitimate self-defense claim. The fact that JR immediately assisted the neighbor suggests that the shooting might have been an accident. An “accident” in Massachusetts is defined as an unexpected happening that occurs without intention or design on the defendant’s part. It means a sudden, unexpected event that takes place without the defendant’s intending it. Here, brandishing the gun does not necessarily mean that JR intended to fire it. The act of shooting might have been an accident, a valid defense to these charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Devin Joseph Sheehan-Powers of Boston was indicted by an Essex County Grand Jury last week following his arrest for a July 15, 2009 incident. According to reports Sheehan-Powers was observed by Lynn Police chasing down a disabled man while brandishing a knife. Law enforcement officers saw Sheehan-Powers then punch the victim in the face and steal his cell phone. The attack was described as brutal. The officers who witnessed the incident chased the defendant and were able to apprehend him shortly after observing the crime. He was found in possession of the knife and crack cocaine. Bail in the case has been set at ten thousand dollars. The case will now be transferred from the Lynn District Court to the Salem Superior Court. Sheehan-Powers has formally been charged with armed robbery, possession of cocaine, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, aggravated assault and battery, mayhem and resisting arrest.

Read Article:

Boston Man Charged With Assortment Of Violent Crimes, Drug Possession After Assault On Winthrop Man

The crime of mayhem in Massachusetts is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 14. The law states that the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the malicious intent to maim or disfigure the victim and that with that intent he “cuts out or maims the tongue, puts out or destroys an eye, cuts or tears off an ear, cuts, slits or mutilates the nose or lip, or cuts off or disables a limb or member, of another person”. Alternatively the prosecution can obtain a conviction for this crime if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, possessing the intent to “maim or disfigure, assaults another person with a dangerous weapon, substance or chemical, and by such assault disfigures, cripples or inflicts serious or permanent physical injury upon such person”. A conviction of this crime carries a potential twenty year state prison sentence. The article suggests that the prosecution in this case will be proceeding under the second theory given the victim needed eye surgery at a Boston hospital.

Continue Reading

| by

A Massachusetts man and known sex offender was arrested and charged with Attempted Rape earlier this week. Police allege that Scott Gagnon of Tewksbury assaulted a woman who was jogging on Plum Island and attempted to rape her. The woman managed to escape and call the police on her cell phone. Gagnon is a level 3 sex offender. He was convicted of sex crimes for which he had served twenty seven years in state prison in Massachusetts. Just last week Gagnon was caught soliciting a prostitute in Haverhill. He was charged and arrested with that crime as well. Gagnon, 51 is being held on fifty thousand dollars cash bail. The case is currently being prosecuted in the Newburyport District Court. It is expected that the case will be indicted and handled in the Essex County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Tewksbury, Massachusetts Man Charged With Sex Crime, Attempted Rape After Attacking Plum Island Woman

Undoubtedly the prosecution in this case will be looking for the maximum sentence authorized if Gagnon is convicted. Assault With the Intent to Commit Rape is a felony in Massachusetts proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 24. A conviction carries a possible twenty year sentence for first time offenders and life for second and subsequent offenders. This case will likely rest exclusively on the testimony of the victim. It appears that there were no witnesses to the incident. There is no mention of physical evidence corroborating the victim’s story in this article. Naturally, if such evidence does exist it makes the prosecution’s case stronger. A key strategy to Gagnon’s defense will be to try to make sure his prior convictions are not mentioned or even eluded to at trial. Most likely Gagnon will go to trial on this case unless the prosecution or a judge permits him to plead to a sentence he can accept.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Friday, after a four month investigation Joan Alberto Brea was arrested and charged with Trafficking Heroin, a School Zone Violation, and several Motor Vehicle Crimes. Brea, whose true identity has not been established is being held without bail. The investigation centered on drug dealing activities in the Mansfield Woods Condominiums. During the arrest police seized about eight thousand five hundred dollars worth of heroin, a quantity of about eighty five grams. No more information was given about the nature of the investigation.

Read Article:

Heroin Bust In Mansfield, Massachusetts Leads To Seizure Of 85 Grams

In Massachusetts there is a substantial chance that a defendant will be held without bail in a Drug Trafficking Case such as this one. The defendant’s identity is not known by law enforcement. Nor for that matter is his address. There is a strong concern that he would default and never return to court if a bail were set that he could afford to post. Roots in the community coupled with a demonstration of stability and reasons to appear in court as ordered are factors that usually result in the imposition of an affordable bail. Obviously that is not the case here.

The absence of detail in this article suggests that this investigation is far from over. 85 grams of heroin is inconsequential given the length of this investigation and the number of law enforcement officers responsible for this case. For Brea however the stakes are high. He is facing a minimum mandatory seven year state prison sentence if convicted of trafficking and another mandatory two years on top of that if he is convicted of the school zone violation. There might be some defenses to this case. The fact that he was charged with Motor Vehicle Crimes suggests that he was driving at the time of his arrest. The police must show probable cause to stop, search and make the arrest. Given the depth of this investigation I would imagine that informant information played a role in the arrest as did surveillance efforts.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that, a local teacher has been charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The paper reports that the defendant allegedly intervened in a family fight between her husband and his brother who were in a heated argument. One of the individuals was reportedly holding his twenty two month old son at the time of the incident. The teacher plead not guilty in the Lowell District Court and was released on personal recognizance.

Although all of the facts are not known at this time, in these types of situations a defendant may have a viable claim of self defense or a claim of defense of another. In Massachusetts, a person is allowed to use reasonable force in self-defense when this is necessary to protect herself from physical harm. And therefore it is not a crime to strike at another person if this is done in reasonable self-defense. Similarly, an person can also use reasonable force to protect another from physical harm.
In Massachusetts, in addition to proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self defense. In order to prevail the government must prove that one or more of the following three requirements are absent:

First: For the defendant to have acted in self-defense, she must have reasonably believed that she was being attacked or was immediately about to be attacked, and that her personal safety was in immediate danger; and
Second: For the defendant to have acted in self-defense, she must have done everything that was reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force;
Third: For the defendant to have acted in self-defense, she must have used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to defend herself.

When a case involves a fight between family members it is often categorized as a case of domestic violence. Often, the prosecutor and the police recommend that the alleged victim obtain a restraining order. If you have been served with a restraining order you should contact an attorney to try to prevent the extension of the order. Although a restraining order is a civil order, if the complainant reports a violation you can be charged with a criminal offense.

Continue Reading

| by

Police in Quincy, Massachusetts were surveilling a parking lot at a supermarket this past Tuesday night. They saw two men arrive in a car and make a cell phone call. No one got out of the car. The car then left and went to a nearby Burger King. The police observed someone from another car get into the one they were watching. The police then descended on the vehicle and made arrests. They charged Gilbert Torres of Boston, the driver with Heroin Distribution. Robert Cefalo, the man who got into the car was charged with Heroin Possession. Michael Evans was charged with Knowingly Being Present Where Heroin is Kept as was Christopher Bates. The case is now pending in the Quincy District Court.

Four Massachusetts Men To Be Prosecuted For Heroin Crimes In Quincy

As with most drug cases the district attorney will have to fight a challenge to the constitutionality of the stop of the car. Massachusetts courts have made clear that just being in a high crime area is not enough to justify a stop. Nor for that matter is walking away from police officers. Similarly, if the area where the police observed the defendants is considered a high crime area that does not permit a stop and search of the car. What then did the officers in this case have for probable cause to stop the car? According to this article nothing but a hunch. That is not sufficient to permit the intrusion and without more would require suppression.

Continue Reading

| by

Haverhill, Massachusetts police along with other local law enforcement agencies arrested five people for drug dealing activities near the 99 Restaurant in Haverhill yesterday late afternoon. It was reported that Christen Agnew, Robert Condon, Julie Gill, Tina Brady and Alex Hernandez were all arrested. Agnew and Condon have been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Class B and Conspiracy. Agnew has also been charged with Distribution of Cocaine along with a Motor Vehicle Crime. Gill and Brady were both charged with Possession of Cocaine, a Class B substance. Hernandez, a Lawrence, Massachusetts resident was picked up on an outstanding warrant for Trafficking Heroin. The cases are now pending in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Charges of Possession With Intent to Distribute Cocaine, Possession and Distribution Filed Against 5 Locals Arrested In Haverhill

Suspicions regarding the legality of the stop and arrest always come to mind when reading articles like this one. What were the police doing in the parking lot? Were they conducting a surveillance, and if so, why? Were they involved in a controlled buy? Were they simply acting on a hunch? While the article does not address these concerns it would be safe to assume that this was not a chance encounter and that a motion to suppress will be filed on behalf of at least one of the defendants. If they recognized Alex Hernandez and knew that there existed a warrant for his trafficking activity they had every reason to arrest him. Not so however for the other four.

If Gill, Condon, Brady and Agnew do not have criminal records their cases might be resolved by continuing the cases without a finding in which case they will be placed on probation. If they successfully comply with their probationary terms the cases will be dismissed on a designated date. If they do have criminal records an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Defense Lawyer might be able to get the charges dismissed by challenging the legality of the arrest and search or perhaps challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Continue Reading

| by

Bruce Sartwell of Abington, Massachusetts has been charged with extortion. It is alleged that Sartwell, who owns a tattoo parlor and another Outlaws Motorcycle Club member confronted a nearby pizzeria owner to ask if he intended to open a tattoo parlor upstairs. He responded that he did intend to do so. One of the motorcycle members told him that that was a bad idea. The complainant responded that he did not ask for their opinion and that he would open a tattoo parlor if he wanted to. Supposedly either the defendant or his friend made an arguably threatening remark about damaging the pizzeria owner’s building. By his own admission the complainant made clear that the defendant denied threatening him or his building by stating that he was not threatening him and that threats as such would be illegal. Nevertheless the pizza shop owner called the police. They arrested Sartwell and charged him with extortion. The case is pending in the Brockton District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motorcycle Gang Member Charged With Extortion In Brockton

The crime of extortion in Massachusetts is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 25. The law states that anyone who threatens another with injury to his person or property in order to extort money or gain a pecuniary advantage is guilty of extortion, a felony in Massachusetts. A conviction of this crime is punishable by a maximum fifteen year state prison sentence or two and one half years in jail. Most likely this case will be prosecuted in the district court where it is now pending.

This case might be difficult for the district attorney to prove. It is the word of the pizza parlor owner against that of the defendant and his friend. Keep in mind that the “victim” in this case is a business competitor of the defendant’s. His self-proclaimed bravado about standing up to the defendant and his friend is tough to swallow. He is able to stand up to these men yet decides later to call the police due to a perceived threat? This sounds a bit sketchy. Perhaps it is the complainant who is trying to gain a competitive advantage in his business over the defendant by making this complaint.

Continue Reading