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

| by

Last Saturday John Murphy, a twenty two year man from Marblehead, Massachusetts was arrested and charged with rape of a child with force and drugging a person for sexual intercourse. He is now being held on a fifty thousand dollar bail that was set in the Lynn District Court. According to reports the victim is a fourteen year old girl. She was at a local playground two weeks ago and met with the defendant. Shortly thereafter police were called to the playground where they found the girl passed out. She was taken to a local hospital and then Boston’s Children’s Hospital where she underwent a sexual assault screen and full toxicology examination. Alcohol and prescription drugs were found at the scene. From the article it is unclear how the police linked Murphy to the assault and just what if anything Murphy did to the girl.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Man Held On High Bail After Serious Sexual Assault Allegations

The sexual assault charges Murphy faces are extremely serious. Drugging a person for sexual intercourse is a felony in Massachusetts in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 3. The law states that anyone who causes someone to take drugs with the intent to overcome that person’s will so that he or she can have sexual intercourse with the person is guilty of this crime. The punishment is not less than ten years in state prison and up to life in prison. The crime of rape is also punishable by as much as life. Facts that defense lawyers would like to know about this case are as follows: What does the victim remember? Is there physical evidence such as semen or DNA from Murphy that links him to the girl? Were there any other witnesses to the alleged acts? What was in the girl’s system? What evidence at the scene can be linked to the defendant?

Continue Reading

| by

Following a six month criminal investigation involving several Massachusetts law enforcement agencies two Northborough residents were arrested last week and charged with various drug related crimes. It was reported that either Edward Letourneau or Mary Anne Belanger, residents of Northborough were distributing cocaine from their home. When police made the arrests they found over fifty grams of crack cocaine, other drugs (Class E substances) and ammunition. Letourneau was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, possession of ammunition and conspiracy. Belanger was charged with conspiracy. Criminal charges against both defendants are pending in the Westborough District Court. Final jurisdiction of these charges will likely be in the Worcester Superior Court.

Read Article:

Criminal Charges Filed Against Two Massachusetts Men Caught With Cocaine

Trafficking cocaine carries a minimum mandatory state prison sentence in Massachusetts. The threshold for trafficking cocaine is fourteen grams. When more than twenty eight grams and less than one hundred grams is alleged to be the amount trafficked the minimum mandatory sentence is five years. Conspiracy charges do not carry any mandatory period of incarceration. It appears that the police investigation centered on controlled purchases of cocaine either using undercover police officers and/or confidential informants. The article is silent as to whether the arrest was made pursuant to a warrant, after a controlled buy or during the execution of a search warrant.

Continue Reading

| by

Five people have been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Conspiracy to Traffic Marijuana Charges. It is reported that Dmitriy Goldinshteyn of Framingham, Massachusetts along with Myooran Nakeswaran and Mark Belenkii, both from Newton, Massachusetts as well as Mary Roberts and Vadim Khait are named in the indictments. Goldinshteyn was arrested at his home in Framingham at six o’clock in the morning. He has been released on a twenty five thousand dollar personal appearance bond. It is alleged that the conspiracy started in early 2004 and that involved over one thousand kilograms of marijuana.

Read Article:

Marijuana Trafficking Conspiracy Cases Pending For Five From Massachusetts

Conspiracy to traffic one thousand kilograms or more of marijuana in Federal Court is punishable by a minimum mandatory ten years in federal prison according to the relevant statutes. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines suggest the following in cases such as this one. First, the quantity itself makes this a level 32 offense. If the defendant’s criminal history is a category 1 the guidelines suggest a sentence of 121 months to 151 months be imposed. The defendant’s level can be decreased by at least two levels depending on his role in the conspiracy. The defendant’s level of participation can also be a factor that leads to a reduction in the base offense level. There can also be a reduction in base offense level if the defendant accepts responsibility for his actions. Finally, the defendant may be eligible for a “safety valve” that permits the judge to sentence him under the minimum mandatory sentence. This article is vague as to what each defendant’s role in this operation was. As of today there was no press release providing additional information on this case.

Much can be done to defend people accused of this offense. Over the past ten years Federal Case Law has evolved favorably to the defense. It is becoming more common for a minor participant in a drug conspiracy to be punished for his or her actual role in the offense than rather than for the entire quantity of drugs alleged in the indictment. Thus, in a case where it is alleged that multiple defendants trafficked over one thousand kilos of marijuana there can be great disparity among the sentences for each participant.

Continue Reading

| by

Pedro Alix and Christopher Hassapis, both from Salem, Massachusetts along with Carlos Vieira of Peabody, Massachusetts now stand charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, armed robbery and assault and battery after forcing their way into another man’s home for the purpose of committing a robbery. The victim in this case reported that on Tuesday night he was outside of his home counting his rent money when a car occupied by the defendants appeared. The men got out of the car, charged at the victim, ran into his home and robbed him at gunpoint. Police found the victim outside and bleeding from wounds to his face. Other police officers who received a radio call recalled seeing the car earlier that evening with two of the defendants riding in it. They went to a location where the three were known to hang out and were given permission to enter by an unidentified female. Officer found the defendants in possession of crack cocaine. They also located a replica gun on the premises. The victim was able to identify the gun and the car but none of the defendants. Bail has been set at one hundred thousand dollars cash at the Salem District Court.

Criminal Charges For Three Massachusetts Men Following Home Invasion

There is an interesting issue in this case. The victim has not identified the defendants. You can bet however that the district attorney will proceed with this prosecution. The defendants will be indicted. The case will be handled in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts. Most likely the prosecution will proceed by introducing into evidence the gun and photographs of the car in which the defendants were riding. They will also have the police officers who saw two of the defendants in the car earlier that evening testify as to her observations. However, absent any positive identification either through the victim or evidence from the scene such as fingerprints, footprints or DNA the case will rest solely on circumstantial evidence. These cases can be a defense attorney’s dream. Based on the information in the article do not be surprised to see the home invasion charges dismissed against one or more of the defendants. Acquittals after a trial would not surprise me either.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that two Haverhill Massachusetts men face criminal charges following a high-speed car chase in Route I-495. The car, estimated to have been traveling over 100 miles per hour, caught the attention of a State Police Officer who was patrolling the highway. The authorities tracked the car which traveled from Amesbury Massachusetts to Haverhill Massachusetts during a chase which ranged with speeds from 55 to 85 miles per hour.

Haverhill police ultimately spotted the car in Haverhill and observed Aldis Suero and Aneudis Mendez both 23, walking nearby. Suero faces the criminal charge of receiving stolen property. According to reports, because Suero was out on bail on another matter the judge revoked his bail ordering that he be held without the possibility of posting bail. Apparently, Suero is also facing criminal charges stemming from and incident of alleged domestic violence. The specific charges are believed to be assault and battery and intimidation of a witness stemming from an incident with his girlfriend. Mendez was also arrested but is expected to be summonsed to Haverhill District Court to answer to a criminal charge of disorderly person. According to the Tribune, Suero’s lawyer maintained that Suero denied that he had “no knowledge” of the car’s ownership and he only knew the driver by the name of “D.”

In Massachusetts, M.G.L.A. 266 § 60 is the statute that relates to the charge an punishment for receiving stolen property. The Commonwealth must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt on order for a defendant to be convicted of receiving stolen property: (1) That the property in question was stolen, (2) That the defendant knew that the property had been stolen, and (3) That defendant knowingly had the stolen property in his possession. All three of these elements must be proved in order for a defendant to be convicted. If the amount of property “received” is valued at less than $250.00 then the charge is a misdemeanor. However, if the value of the property is over $250.00 then a defendant faces the possibility of receiving a sentence to state prison and the crime is considered a felony.

Continue Reading

| by

Shortly after 11:10 p.m. yesterday a Massachusetts State Trooper observed a car pass him on Route 495 at a speed estimated around one mile per hour. A chase followed. The officer observed the vehicle exit the highway at Route 110 in Haverhill, Massachusetts. According to the officer the driver’s speeds ranged from fifty five miles per hour to eighty five miles per hour once off of the highway. Haverhill Police officers observed the car for short periods of time but were unable to follow it. The car was finally found abandoned on Central Street in Haverhill. Two men walking near the scene were arrested. One of the men, Aldis Sureo was charged with receiving stolen property. The other man, Aneudis Mendez was charged with disorderly conduct. Charged are pending in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Car Chase Leads To Criminal Charges For Two Massachusetts Men

One thing that comes to mind when reading this article is why did the police stop Sureo and Mendez. Massachusetts law states that in order to lawfully conduct an investigatory stop there can be no more than a brief non-intrusive detention of the person and it must be supported by specific and articulable facts sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion. If officers ask questions with a show of authority an illegal seizure may have occurred. If the officers actions were sufficiently coercive or intimidating a seizure might have occurred. The positioning of officers during the encounter factors into its constitutionality as well. In cases such as this one the defendant’s chance of success often rests on the legality of the stop. A motion to suppress can at times result in a dismissal of the case.

Continue Reading

| by

Twenty three year old Benjamin J. Sciucco, 23 was at the Tavern at the Square, a new bar in Salem, Massachusetts this past weekend. Just before closing time he struck another bar patron with a glass beer mug. An employee of the establishment located a Salem Police Officer who was near the bar and reported the incident. Using the description given by the employee the officer located Sciucco and made an arrest. Sciucco has been charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana. The case will be prosecuted in the Salem District Court.

Read Artlcle:

Assault And Battery Charges Filed In Salem Massachusetts Against Man Who Hit Bar Patron In Face With Beer Mug

It is not that often that someone simply hauls off and hits someone in the face with a beer mug. Typically there was some sort of provocation or instigation that prompted the act. In terms of using this as a defense the law in Massachusetts places limits on the use of force. In order to avail yourself of the use of a dangerous weapon in the course of self defense the defendant must reasonably and actually believe that he was in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. He must have done everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force. He also cannot use more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. If the defendant intends to use this defense in this case much will depend on the actions of the person he struck with the glass mug.

Continue Reading

| by

Kuokwing Wu, 59 years old from Brooklyn New York appeared in Peabody District Court and plead not guilty to charges of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14. According to The Salem News, the 10 year old boy and his 13 year old brother were in a restroom in the mall near the food court when Wu reached over and pulled out the waistband on the 10 years old pants.

The boys promptly reported the incident to their mother who reported it to mall security. According to reports, the description given by the boys matched Wu who worked at one of the establishments in the food court. Wu was questioned by the police and a friend of his interpreted. According to the Salem News Wu maintained that he pulled at the boys shirt to show him that it was wet. The boys claimed that the shirt was dry. The defendant was held on $10,000.00 cash bail following a bail hearing in the Peabody District Court. Wu will return to Peabody to answer to the criminal charges next month.

A defendant charged with this type of offences, or any type of crimnal charge including assault and battery, must have an experienced criminal lawyer on his or her side to ensure a favorable outcome. In Massachusetts, a conviction for indecent assault and battery can result in incarceration and have collateral consequences of having to register as a sex offender. Depending on the facts of the case, the strategy developed early on by a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney can have an impact on the case. For example, in a case where the defendant gave a statement to the police a motion to suppress the statements is often a viable option. Before the police question a defendant who is in “custody” they must inform him or her of the “Miranda Rights.” In short, the police must inform the defendant that he or she has a right not to speak with the police, has a right to have an attorney present for questioning, that if he or she cannot afford an attorney one can be appointed to him or her and that anything he or she states can be used against him or her in court.

In appropriate circumstances, an experienced Massachusetts defense attorney presents the argument that the defendant was in “custody” when questioned by the police and that he or she did not knowingly and intelligently waive these rights. Successfully suppressing an inculpatory statement can often result in removing a powerful piece of evidence from the Commonwealth’s case.

Continue Reading

| by

According to reports Lynn, Massachusetts police had a warrant for Johnny Rodriguez’s arrest stemming from an incident last Saturday night. At that time, Rodriguez was stopped by police officers who were following up on recent shootings. Rodriguez was able to escape in his car and a warrant for his arrest issued. Surveillance was set up outside his home on Monday. Police entered is apartment and secured his arrest. In the process they observed an open safe containing a couple of handguns and an assault rifle. A search warrant was then issued permitting the police to search the apartment. During the search additional firearms were located along with ammunition and over two hundred grams of cocaine. A substantial amount of cash was seized as well.

Read Article:

Firearms, Drug Charges For Lynn Massachusetts Man

I would assume that Rodriguez has been charged with unlawful possession of firearms, possession of ammunition, possession with intent to distribute marijuana and trafficking cocaine. While all of these charges are considered serious Rodriguez stands to serve the most time on the cocaine trafficking charge if convicted. Trafficking cocaine over two hundred grams in Massachusetts comes with a mandatory minimum fifteen year state prison sentence after conviction. The firearms charges carry a minimum mandatory eighteen month sentence. There is no minimum mandatory sentence associated with convictions for the possession of ammunition and the marijuana charges.

During the bail hearing Rodriguez’s lawyer suggested that the police officers’ search exceeded the scope of the warrant. If this is true then perhaps some of the items seized will be suppressed. Here is one thought that comes to mind. If Rodriguez’s home was under surveillance why did the police need to enter his apartment to effectuate the arrest? It would make more sense if they apprehended him when they saw him about to enter the establishment rather than wait for him to get inside. If the defense can show that getting inside the apartment was illicitly orchestrated to establish probable cause to obtain the warrant Rodriguez might be able to convince a court to suppress the search.

Continue Reading

| by

The Salem News reports that a Salem Superior Court judge released Nicholas Pratt, 24 of Salem who is accused of shaking his infant son during a fight with the child’s mother on Mother’s Day. The prosecutor argued that Pratt was a danger and should remain behind bars however, Judge Timothy Feeley released him to live with his friend and employer.

According to reports, Pratt is charged with two counts of domestic assault and battery on his six month old son and his girlfriend. The baby was examined and found to have an injury to his eye. Apparently, there was an indication that the child suffered a previous skull fracture. Authorities do not know how or when that injury occurred. There is also an additional charge of intimidation of a witness. Depending on the facts of a case in which domestic assault and battery has been alleged, the charge of intimidation of a witness often stems from attempts that the defendant may have made to prevent the complainant from contacting the police.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 § 13B provides that witness intimidation requires proof that (1) an individual was a witness in a stage of a criminal proceeding, and that the defendant (2) wilfully endeavored or tried to influence the witness, (3) did so by means of intimidation, force, or threats of force, or the offering of inducements, and (4) did so with the specific intent of influencing the witness. In Massachusetts, the witness intimidation statute punishes anyone who willfully endeavors to intimidate a witness; it does not require that the intimidation be successful. An experienced Massachusetts defense attorney can challenge the prosecutor’s case by establishing that the government fell short on proving any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

When facing charges of domestic violence in Massachusetts it is imperative that a defendant be familiar with the rules that govern the issuance of a restraining order. In order to apply for a restraining order a complainant must demonstrate that he or she is in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm. When there is a request for a restraining order and a hearing is going to take place while a criminal case is pending, a defendant should seek the advice of an experienced Massachusetts domestic violence lawyer before speaking at any hearing. Under most circumstances, any statements made by a defendant during a restraining order hearing can be used against him or her at trial. The decision whether to speak during this hearing in an attempt to prevent the order from issuing but risking providing the District Attorney with potentially damaging evidence is an important one. Making the wrong decision may affect the outcome of your criminal case.

Continue Reading