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

| by

Dimitrios Paicopoulos is twenty seven years old. He is from Newton, Massachusetts. Just last week Mr. Paicopoulos found himself in some trouble. A narcotics task force arrested him at his home. They conducted a search of his home, presumably pursuant to a search warrant. They found over ten thousand dollars cash, some narcotics packaging materials and over seven hundred eighty milligram Oxycontin pills. According to reports this investigation started after numerous neighbors complained about what they believed to be drug activity in their neighborhood. Bail for Mr. Paicopoulos has been set at one hundred thousand dollars in the Newton District Court. The defendant now faces drug trafficking charges.

Read Article:

Oxycontin Bust Results In Seizure Of over 700 Pills, Trafficking Charges For Massachusetts Man

So what actually happened here? Well, if neighbors truly complained about the suspected drug activity in their neighborhood the law enforcement investigation that commenced likely did so with a surveillance of the home. Police officers might have observed unusual traffic into the property such as a vast array of frequent visitors entering and leaving the premises after very short visits. The police probably stopped one of the visitors and located drugs on that person. That person then told the police that he or she had just purchased certain drugs from the defendant. The police would then learn how the defendant would be contacted for such drug activity. They would next enlist an undercover officer, one of the purchasers who they had just stopped or a confidential informant to get a better perspective on the quantity of drugs that Paicopoulos could supply. Once controlled buys proved successful a warrant was obtained for the arrest of the defendant and a search of his home.

There are many possible defenses to this crime such as attacking the legality of the search warrant or putting the district attorney to the constitutional task of proving that the drugs seized belonged to the defendant and not someone else who resided in the home. Cases like this are often won with challenges to the constitutionality of the search through motions to suppress. A motion to dismiss based on an Insufficiency of the evidence can be a method of attacking as well.

Continue Reading

| by

Pembroke, Massachusetts police responded to a call for a woman who claimed to have been beaten and strangled by her boyfriend, Dennis Roberts. According to reports the two were at home arguing when the defendant pushed the woman to the floor. He then tried to strangle her, threatened to kill her if she called the police and then took her cell phone. The girlfriend succeeded in calling the police who arrested Roberts. The woman was taken to a hospital in Brockton for treatment. Dennis was arraigned in the Hingham District Court. Bail was set in the amount of five thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Pembroke Massachusetts Man Charged With Attempted Murder

Most likely this case will be prosecuted in the Hingham District Court rather than the Plymouth County Superior Court. While incidents of Domestic Violence are often prosecuted in the Superior Court the magnitude of the assault usually dictates where the district attorney’s office will handle the case. While this case is serious the facts pale in comparison to many instances of domestic violence. Take for example the case of Richard T. Lowry, a forty eight year old Peabody, Massachusetts man who was charged with multiple counts of domestic assault and battery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault with a knife, intimidation of a witness, kidnapping and attempted murder. Lowry was held without bail after it was alleged that he beat his wife while holding their infant child, kicked her with his military boots and put a knife to her throat.

The strength of Domestic Assault and Battery Cases often depends on the willingness of the victim to assist the district attorney with the prosecution. A large percentage of these cases are dismissed due to the victim’s refusal to testify against his or her spouse or significant other. If there are no independent witness to the crime then prosecuting can be very difficult if not impossible.

Continue Reading

| by

Last year, on June 28, 2008 Boston, Massachusetts resident Michael Wilder was at a party in Ashland, Massachusetts. The alleged victim was there at the same time. Apparently she was not feeling well and went outside. It is at that time that the woman claims that Wilder assaulted her. The victim reported the incident that day and Wilder was arrested by members of the Ashland Police Department and charged with Rape and Assault and Battery. Charges initially issued in the Framingham District Court and bail was set in the amount of ten thousand dollars. Now that Wilder has been indicted the case will be prosecuted in the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn. According to reports Wilder has an open drug case in Waltham as well.

Boston Man To Face Rape Charges Stemming From Incident At A Party One Year Ago

In looking at this case here are some things that a Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer might be looking at. What information can other people who were at the party provide? Did the victim come back into the party after the alleged and if so what was her demeanor? Is there any physical evidence, i.e. DNA, pubic hair or saliva corroborating the victim’s complaints? How long after the act was the complaint made? Why did it take over one year to indict the case? During the discovery process and in the course of trial preparation these questions will likely be answered.

Continue Reading

| by

It appears that the recent robbery of the Dunkin’ Donuts located at 334 Lynnway in Lynn Massachusetts was an inside job. According to the Lynn Item, an employee of the establishment, 43-year-old Margaret Young and her boyfriend, Theron Grady conspired to rob the coffee shop during Young’s shift. It has been reported that the police responded to the location as the result of a call for a robbery in progress. The responding officers spoke with Young and another employee who maintained that a Hispanic male dressed in gray had jumped over the counter and stole money. Although Young failed to identify her boyfriend as the culprit, the other employee positively identified Grady as the robber. It is also alleged that Grady is on a video tape jumping over the counter and taking an undetermined amount of cash. When the couples’ scheme was apparently exposed the woman was fired and the pair is facing charges of unarmed robbery, conspiracy to commit a crime and malicious destruction of property. According to reports, Young directed an employee to “go home” prior to the robbery and face an additional charge of intimidation of a witness.

In Massachusetts, if the defendants do not have extensive criminal records there is a chance that the Essex County District Attorney’s Office will reduce the unarmed robbery charge to larceny of property. A reduction in the charge will enable the case to be resolved in the district court as opposed to the superior court. The charge of unarmed robbery can only be prosecuted in the superior court. However, the charge of larceny over $250.00 can be proceed in the district court.

In Massachusetts, in order for the Commonwealth to prove larceny, it must establish that the defendant took the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. If you have been charged with any crime it is important that you have a Lynn criminal lawyer on your side. Depending on the facts of the case, it is important to develop a theory of defense as soon as possible. In this case, it appears that the Commonwealth will have to proceed against Young under the theory of joint venture. In Massachusetts, the test relative to whether a defendant is a “joint venturer” is whether the defendant was (1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with the knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement is willing and available to help the other if necessary.

Continue Reading

| by

Authorities in Hudson, Massachusetts have charged John Resendes with breaking and entering, rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, intimidation of a witness, assault with intent murder, domestic assault and battery, kidnapping and resisting arrest. According to reports at 4:30 in the morning Resendes broke into a woman’s, entered her bedroom and assaulted her. The woman was someone with whom Resendes had a relationship. The possible cause of the incident stems from Resendes seeing her with another man earlier in the day. As the woman tried to escape the attack the defendant threw her to the ground and sexually assaulted her. She was able to call 911. The prosecution further claims that Resendes threatened the victim with a knife by holding it against her throat and suggesting that he would kill her. All charges are now pending in the Marlborough District Court. Resendes is being held without bail. The victim refused medical treatment.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Man Charged With Sexual Assault, Kidnapping

In the context of this case all of these charges are serious. The rape charge itself carries a potential life sentence. Factually however this charge is not supported by this article. To be convicted of rape the district attorney must show that the defendant (Resendes) engaged in sexual intercourse, either natural or unnatural with the complainant; and that the sexual intercourse was accomplished by compelling the complainant to submit by force or threat of bodily injury and against her will. Natural intercourse consists of inserting the penis into the female sex organ. Unnatural sexual intercourse includes oral and anal intercourse, including fellatio and cunnilingus, and other intrusions of a part of a person’s body or other object into the genital or anal opening of another’s body. Either natural or unnatural sexual intercourse is complete on penetration, no matter how slight, of a person’s genital or anal opening. In addition to the vagina, the female genital opening includes the anterior parts known as the vulva and labia. Penetration into the vagina itself is not required. The article makes no mention of what acts Resendes committed to satisfy the elements of the crime of rape.

Continue Reading

| by

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. – (June 25, 2009), the United States Supreme Court held that in a prosecution for a drug offense the introduction of certificates of analysis from Massachusetts drug crime laboratories violated a defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him at a trial. The Supreme Court recognized that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Court has been narrowing the exceptions that state courts have carved from the Constitution to make prosecutions easier and more convenient for the government. Melendez-Diaz relied on the holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004) in which the Court reaffirmed the basic tenet of the constitution that a defendant has a right to confront those “who ‘bear testimony’” against him. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004).

Melendez-Diaz, affirmed Crawford’s holding that a witness’s testimony against a defendant is thus inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. In Melendez-Diaz, the Court discussed that the Crawford opinion described the class of testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause as follows: “Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Id., at 51–52. The Court held that relative to a Massachusetts drug “certificate,” which the court concluded was the functional equivalent of an affidavit, there is little doubt that the document fell within the “core class of testimonial statements.”

This landmark decision will have the effect of forcing the government to meet its burden in all Massachusetts drug cases. Based on the language in the opinion, it also appears Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys should object during the prosectuion of gun offenses to the admission of ballistic certificates when the District Attorney moves to introduce them without a live witness. The reasoning in Melendez-Diaz requires the exclusion of the certificate as rank hearsay and a violation of the defendant’s rights to confront witnesses against him or her.

Continue Reading

| by

Trevor Brooks and another Hamilton, Massachusetts man along with Camilla Lambert of Manchester will likely be charged in the Ipswich District Court, (now merged with the Newburyport District Court) with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor and attempting to start a fire. According to reports a security guard at Gordon College found the three in the music center on the campus. None of the three are enrolled in the school and when asked what they were doing on the property they made some untrue statements. Apparently and for some inexplicably reason the group lit and eraser on fire. The three denied breaking into the property instead claiming that they gained entry through an unlocked door. One of the three defendants later went to the Wenham Police Station to make a statement about his involvement in the matter.

Two From Hamilton Massachusetts And Another From Manchester Charged With Breaking And Entering, Related Crimes

While there is obviously much missing from this article there stands a very good chance that this case will remain in the district court. The crime of Breaking and Entering With the Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 16A. A conviction for that offense carries a maximum six month house of correction sentence. Attempting to start a fire is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 5A. This crime is a felony and is punishable by up to state prison. If the defendants do not have criminal records there is a chance that this case will be resolved by a continuance without a finding. That type of disposition in Massachusetts provides a break for the defendant. Here is how that works. The judge will agree to continue the case for a specified period of time. During that time period if the defendant stays out of criminal legal trouble the case will ultimately be dismissed. I would imagine that something along these lines with certain conditions such as community service or restitution is a way in which this case might be finalized.

Continue Reading

| by

Just the other day Boston, Massachusetts police arrested Amando Avila, a thirty four man from Newton, Massachusetts. The charges, trafficking more than two hundred grams of heroin. It is alleged that Avila tried to sell two kilograms of pure heroin to an undercover police officer. According to reports Avila’s overall role in heroin trafficking is unknown at this time. He will however stand charged with trafficking and a school zone violation in Suffolk County. The case will no doubt be indicted by a grand jury and prosecuted in the Suffolk County Superior Court.

Read Article:

Boston Massachusetts Police Make Heroin Arrest, Man Charged With Trafficking, School Zone Violation

Trafficking heroin over 200 grams in Massachusetts is a felony punishable by a minimum mandatory 15 year state prison sentence. The school zone adds another minimum mandatory 2 years to the sentence. If convicted of these charges Avila will have to serve 17 years in a Massachusetts state prison. Here are some of the problems he faces in terms of defending this case. The quantity of heroin is enormous by Massachusetts standards. Two kilo heroin cases are not common in this state. The purity is a major issue. The Boston Police claim that the street value of this seizure is over two hundred thousand dollars. The greater the purity the more likely the substance will be diluted prior to distribution so that the profits of the drug dealers increase. The final street product of the heroin seized would be substantial. It would end up serving a great number of heroin users by the time it was ultimately cut up and sold. Hand to hand sales to undercover officers are very difficult to defend. When these cases are won they are usually done so through motions to suppress. At trial, the only defenses to cases such as this are duress or entrapment. Avila’s lawyers have lots of work ahead of them.

Continue Reading

| by

Law enforcement officials received information that Halison Hernandez of Lynn, Massachusetts was selling cocaine as part of a large scale operation. Accordingly they started an investigation. During the course of their efforts local police agencies were able to infiltrate the organization with an undercover officer who made several purchases of large quantities of cocaine from Hernandez. The investigation lasted several months. Just two days ago the work of the police culminated in a controlled buy. An undercover office paid Hernandez sixty two thousand dollars for two kilograms of cocaine. Hernandez was arrested as were Joel Gonzalez of Lynn, Massachusetts and Ryan Fulti of Salem, Massachusetts. Gonzalez and Fulti were in a separate car that was used to deliver the drugs for Hernandez. All men have been charged with Trafficking Cocaine Over 200 Grams. The case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court.

Read Article: Massachusetts Men From Essex County Charged With Cocaine Trafficking

Trafficking Cocaine in Massachusetts in an amount that exceeds two hundred grams carries the most severe punishment. Assuming there is no school zone violation the defendants face a minimum mandatory fifteen year state prison sentence. Hand to hand sales to undercover police officers are very difficult to defend. Usually the only defense to one of these cases involves entrapment. As I have mentioned in prior blog posts, entrapment occurs when the idea to commit certain crimes is provided by law enforcement or one of its agents and the target or defendant is not predisposed to commit the crime. There must be a showing of an effort on the part of the police to overcome the will of the defendant and essentially make him commit the crime or leave him with the understanding that he has no choice but to commit the criminal act.

Continue Reading

| by

Fifty-two year old Mariano Liriano of Lawrence Massachusetts was arrested and charged with indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years old. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that a seventeen year old girl accused Liriano of putting his hand on her leg and moving it up. According to the Tribune, the pair knew one another. The woman told Liriano to stop and he gave her a ride home. When she returned home she called the police. Liriaano was arrested at his home and charged with indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen.

In Massachusetts, the crime of indecent assault and battery is a felony. A conviction for this offense carries a sentence of up to two years in jail or five years in state prison. See, M.G.L.A. 265 § 13H.

In Massachusetts, there are two theories under which the government can prosecute a person for assault and battery. The most common one is the intentional touching of another person without consent. A second way in which a person may be found guilty of assault and battery us when, instead of engaging in intentional conduct, an individual engages in reckless conduct that results in physical injury.When the police respond to a call for a “domestic violence” the police generally place someone under arrest. If you find yourself in this situation you must contact an experienced domestic violence attorney to protect your rights and ensure that a civil restraining order does not issue requiring you stay away from your home, your children or your spouse. Although a restraining order is considered a civil order if you are charged with violating that order it is criminal offense.

Continue Reading