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

| by

Charges of possession of a firearm, possession of a loaded firearm and possession of ammunition were dismissed against Lynn Massachusetts last week in a local district court. The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred on April 17, 2008. According to the police report, the police responded to the area of Route 1 in Peabody Massachusetts for a call of a woman being run down by a motor vehicle. After responding to the scene, the police spoke to the involved parties, and transported the female defendant back to her residence. When the police arrived at the residence the defendant’s boyfriend was also there. The defendant was ultimately arrested on an outstanding default warrant.

The defendant was transported in a cruiser to the State Police Barracks in Danvers, MA. After she was taken from the cruiser and into the police station the Trooper searched the car and claimed that he found a loaded handgun in stuffed behind the rear seat of the cruiser. No-one ever identified the defendant as in possession of this weapon.

The defendant maintained her innocence from the outset of the set. There was no physical evidence that connected her to the gun. Our Attorney timely filed a number of pre-trial motions requesting copies of any notes, logs or other documentation generated as a result of the transportation of any individual in the cruiser that the defendant was transported in for a period of one week prior to this incident. The request also included all police reports generated in connection with this case. Massachusetts also requires the prosecution to provide automatic discovery of “any facts of an exculpatory nature.” M.R.C.P. 14 (a)(1)(iii). It was clear that the intent of requesting the information relative to individuals transported in the cruiser was to determine whether anyone else was in the cruiser that was involved in a “firearm” related incident. No information was forwarded to the defense relative to this request prior to trial.

On the day of trial, the prosecutor approached the defense attorney and indicated that the arresting trooper informed her that prior to the defendant’s arrest he had been called to back up the State Police in Concord relative to a report, by a named caller who gave his cell number, of a group of individuals in a truck with a gun. Apparently, there were three individuals in the truck that matched the description given by the caller. The individuals were taken from the truck. One of these “suspects” was placed in the rear of the Trooper’s cruiser. The same cruiser in which the Trooper found the alleged firearm after the defendant’s arrest. There was handgun ammunition, shot gun shells, controlled substances and alcohol found in the truck. The driver of the truck was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a Class D substance, illegal possession of ammunition and illegal possession of alcohol. The judge granted the defendant a continuance to investigate the incident. Based on the late disclosure of the requested exculpatory evidence, Our Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Almost fifteen months after the incident the caller could not be located and the 911 tape had been destroyed. Despite the efforts of an experienced investigator, the named caller could not be located and the cell phone number no longer belonged to the individual that made the call fifteen months earlier. After an extended hearing the district court judge agreed that the fact that the Trooper had placed an individual in his cruiser who was suspected of being in possession of a handgun only a few hours before the defendant was placed in the cruiser should have been disclosed to the defendant pursuant to the discovery orders rather than seventeen months later on the day of trial. The trial judge held that the late disclosure caused irremediable harm to the defendant’s case and dismissed the charges against the defendant.

This case exemplifies the importance of filing all relevant pre-trial motions. Experienced defense attorneys often file pre-trial motions including discovery motions, motions to suppress, motions to dismiss and motions to compel in order to effectively represent their clients and protect their rights to due process and a fair trial.

Continue Reading

| by

Sean Dodd of Taunton, Massachusetts has been arrested and charged with Rape of a Child By Force. The victim is the daughter of his girlfriend with whom he lived. The prosecution alleges that the thirty one year old Dodd sexually abused and raped the girl over a three year period, beginning when she was twelve years old. When the victim was fifteen her boyfriend convinced her that what Dodd was doing was wrong. She then confronted him in an effort to end the abuse. She claimed that while doing so she was struck by Dodd. The police investigated the assault but were never informed about the sexual abuse. One of the victim’s friends’ apparenty told her the victim’s mother about the Rapes at which point Dodd was kicked out of the house. The victim’s mother has recently taken out a Restraining Order against Dodd. The case in now pending in the Taunton District Court but will probably be prosecuted for Rape in the Bristol County Superior Court in New Bedford.

Read Article:

Taunton, Massachusetts Man Charged With Raping Girl Over Three Year Period

These cases are difficult to defend even under the best circumstances. A likely scenario is that there is no physical evidence linking Dodd to the crimes and that there are no eyewitnesses. The case will rest solely on the complaining witnesses’ testimony. How then can Dodd effectively rebut these accusations? It is tough because jurors often ask: “Why would the girl lie about something as heinous as this?” Perhaps Dodd will be able to show that the girl had a reason for lying. Maybe she sought attention from her mother or her boyfriend. Maybe she hated Dodd for reasons that do not implicate criminal conduct on his part. You can explore many of the reasons for false sexual abuse allegations by reading the Nichols Consulting Blog or Website. For Dodd the battle is just beginning.

Continue Reading

| by

Cambridge, Massachusetts police arrested Ricky White of Dorchester for dealing cocaine in Central Square last week. According to reports, just after midnight a Cambridge Police Sergeant was on patrol when he noticed White behind the wheel of his idling car. White, who was on his cell phone drove around the block, parked and entered a local housing project. White returned to his car and was followed by the officer. The officer then reported that White failed to use a turn signal and a stop was effectuated. Upon contacting the defendant the officer smelled marijuana and saw a bag of marijuana inside a larger bag in plain view in the car. A search of White and the car followed. Seized in the course of the investigation were Suboxone pills, Vicodin pills, five bags of cocaine totaling twenty five grams, over two thousand dollars cash and some marijuana. White his being charged with trafficking cocaine over fourteen grams, possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, possession with the intent to distribute a Class B substance and more. The case is now pending in the Cambridge District Court however once an indictment issues the case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn.

Read Article:

Dorchester, Massachusetts Man Caught With Marijuana And Cocaine Faces Trafficking Charges In Middlesex County

The defense of this case will center on the legality of the officer’s stop of the vehicle, search of its contents and White and the subsequent seizure of the drugs. Defense attorneys will file a motion to suppress. It will be up to a judge to determine whether or not the officer had probable cause to stop the car and conduct the following search. The credibility of the officer becomes critical at this point. Here is what I see as potential flaws in the prosecution of this case. Obviously the officer had his suspicions of White. He saw him on his cell phone with his car idling. White then drove around and went into the projects for a short visit. To the officer this was suspicious activity. So what did he do? He followed White and looked for him to “slip up”. He then claims that White failed to use a turn signal so he stopped him. Is this true? I mean after all according to the officer White properly operated his car prior to entering the projects without incident. Why then suddenly abandon such caution after supposedly making a drug deal? Then, after the stop the officer detects the smell of marijuana. Come on now. The bag was sealed and inside another bag. White was not charged with operating under the influence of marijuana nor did the officer say that he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. A good idea in this case for the motion to suppress might be to place the bag of marijuana near the judge at the same distance as it was from the officer when he stopped White. Then see if the judge smells the marijuana during the hearing. I doubt he or she will.

Continue Reading

| by

Twenty-three year old Fidel Sena, from Peabody Massachusetts, has been arrested and charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury on a fifty-three year old man. According to The Salem News, Salem police officers responded to a report relative to a fight involving the use of baseball bats. When the police arrived at the scene the fifty-three year old victim was lying on the ground. He was eventually transported to the Salem Hospital for treatment. A witness provided the police with a license plate number and description of the alleged perpetrator. According to reports, witnesses were brought to where the police pulled over the car and they identified Sena as the perpetrator.

In Massachusetts, in order for the Commonwealth to prove assault and battery it must prove that a defendant touched another person without consent. Assault and battery is considered a misdemeanor in Massachusetts because the maximum sentence is a commitment to jail or a house of correction and not state prison. However, the charge of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon is a felony because the potential punishment is a commitment to state prison.

If you have been charged with a crime in Massachusetts, you must have an experienced defense attorney on your side. Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, filing a motion to suppress the identification of the defendant may be appropriate because it appears that the police brought the witnesses to the suspect for a one on one show up identification. In these types of case, pre-trial motions requesting the circumstances surrounding the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator should be filed to determine the viability of filing motion to suppress the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator.

Additionally, if you have been charged with domestic assault and battery a qualified defense attorney is important to ensure that all of your rights are protected. In the event that a complaining witness applies for a restraining order and you are notified of a hearing relative to the issuance or extension of a restraining order, you must have an experienced Boston area domestic violence attorney on your side. You must be informed of all of your rights and options to avoid making statements and giving testimony at a restraining order hearing that may be used against you at trial or be the grounds for additional charges issuing against you.

Continue Reading

| by

Fidel Sena was arrested yesterday after being identified as the perpetrator of an assault and battery with a baseball bat on an unnamed fifty three year old Salem, Massachusetts man. Salem Police were called around 9:30 p.m. to a location where there was a fight with bats. They arrived to find the victim on the ground. A witness identified the car that Sena was driving and provided the police with its license plate number. Sena was stopped and arrested. The case will be prosecuted in the Salem District Court for now. The victim’s medical condition was not released however it was reported that he was not bleeding from the head at the scene. Felony charges of Assault and Battery By Means of a Dangerous Weapon have likely issued.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Man Charged With Assault And Battery By Means Of A Dangerous Weapon After Hitting Fifty Three Year Old With A Baseball Bat

There are a couple of issues that immediately come to mind when reading this article. One is: Who saw what? Police responded to a fight with bats. Does that mean that the victim had a bat as well? Does that mean that he too was a combatant? If so, self-defense can be considered as a defense to these charges. If there were no witnesses to the actual incident and if in fact the “victim” and Sena were engaged in a fight, Sena can file an application for a complaint against the victim. Additionally, if the victim were the initial aggressor he might not be inclined to testify against the defendant. I would also imagine that the status of the victim’s medical condition will determine at least in part how the prosecution develops.

Continue Reading

| by

After a Clerk’s Hearing in the Newburyport District Court Alan T. Pearsall, of West Newbury, Massachusetts was charged with Motor Vehicle Homicide. On June 25, 2009 Pearsall was involved in an accident with a motorcycle that ended in the death of Haverhill, Massachusetts couple Earl and Maryella Morris. It was reported that Pearsall crossed over the center of the street to avoid a bicyclist. In doing so he entered lane in which the Morris’ were traveling. A police accident reconstructionist formed the opinion that Pearsall was attempting to get back into his lane of travel and that the Morris’ tried to avoid the collision by putting the motorcycle on its left side. Apparently Morris denied being at fault when interviewed by police at the scene. Morris was surprised when police accused him of being in the wrong lane of traffic at the time of the crash. He is being charged with Motor Vehicle Homicide in the Newburyport District Court.

Read Article:

Motor Vehicle Homicide Charges Issued Against Massachusetts Man Involved In Fatal Collision

The standard for issuing Criminal Complaints in Massachusetts is low and Pearsall should not be surpised that he must now defend against serious criminal charges. The standard that the prosecution must show is that there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. Clerk Magistrates will often lean towards issuing the complaints particularly in cases like this one where death or serious bodily injury resulted. So now Pearsall has to defend against these charges. How is he going to do this? Without hesitation I would recommend engaging a private accident reconstructionist to determine how the crash occurred. The article seems to suggest that this accident was entirely Pearsall’s fault. There is however no reference to the speed of the vehicles involved. Nor is there any explanation as to why the victims veered left as opposed to right, the seemingly more natural direction to take in an effort to avoid the crash. What if anything did any independent witnesses observe either during or just before the crash? What happened after the crash that might have resulted in Pearsall’s car coming to rest in the position in which it was found? There are hundreds of questions like these that our accident reconstructionists explore when assisting our office in the preparation of defenses in cases such as this one.

Continue Reading

| by

Prosecutors in Essex County Massachusetts say that Kimberly Mastronardi, a Marblehead resident stole over one half million dollars in a five year period from her employer. It is alleged that she did so by submitting false payroll records in her capacity of bookkeeper of a small plumbing company. Mastronardi’s employer got wind of this situation when earlier this year when vendors complained of not getting paid. Earlier this year police were alerted to the company’s suspicions. In March Mastronardi was arrested and charged for the criminal activity in the Lynn District Court. Bail has been set at five thousand dollars. This is not Mastronardi’s first brush with the law. In 1998 she was arrested on similar charges when an employer claimed that she stole approximately one hundred thousand dollars. She was also employed as a bookkeeper at that time. In 2002 the defendant was convicted of improper use of a credit card out of Salem.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Woman With History Of Theft Accused Of Larceny From Employer

Given the amount of money stolen from the employer I would be surprised if the prosecution of this case remains in the district court. Usually district attorneys indict cases like this one and prosecuted the defendants in the Superior Court. This permits the prosecution to ask for more jail time after a conviction. It also gives a judge discretion to sentence to a county house of correction or state prison. It appears like this case will be indicted as a “larceny by scheme“, notwithstanding the fact that there were several larcenies associated with the defendant’s conduct. To be convicted of that crime the prosecution must prove that successive takings were “actuated by a single, continuing criminal impulse or intent or are pursuant to the execution of a general larcenous scheme, such successive takings constitute a single larceny, regardless of the extent of the time which may have elapsed between each taking.”

Continue Reading

| by

Twenty-two year old Anthony Merrill of Lynn Massachusetts is charged with assault with intent to murder and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon relating to a stabbing that occurred in Hammond Park in Marblehead. According to The Salem News, Merrill approached a Salem Massachusetts man from behind and stabbed him. A witness reported observing an individual in the park prior to the assault with two shiny objects. It has been reported that Merrill had two steak knives in his hand when he approached the victim. Initially the victim believed that he had been struck by a rock and chased after his assailant. The victim’s friend alerted him to the fact that he had a knife sticking out of his back. Two bloody steak knives were confiscated from the scene. It is believed that the attack was unprovoked. Following his arraignment in the judge ordered that the defendant be held on $25,000.00 cash bail. The defendant was identified based on witness descriptions and photographic identifications made by witnesses.

Based on the facts of this case, it seems that a viable defense is that the defendant has been mistakenly identified as the culprit. In Massachusetts, presenting a defense of mistaken identification can be successful in situations, such as this one, where the defendant was not identified until a period of time passed and it does not appear that the parties knew one another. Furthermore, the fact that this incident took place at night could strengthen the defendant’s position that he has been misidentified.

A successful Boston area defense attorney would likely file a pre-trial motion requesting that the Commonwealth disclose the details of any and all identification procedures. After gathering this information a decision must be made relative to whether a motion to suppress the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator should be filed. The grounds for this type of motion often include that the identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive either by the conduct of the police or the circumstances under which the identification was made. If the Court allows the defendant’s motion then the out of court identification is suppressed. At this point, the Commonwealth must demonstrate that any in court identification is based on a source independent from the tainted prior identification. In most cases, when the identification of a defendant is suppressed the case would be dismissed.

Continue Reading

| by

A twenty one year old woman was sitting on her porch late last week when Pamphra Mulondo of Framingham, Massachusetts rode his bike by home. He stopped, pulled down his fly and fondled himself for two minutes. The woman then walked to a local drug store and saw Mulondo again. She became nervous and asked store employees to contact the police. The defendant was arrested and charged with open and gross lewdness and disorderly person. The case is pending in the Framingham District Court.

Read Article:

Framingham Man Charged With Sex Crime After Fondling Himself In Front Of Woman

Open and gross lewdness in Massachusetts is a felony proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16. A conviction of this offense carries a possible three year state prison sentence or a two year house of correction sentence if the district attorney chooses to prosecute the case in the district court. This crime requires the district attorney to prove that the defendant intentionally, indecently and offensively exposed himself in such a way as to produce alarm. To convict someone of this crime a jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in such a way as to alarm or shock. Here, the actions of the defendant appear to satisfy the elements of this offense. If he does not have a criminal record a good lawyer should be able to get this matter continued without a finding.

Continue Reading

| by

An undercover sting operation to catch a Lawrence man allegedly breaking into neighborhood cars paid off. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, police officers went undercover to catch the person breaking into the vehicles. A citizen reported that a man was loitering in the area of Methuen Street in Lawrence. The police responded and saw twenty-five year old Jose Rivera walking away from a parked car with its alarm sounding. The officer, who was in an unmarked cruiser, saw that a nearby car had its window broken and Rivera had screwdrivers in his pocket and a GPS base and charge chord in his pants. Rivera was arrested and charged with breaking and entering a vehicle in the daytime with intent to commit a felony, larceny over $250.00, possession of burglarious tools and malicious destruction of property over $250.00.

In Massachusetts, if you are charged with any type of theft crime it is important to have an experienced defense attorney on your side. In order for the prosecution to secure a conviction, they must prove all of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important that your Massachusetts trial attorney knows the law and all of the elements of the crime with which you are charged.

For example, in order for the prosecution to secure a conviction for possession of burglarious instruments in violation of G.L.c. 266, § 49,the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant possessed “an engine, machine, tool or implement adapted and designed for cutting through, forcing or breaking open a building, room, vault, safe or other depository, in order to steal there from money or other property, or to commit any other crime, knowing the same to be adapted and designed for the purpose aforesaid, with intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed for such purpose . . .”

In Massachusetts, many defendants are charged with possession of burglarious tools simply because they are found with pliers, wrenches and other tools in their possession. However, mere possession of these objects, even at what is believed to have been a crime scene, is not sufficient to prove that the items were “burglarious.” The trial judge must instruct and the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant possessed the item or tool with the intent to use it to break into a vehicle or residence. Mere possession of a tool is not enough for a conviction. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant had the specific intent to use the tool to enter the car or residence.

Continue Reading