Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A special Olympics coach was arraigned on charges that he slapped his mentally disabled son. George Chin was arraigned in Framingham District Court on charges of assault and battery. At his arraignment, according to the MetroWest Daily News, Chin tried to defend himself against the charges.

As a Framingham criminal lawyer, many times those charged with a criminal offense do not understand the purpose of the arraignment and believe that a case goes directly to trial. On the first court date for any criminal case, a defendant faces a hearing called an arraignment. A Massachusetts criminal arraignment is to formally advise a defendant that criminal charges have been initiated and to determine if any bail is necessary to ensure the defendant's appearance in court.

In Chin's case, he did not have any criminal record; consequently, bail was not an issue and the arraignment was brief and merely to inform him that criminal charges had been issued. The judge of the Framingham District Court properly instructed Chin not to speak about the case as the court proceedings are taped and any statements could be used by the Commonwealth to prosecute the case.

Charges of Assault and Battery in Framingham, Massachusetts can be brought by an alleged victim claiming that another person improperly struck or touched that person without consent. In some cases, Massachusetts assault and battery charges can involve two differing versions. In Chins' case, it appears that two staff members are claiming that he struck his son as a result of his performance playing tennis. It appears that the facts of what occurred will be heavily disputed and require a trial to resolve. That trial will not take place on the next court date as the next court date in a criminal case is generally a pretrial hearing. Following the pretrial hearing, the case can be scheduled for trial.

Continue reading "Framingham, Massachusetts criminal lawyer discusses the arraignment in a Massachusetts assault and battery charge" »

As a Brockton criminal attorney, the issue of whether a defendant was properly advised of Miranda rights can be an important defense in a case. When Miranda warnings are not properly given, the court may exclude statements made to the police that are the fruit of the police failing to advise a defendant of these rights. In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Holley, decided May 17, 2011, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals reviewed a decision of a Judge from the Fall River Superior Court, allowing a defendant's motion to suppress statements.

The motion judge at the superior court concluded that the police officer gave Miranda warnings too quickly to the defendant so that the defendant could not understand the warnings. The recitation of Miranda warnings was recorded on video tape. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals disagrees with the motion judge's conclusion that the defendant did not understand the Miranda warnings, stressing that the defendant followed along, stated he understood the warnings and signed the Miranda Waiver form. Further, the defendant stated that he knew how this goes, which the court held can be used as a factor in determining whether he understood his Miranda rights. The court stated that it can consider the defendant prior record and experience with the judicial system to determine if he understood his rights. Accordingly, the court reversed the motion judge's order granting the motion to suppress, allowing the defendant's statements into evidence.

Continue reading "Brockton criminal lawyer discusses recent case regarding Miranda rights during criminal trial " »

The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a significant decision when it ruled that police can break down your door without a warrant if they believe you are destroying evidence, USA Today reports.

This is frustrating news for Quincy Criminal Defense Lawyers because it gives police more power to invade your privacy. The most important thing is to know your rights. If police knock on your door without a warrant, you have every right to refuse their entry. If you are arrested on drug charges in Massachusetts, contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer. In cases where police conducted an unlawful search, the charges against you may be reduced or dismissed.

The Supreme Court case was based on the arrest of a Kentucky man on drug possession charges. According to news reports, Lexington police chased a man who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant and then ran away. Police chased him to a nearby apartment building, but didn't see which apartment he entered.

When they smelled marijuana and heard a door slam, they broke down the door of one of the apartments, thinking evidence was being destroyed. While it wasn't the apartment of the man police were chasing, the country's high court ruled police can enter a home without a warrant when they believe evidence is being destroyed or there is some other emergency underway.

The case challenged the Fourth Amendment, which prevents police from entering your home without a warrant. And based on the 8-1 ruling, the rights of the individual to be free from unlawful search and seizure took a hit.

Drug crimes in Quincy, Massachusetts can be very serious, especially if you have prior convictions. But evidence can be challenged and an aggressive defense can keep clients out of prison. Massachusetts criminal attorneys will challenge the warrant police have for your home, car or business and if they don't have a warrant, we'll challenge that, too.

This court decision it doesn't mean law enforcement can just barge into your house unannounced for no reason. They have to have a reason and we will make them explain that reason in Massachusetts Superior Courts.

If you're charged with possession of illegal narcotics, distribution of narcotics, conspiracy to distribute drugs or participating in a joint venture involving drugs, contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue reading "Ruling Highlights Unlawful Search and Seizure in Massachusetts" »

A Fall River businessman serving prison time for fraud charges is set to be back in Fall River District Court this summer on another fraud charge, The Herald News reported.

Joseph Pereira, 46, of Rodman Street, was sentenced to 3 to 5 years in connection with 15 scams involving mortgages, investments and cars.

Theft charges in Massachusetts can take many forms, including burglary, robbery, auto theft or shoplifting. White collar criminal charges typically involve fraud, including mortgage fraud, real estate fraud or investment fraud. embezzlement is another form of theft that often involves an employee or officer of a corporation accused of diverting funds. In some cases, these can even be charged as federal crimes. Bank robbery, for instance, is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is prosecuted in federal court. White collar economic crimes are also often prosecuted by the feds using mail fraud or wire fraud charges.

In each case, a Fall River criminal defense attorney must look at the evidence, as well as how the case is charged, before making a decision on the best course of action. Protecting your rights and minimizing the chances of a lengthy jail sentence may require reaching a deal with prosecutors that's in a client's best interest, fighting to keep evidence out of court, seeking a reduction or dismissal of the charges or preparing a case for trial.

Police began investigating him again in February when a man said he was facing foreclosure because of a Pereira scam. He said he gave Pereira $20,000 to lower his mortgage rate from 8.9 percent to 2.5 percent. Once he began seeing notices of delinquency from the bank and learned Pereira was in jail, he contacted police and made a fraud report.

Prosecutors allege the new crimes were committed while Pereira was out on bail and awaiting trial. On Sept. 30, Pereira pleaded guilty to 13 counts of larceny, one count of practicing law without a license, and one count of committing fraud. He had a previous fraud conviction in 1996, according to The Herald News.

The new charge of larceny over $250 in punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Continue reading "Fall River Fraud Charges Brought Against Businessman of Mortgage Scheme while out on Bail" »

High-profile Quincy developer William S. O'Connell recently pleaded not guilty to charges that he raped a child, paid for sex and trafficked cocaine, according to The Patriot Ledger.

Such charges require a dedicated and experienced Stoughton criminal defense attorney who has experience fighting sex crimes and drug crimes.

In sex cases, in particular, authorities often rely on the word of an alleged victim if DNA and other evidence isn't found, making it important for suspects not to try to talk their way out of an arrest. Before you speak to police, call a Massachusetts attorney. A well-trained attorney can work to suppress harmful evidence that may be used against you at trial.

In O'Connell's case, he is charged with having sex with a child between the age of 14 and 16. In a raid of his Marina Bay condominium, authorities say they seized 19 grams of cocaine. Authorities alleged O'Connell had several involvements with the child, beginning in the spring and summer of 2009 until March 2011.

He is due back in Quincy District Court on July 14 for a probable cause hearing. But the newspaper reports O'Connell may be indicted prior to the hearing, which would move the case to Superior Court in Dedham.

If convicted, O'Connell, 71, faces a 10-year minimum prison sentence on the rape charge and at least three years in prison if convicted of the trafficking charge, according to the newspaper. He was released on $150,000 bond.

Further, O'Connell was required to surrender his passport, stay in the state and have no contact with the alleged victim. He also can't have contact with any child younger than 16 and must submit to random drug testing.

Continue reading "Quincy Developer Pleads Not Guilty to Rape, Drug Charges in Quincy District Court" »

A 20-year-old Ashland man is charged with rape in Framingham after authorities say he had sexual contact with a 13-year-old girl, the Milford Daily News reported.

The Ashland man faces charges of rape of a child, indecent assault and battery of a child younger than 14 and enticement of a child. He appeared in Framingham District Court, where a judge ordered him to have no further contact with the victim.

It's imperative that an experienced Massachusetts sex crimes defense lawyer handle this case from the start. Many times in such cases, the sexual contact is consensual. However, the age difference can put a young man at risk of a serious criminal conviction and being forced to register as a sex offender as consent is not a defense to a charge of statutory rape.

Under Massachusetts Law (Chapter 265 Section 13B), indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Massachusetts' statutory rape provision is particularly harsh and permits a penalty of up to life in prison.

Police received a call about the defendant allegedly having sexual contact with the girl in a wooded area on Presidents Row. Police say he admitted to smoking marijuana with the girl and making out.

The judge denied a request by prosecutors to set bond at $1,000 and require GPS tracking, instead ordering a $500 bond and daily drug and alcohol testing.

Six were brought to Attleboro District Court as a result of having an outstanding default warrant. The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported that State and local police conducted a warrant sweeping looking to apprehend criminal defendants with outstanding default warrants. A default warrant is a warrant issued by the court when an individual fails to appear in court; when an individual is brought to court on a default warrant, generally the person is brought in custody and the Commonwealth will often make a request for a cash bail. The reason that a bail request is often made when a default warrant issues is because by failing to appear in court, a defendant allows the court to believe that only the risk of losing a cash bail will compel the defendant to appear in court.

The warrant sweep related to a variety of criminal charges including, larceny, shoplifting, driving an uninsured vehicle and assault and battery. Typically, when an individual has a no record or only a few contacts with the court, the court will release a defendant on a promise to reappear in court.

Continue reading "Six brought to Attleboro District Court on outstanding warrants" »