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

| by

Shubar Charles has been held in the Essex County Jail since April on a one hundred fifty thousand dollar cash bail since he was first charged with cocaine and gun crimes in the Lynn District Court. He has now been indicted by an Essex County Grand Jury and his case will be prosecuted in the Salem Superior Court. On April 3, 2009 police went to Charles home armed with a warrant for a New Bedford criminal case. When they located Charles he was in possession of cocaine, a handgun and some ammunition. Charles had some prior drug convictions. The district attorney charged him with possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine.

Read Article:

Lynn Massachusetts Man With Prior Criminal Record Indicted For Guns, Drugs

The firearm charge itself carries a maximum five year state prison sentence. There is a minimum mandatory eighteen month sentence that Charles will have to serve if convicted of this crime. The crime of possessing ammunition is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in the county house of correction. The possession with intent to distribute Class B carries a maximum ten year state prison sentence with no minimum mandatory under most circumstances. However where the defendant has prior convictions there is a minimum mandatory three year state prison sentence. According to this article Charles has prior convictions. He is facing a mandatory three year sentence on all counts. The firearm count and the charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine can run concurrently if a judge chooses to do so after a trial or a guilty plea. Sometimes these cases can be plea bargained to reduce the minimum mandatory exposure that the defendant is facing. That often depends on the nature of the offense, the person’s criminal record and any personal history that might warrant the consideration of a lesser sentence.

Continue Reading

| by

This past Sunday night various Massachusetts police agencies received information from the Maine branch of the DEA advising them to watch for a certain vehicle expected to drive through the northern Essex County area along Route 495. Apparently law enforcement had information that one of the occupants had a large quantity of cocaine in his possession. With this information one Massachusetts state trooper came upon the vehicle and claimed that the vehicle had a broken right tail light. The trooper stopped the vehicle and with backup from the Haverhill and Merrimac police conducted an investigation. At that time officers located a large quantity of cocaine on Clinton Jennings, a Bronx, New York native. They also found cocaine on Courtney Nye. The driver and another passenger, Nicolas Norris and Daniel Borders respectively were also arrested. All four men have been charged with trafficking cocaine. The case is currently pending in the Newburyport District Court where bail was set at one hundred thousand dollars.

Read Article:

Men From Maine And New York Charged With Trafficking Cocaine In Essex County Massachusetts

A couple of questions immediately come to mind when reading this article. Why would anyone trafficking cocaine drive with a broken tail light? Faulty equipment such as defective or broken tail lights are the easiest way to get pulled over legitimately. The answer to that question is simple. Either the tail light was not broken when the driver got into the car that evening or the driver had no idea that his passengers had large quantities of cocaine in their possession. The best way to prove that the tail lights were not broken is to get photographs from gas stations where the vehicle filled up earlier that evening. Here is another question. Why are Norris and Borders charged with trafficking cocaine? What evidence is there that they knew that Jennings and Nye had cocaine in their possession? More importantly, how is the district attorney going to prove their intent relative to trafficking? Merely being present at a crime scene is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. How about the quantity of cocaine? How much cocaine was seized? The amount triggers the minimum mandatory sentence that these men face if convicted.

It appears that a motion to suppress will be filed the lawyers for each of these men. If successful the drugs get suppressed and cannot be used as evidence at trial. This effectively ends the case. I imagine for at least two of these men, Jennings and Nye, the success of their defenses lies with the validity of the stop. Keep in mind that under Massachusetts law stopping someone for a broken tail light does not give police the right to remove the driver and occupants from the vehicle and conduct a search of the driver, occupants or vehicle.

Continue Reading

| by

Following up on an investigation concerning Jeremy Lawrence’s activities Framingham, Massachusetts police officers engaged in an undercover operation. In doing so they succeeded in purchasing two small baggies of cocaine from Lawrence at the Jefferson Hills Apartments. After the purchase other officers confronted Lawrence in a parking lot. Lawrence immediately placed his hands in his waistband. Officers ordered him to stop. He continued these actions until he was subdued by the police. Jeremy Lawrence was searched. Found in his possession were over fifty bags of cocaine, thirteen bags of crack and a baggie of marijuana. Lawrence was charged with trafficking cocaine and a school zone violation. The case is now pending in the Framingham District Court. Bail was set at $2,500.00.

Read Article:

Dorchester Man Gets Arrested In Framingham For Drug Trafficking

Undercover operations of this nature are quite common. Officers learn from informants or through other aspects of an investigation the identity of people who might be dealing drugs. Since catching the person in the act is the best way to prove his guilty they set up undercover buys. Many times the police will pose as drug users or drug dealers, get an introduction to their suspect and gain his confidence. They arrange to purchase a specified quantity of drugs and after doing so an arrest is made. Frequently, my clients who have been arrested as a result of one of these operations ask me if this is entrapment. The simple answer is usually “no”. Entrapment in Massachusetts requires more that law enforcement placing the idea of the criminal wrongdoing in the defendant’s mind. There must be an effort to overcome the defendant’s will not to commit the crime through coercive behavior that ultimately results in him relenting and doing the act. If the district attorney shows that the defendant was already predisposed towards criminal activity then there is no coercion.

Continue Reading

| by

Around 10:30 p.m. this past Tuesday Braintree, Massachusetts police officers responded to an apartment complex after a 911 call about a fight. They were directed to Jeffrey Lynch who it turns out had two outstanding warrants for motor vehicle crimes. Further investigation suggested that Lynch and another man were having an argument. The other man’s girlfriend overheard Lynch telling someone on the telephone to bring a gun. The dispute between Lynch the man resumed during which Lynch asked one of his friends to hand him the gun. A struggle for the gun supposedly followed. When the participants heard the police sirens everyone scattered. The gun was never found. Lynch has been charged with carrying a firearm, assault with a dangerous weapon and impeding an investigation in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Firearms Charges Issue Against Massachusetts Man Involved In A Fight

Carrying a firearm in Massachusetts is a felony. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10(a) states that anyone who carries a firearm without a license must serve a minimum mandatory eighteen months in the house of correction and up to five years in state prison. In Massachusetts a firearm is defined as a weapon that is capable of firing a shot or bullet and has a barrel of less than sixteen inches. This law has great significance for Lynch. Since the police never found the weapon there is no way of telling whether it could fire a bullet or any to determine its actual size. Without this information there is not way the district attorney can prove the firearm charge against Lynch. That leaves the assault dangerous weapon charge and the impeding the investigation charge for Lynch to defend. It will be much easier for his lawyers to negotiation a resolution of those matters or possibly try them now that the gun charge no longer seem viable.

Continue Reading

| by

Last Friday Salem, Massachusetts police received a tip that a certain car was carrying a large amount of cocaine. Police spent the day looking for the car. They eventually found it operating on Washington Street. Officers followed the car and “waited for the driver to commit a traffic violation”. According to the Salem News, the driver, Angel F. Merced Virella, 37, of Salem did just that. He failed to use a signal when turning and he was stopped. Virella did not have a license. He was arrested and charged with operating without a license. The police noticed an excessive amount of air freshener in the car suggesting to them that Virella was trying to conceal a particular odor. The car was towed and a search warrant was obtained. Then came the search of his car which revealed over five hundred grams of a highly pure cocaine in a concealed compartment. Virella has been charged with trafficking over two hundred grams of cocaine.

Read Article:

Essex County Massachusetts Man Facing Major Cocaine Trafficking Charge

Reading this article several thoughts come to mind. The legality of the stop will no doubt be challenged by Virella’s lawyer. What made the police so certain that by following him around he would commit a motor vehicle violation warranting a stop. Exactly what information did the police have when they were looking for that vehicle? Obviously the information came from an informant but how reliable was that person? What prior dealings, if any did the police have with this individual? Did the car belong to Virella or someone else? Were Virella’s fingerprints on the drugs? Many of these questions will be answered when the district attorney surrenders police reports and related materials to the defense. Virella’s attorney will probably file a motion to suppress the stop and seizure of the vehicle. If this is successful the case will probably be dismissed.

Continue Reading

| by

Quincy, Massachusetts police were likely tipped off that Randy Grant was selling crack cocaine. Somehow an undercover detective got Grant’s attention and arranged to buy drugs from him this past Saturday. The first deal was three bags of crack for sixty dollars. After the deal was consummated the detective arranged to get more drugs from Grant. It is reported that Grant offered to sell additional drugs at a lower price if the detective would agree to become a regular customer. Grant went to retrieve the drugs. When he returned to meet his buyer he was arrested. The charges are distribution of crack cocaine, a Class B substance in Massachusetts. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Quincy Massachusetts Detective Posing As Buyer Catches Boston Drug Dealer

Distribution of a Class B substance in Massachusetts is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32A. This crime is a felony. First time offenders can be sentenced for up to ten years if they are indicted on these charges and convicted in the Superior Court. Typically however these cases are prosecuted in the District Courts where the maximum sentence is two and one half years in the county house of correction. There is one concerning thing that comes to mind when reading this article. These acts supposedly took place on a basketball court. If that facility is part of a public park or playground or within one thousand feet from a school Grant is looking at a minimum mandatory two year house of correction sentence under the Massachusetts School Zone law.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a Lawrence Massachusetts man was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm without a license, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, and possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card. The Tribune reports that police were called to the Fern Street neighborhood due to reports of a man firing up to six gunshots “over his head.” During the early morning hours, a neighbor heard commotion and went to his window where he saw a pair of men. One of the individuals was “holding a gun over [the other person’s] head.” After repeatedly firing the gun, witnesses stated that the man walked into an apartment on Fern Street in Lawrence.

The police arrested this defendant and three of his roommates. The paper reports that one of the roommates was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest while the other two were charged as keepers of a disorderly home. Police recovered a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun behind the home. Shell casings were also recovered from the street.

If you have been charged with any crime, you must contact a Massachusetts defense attorney to ensure that all of your rights are protected. In any case where “possession” of the alleged item is an element of the crime and experienced trial attorney can evaluate whether filing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence is a viable option. A successful litigation of a motion to suppress evidence means the suppression of the physical evidence and often times dismissal of the case against a defendant.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it important that you contact a criminal attorney familiar with the elements that the government must prove to secure a conviction. For example, to prove the crime of discharging of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use you can face a penalty ranging from by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. However, there are exceptions to the enforcement of this law that include the lawful defense of life and property; any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined pursuant to statute; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with the statute.

Continue Reading

| by

Just before 5:00 a.m. yesterday a Lawrence, Massachusetts resident was awakened by some commotion in the street. The unidentified individual looked outside and saw a man holding a gun in his hand. The man, Richard Anthony then fired four to six shots in the air and placed the weapon back in his pants. The witness called the police and gave a description of Anthony who was arrested minutes later. Police found a .32 caliber handgun in the residence where Anthony was found as well as several shell casings in the street. Anthony will be charged with carrying a firearm, discharging a firearm within five hundred feet of a building and unlawful possession of ammunition. He will be arraigned in the Lawrence District Court later today.

Read Article:

Lawrence Massachusetts Man Charged With Firearms Violations

So how is the district attorney going to prove Anthony guilty of the firearms charges? The easiest way is to get the eyewitness who called the police to come into court and testify against him. This however is not always realistic. People, particularly those who live in the inner city, are often reluctant to reveal their identity and go to court to testify against someone. People do not want to get involved with the police or court system. They do not want discord in their neighborhoods. They ultimately choose to avoid testifying rather than create conflict for themselves. So what else can the district attorney do? Perhaps the police checked Anthony for gunshot residue. If they did and the test is positive they have their proof. If not their task of convicting Anthony becomes more daunting. He was not found in possession of the firearm and there were other people present in the home where the weapon was found. They too were charged with crimes and it is doubtful that they will testify against their friend. Convicting Anthony might be more difficult than you might think when reading this article.

Continue Reading

| by

According to The Lowell Sun, a 34-year-old Lowell Massachusetts man, who was convicted for motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury six years ago found his way back to prison after serving most of his 5 to 6 year committed sentence. The defendant was released from prison to a five year probationary term. However, this week a Superior Court Judge sitting in Lowell Massachusetts found that the defendant violated the terms of his probation after being arrested on charges of domestic assault and battery and malicious destruction of property in an incident involving his sister-in-law. According to reports, he was sentenced to serve the rest of his two-year jail sentence on his conviction for operating under the influence causing serious bodily injury.

If you have been served with a notice from the probation department that they are looking to surrender you because you violated the terms of your probation it is imperative that you contact an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney. The rules that apply during a probation surrender hearing are different from the rules that apply during a trial.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the due process clause does not place a per se prohibition on the use of hearsay evidence at probation revocation hearings.” Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 115 (1990). Rather, “[u]nsubstantiated and unreliable hearsay cannot, consistent with due process, be the entire basis of a probation revocation.” The court also considers whether the evidence at the hearing is entirely hearsay and whether there is good cause for not having direct testimony.

In Massachusetts, a probationer has only a conditional liberty interest. The probationer is expected to comply with the conditions of probation. A breach of a condition of probation constitutes a violation, and if the probation officer receives information tending to show that the probationer has breached, the officer may “surrender” the probationer to the court. During a trial, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the standard at a probation revocation hearing is lower. A probationer’s probation may be revoked based on the probation department establishing a violation by a preponderance of evidence. In Massachusetts, the Courts position is that a probation revocation hearing is not part of criminal prosecution and, thus, a probationer need not be provided with the full panoply of constitutional protections available at criminal trial. However, the Courts have held that the revocation of probation does result in a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus, the Commonwealth must provide probationers with certain protections at surrender hearings. In Massachusetts, the hearsay on which the judge relies must be reliable.

If you have received notice of a “probation violation” it is important that you contact an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney to represent you at the surrender hearing. Effective representation can result in the court not finding you in violation or if you are found in violation convince the judge not to impose the sanction recommended by the probation officer. In certain situations, the submission of a memorandum opposing the finding of a violation is appropriate.

Continue Reading

| by

Both Katy Kartalias and Rachel Lord claimed the title of being Gary Lee Farnham’s girlfriend. Kartalias found out about Lord when the latter called to inform her that she was seeing Farnham. So what does Karalias do? She confronts Farnham who supposedly responds by assaulting her. So yesterday Farnham ends up in the Salem District Court for arraignment on his new case. Kartalias decides to go along as well. And guess who else is there? Yes, you are right, Rachel Lord. When Kartalias figures out who she is she sits down next to her. The judge eventually decides to hold Farnham in custody. When that decision is announced Lord made a comment. Perhaps taking exception Kartalias sucker punches Lord in a packed courtroom. The festivities continue as Lord pulls a clump of Kartalias’ hair out. Both women are placed into custody. Eventually, only Kartalias is charged. The counts are assault and battery and disrupting a court proceeding. Kartalias is already on probation and is now facing a probation violation hearing.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Courtroom Fight Lands Woman In Jail

Disruption of court proceedings is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13C. The law states that anyone who “causes or actively participates in the willful disruption of proceedings” and is convicted of that crime may be imprisoned by up to a year in jail. The crime is a misdemeanor. The assault and battery charge is also a misdemeanor that is punishable by up to two and one half years in the house of correction.

Continue Reading