Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Seven people, including a man the Commonwealth believes has a history of drug offenses, were recently arraigned in Framingham District Court on charges they were buying and selling heroin and cocaine, The MetroWest Daily News reports.

Drug charges in Framingham and throughout Massachusetts are serious crimes that can subject defendants to penalties that can range from months in jail to years in prison.

Quickly hiring an experienced and aggressive Framingham Drug Defense Attorney is the best strategy to combat the charges and protect a defendant's rights.

According to the story, prosecutors say detectives followed Luis Hernandez, 41, of Natick and saw him complete what they believed was a drug deal in the parking lot of his apartment with co-defendant Gina Stucchi, 32. In the car with Stucchi were co-defendants Jennifer Mackey, 36, and Maria Woods, 35.

When detectives followed the vehicle, they allegedly found the three people in the car, about to inject themselves with cocaine. One of the defendants told police they had just purchased cocaine from Hernandez.

Police then followed Hernandez, who was riding in an SUV containing his roommate Geraldine Martinez and Alisha Conti, 24. They dropped Conti off at Lowe's in Framingham and after Hernandez sold drugs to an unknown man in Natick, the vehicle returned to Lowe's, where Hernandez met another co-defendant, William Roberts, 47, of Natick.

Police say they witnessed another drug deal and when they approached to make an arrest; they said they saw Hernandez swallow what appeared to be a plastic bag of cocaine.

Martinez allegedly admitted there were drugs in the car and told police Hernandez kept drugs in a safe in their apartment. Conti allegedly told police she got heroin from Hernandez. Police searched the safe and found heroin, cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

• Hernandez was charged with distributing heroin, possessing heroin with the intent to distribute, conspiring to violate the state's drug laws and resisting arrest.
• Martinez was charged with possessing heroin with intent to distribute, possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, distributing cocaine and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Stucchi, of 107 Concord St., Holliston, was charged with distributing cocaine (subsequent offense) and conspiring to violate state drug laws.
• Woods, of 260 Union Ave., Framingham, was charged with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, possessing cocaine, intimidating a witness, providing police with a false name and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Roberts, of 3 Lake St., Natick, was charged with possessing heroin, resisting arrest and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Mackey, of 28 Dana Road, Framingham, was charged with distributing cocaine and conspiring to violate drug laws.
• Conti, of 31 McAlee Ave., Framingham, was charged with possessing heroin.

This case will likely come down to police observations, if they were well-documented, as well as the statements of the co-defendants. First off, the defendants would have been better off had they not talked to police. Providing a statement to police is dangerous because it can be used against the defendant in court and it almost always hurts them.

In these cases, it is sometimes possible to refute the charges if a person is simply inside a vehicle at the time of an arrest. But admitting fault to an officer will have a negative effect on the probability of winning a case.

There are times when a statement and other evidence in drug cases can be tossed out. So, consult with an experienced Framingham Criminal Defense Attorney before doing anything else. Reviewing your case and being by your side from the beginning gives the best chance at a positive resolution.

Continue reading "Seven Charged in Drug Buying/Selling Sting in Framingham" »

A Franklin man has been charged with trying to kill his girlfriend in a Marlborough domestic violence incident, The MetroWest Daily News recently reported.

Domestic violence charges in Marlborough require an experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney be immediately consulted to sort out the real facts.

In this case, Richard Waters, 26, was arraigned Wednesday in Marlborough District Court on 14 charges: attempted murder, assault with intent to intimidate, assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon, reckless endangerment of a child, car theft, threatening to commit a crime, vandalizing property, driving with a suspended license, failing to stop for police, negligent driving, using a car without authority, a marked lanes violation and speeding, police said.

According to police, the couple and their child spent the day together at Hopkinton State Park one day in early July. When they got home, the couple allegedly got into a fight, with Waters allegedly choking the woman three times, punching a hole in the wall and making several threats.

After the alleged outburst, he took her car keys and left, leading police on a high-speed chase. He was driving 70 mph in a 30 mph zone at times; the chase lasted until he drove off the road and ran into the woods. After officers searched the area using a police dog, they called off the search. An arrest warrant was issued and he was later detained.

The newspaper later reported that he was being held without bond after a dangerousness hearing. Prosecutors allege the man is a member of the Framingham street gang the Kendall Street Thugs.

In domestic violence cases, law enforcement officers typically have very little evidence on which to bring charges. But because of the stigma attached to these events, they are sometimes worried that not making an arrest could lead to further violence.

So, sometimes, they listen to the person who claims to be the victim and make an arrest with little evidence. With little corroborating evidence, a person is sometimes carted off to jail, has their mug shot published by the media and suffers other consequences.

Defense to domestic violence-related charges that an aggressive Massachusetts Domestic Violence Attorney will pursue, include:

Self defense. In this type of defense, an attorney can seek to suggest the alleged victim in fact perpetrated the violence. It's possible to show they are the aggressor.

Fabrication by the victim. In cases of divorce, a break-up, or other situations, alleged victims will lie to police as a form of revenge or pay back.
Ulterior motivation. Sometimes, alleged victims believe that a partner picking up an arrest record or conviction can benefit them financially or otherwise and will stretch the truth.

Continue reading "Man Charged With Trying to Kill Girlfriend in Marlborough Domestic Violence Incident" »

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Mark Tremblay addressed whether the defendant's statement was voluntary when the police agrees that it would be off of the record. The issue before the court was not whether Miranda warning had been given, as the Massachusetts criminal lawyer conceded that the defendant was not in custody triggering the requirements of Miranda. Click here to read a copy of the SJC decision in Tremblay.

A criminal defense lawyer can typically challenge an incriminating statement on two separate but related grounds. First, whether an incriminating statement was obtained in violation of Miranda; or second, whether the police violated a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination and infringed upon due process of law by coercing a statement from a defendant.

The SJC held that the test for whether a confession is voluntary is to view it in light of the totality of circumstances surrounding the making of the statement. The Court will consider whether the will of the defendant was overborne to the extent that the defendant's statement was not the result of a free and voluntary act. The SJC stressed that relevant factors include, but are not limited to, promises or other inducements, conduct of the defendant, age, education, intelligence and emotional stability, experience with the criminal justice system, physical and mental condition. Further, the SJC will consider who initiates the discussion of a deal for leniency, whether the defendant or the police and the detail of the interrogation including the recitation of Miranda warnings.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Tremblay emphasized that police should use caution in using deception or trickery during an interrogation. The Court stressed that trickery does not compel suppress of the statements but is one factor for the court to consider. Further, the SJC noted that suggestions by the police that the defendant would benefit from the confession may raise issues of whether the confession is voluntary.

In viewing the Tremblay case, the Court said that the officer's actions did not fall neatly into either category of trickery or making assurances that the defendant would benefit from confessing.

Key to the SJC determination that the officer did not use trickery was the fact that he agreed to the defendant suggestion that the comments would be off of the record and not included in the written portion of the statement, but never made any promises of protection or leniency. The SJC found no evidence of coercion of the officer as a result of his agreeing that statements be off of the record and held that the statements were properly admitted at trial.

In a dissenting opinion, two members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Justice Gants and Ireland disagreed with the majority of the Court and would have suppressed the statements and wrote separately in a dissenting opinion discussing their reasoning.

Justice Gants wrote that in Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, the SJC recognized that police trickery during an interrogation may cast doubt on the voluntariness of a suspect's statement. The DiGiambattista decision held that a Massachusetts criminal lawyer may request an instruction that a jury can view a confession that was not recorded on video tape with caution if the police do not electronically preserve the interrogation.

Justice Gants outlined three forms of police trickery that may undermine the voluntariness of a confession: false promises of leniency in return for a suspects statement, false representation regarding the right to represent himself during trial, and false promises that the statement will not be used against a suspect. Justice Gants notes that the majority indicated that an assurance that a statement will be off of the record should be avoided, but failed to find the statement involuntary despite case law from other jurisdictions where suppression was deemed appropriate.

Continue reading "Massachusetts criminal defense attorney comments on court decision involving voluntariness of statement, police agree is "off of the record"" »

A 49-year-old State Police trooper is charged with attempting to strangle his girlfriend and pointing a gun at her during a domestic violence incident, The Patriot Ledger reports.

Cases of domestic violence in Massachusetts often come down to a he said/she said situation. And sometimes that's when the experience of a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer can make all the difference.. Being able to show which witness is more credible and argue that to a jury or judge can prevent you from being convicted of domestic assault. This is particularly critical for members of law enforcement because a conviction can prevent you from owning a firearm and can end your career.

Trooper Brian Dunn faces charges of assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon and intimidation of a witness, the newspaper reports. A 26-year veteran of the State Police, he was assigned to the South Boston barracks. In May, he and two other troopers were awarded by the court system for their work to curb crime in Wollaston Beach.

The woman, who told police she and Dunn dated for the last three to four months, was medically treated at the scene, but declined further medical assistance. She is also a police officer, according to media reports. He is claimed she was the aggressor. Both could face disciplinary action.

According to police reports, police responded to the home after a 911 hang-up. When police arrived, they found Dunn covered in blood, with broken glass and other out-of-place things inside.

His 28-year-old girlfriend was found upstairs crying and told police the two had an argument over a conversation she'd had with another man at a nearby bar. Police reported smelling alcohol on the breath of both Dunn and the woman.

The woman told police Dunn threw a cell phone at her, attempted to strangle her on a bed and pointed a handgun at her. Police found two guns in the home as well as hundreds of rounds of ammunition and six guns inside a safe.
MyFoxBoston reported that a judge determined the trooper is not a danger to society and can be released. He was previously held in jail without bond, pending the hearing. He will be fitted with a monitoring device to track his whereabouts.

Continue reading "Massachusetts State Trooper Charged With Domestic Assault and Battery in Quincy" »

Matthew Gumkowski was charged with first degree murder, armed robbery and arson in the death of his roommate at a rooming house according to the Bristol County District Attorney. Joseph Kilrow was found beaten, strangled and stabbed in his third-floor room before firefighters were called to the fire at the rooming house. Gumkowski is currently in jail on other charges and is expected to be arraigned on murder charges this week in Attleboro District Court.

On July 14, 2011, David Linton of the Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported that Gumkowski was a person of interest in the murder. On July 14th, the Attleboro District Attorney's stated that the investigation was ongoing and that Gumkowski was the last person to see the victim alive.

News reports indicate that Gumkowski had blood on his sneakers and that the district attorney was seeking a court order to get DNA.

At this point, it is unclear what evidence the Commonwealth has against Gumkowski. It appears that the case will hinge on the ability of the Commonwealth to find DNA evidence linking Gumkowski to the murder. The news report state that Gumkowski was the last person to be seen with the victim, but it is unclear how soon before the murder and who the witness is to this alleged contact. As an Attleboro criminal lawyer, the Gumkowski trial is likely to depend entirely on forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence.

The Roger Clemens perjury trial abruptly ended with the judge declaring a mistrial. The judge declared a mistrial because the prosecutor allowed the jury to hear evidence that the judge excluded during pretrial rulings. Judge Walton was extremely critical of prosecutors from the bench stating that the mistake was one a first year law student would not make and was further enraged when the inadmissible evidence was left on the screen for the jury to view during a discussion with the lawyers, according to a report in the USA today.

A Massachusetts criminal attorney will typically file motion in limine prior to trial to keep certain evidence from the jury at trial. In some cases a judge may not rule on the evidence at the time of the motion, but may reserve ruling and instruct the prosecutor not to mention the evidence during opening statement. This would incur in a case where the defense attorney is challenging the evidentiary foundation for the evidence and the judge wants to ensure that the Government lays the proper foundation before the evidence is mentioned to the jury.

In the Clemens trial, the prosecutors made two mistakes first by mentioning a piece of evidence in the opening statement that the judge instructed the prosecutor to avoid and second, and more egregiously, by displaying evidence that the judge had ruled inadmissible. Clemens' lawyers objected to the evidence coming in and the judge declared a mistrial.

Typically, a mistrial will not bar a defendant from being retried; however, the exception to that rule is when Government conduct causes the mistrial. In this case, the criminal defense lawyers will argue that the Government deliberately disobeyed the orders of the judge to gain an advantage warranting dismissal of the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additionally, the lawyers will argue that Clemens cannot receive a fair trial as the potential jury pool will be tainted and know about the evidence that the court intended to exclude from consideration.

Legal Commentators have attempted to predict how Judge Walton will rule. One Boston criminal lawyer predicted that Clemens would not be retried because the case is a mess as a result of the Government's mistakes.

I would expect the judge to bar a retrial of Clemens finding the conduct deliberate on the part of the Government. Given the public's view as expressed during the jury selection, that the prosecution is essentially a waste of time and money, and the difficulty of granting Clemens a fair trial, I think the judge will find that the Government's conduct in defiance of the court order warrants dismissal.

As a Massachusetts criminal attorney, once any client is sentenced after trial or accepts a plea to jail time, the first question is, when will I get out. This will depend on how the sentence is structured. Massachusetts criminal sentences can be concurrent or consecutive, meaning one after another. The Casey Anthony Sentencing provided an example of the judge sentencing Anthony to consecutive sentences on the four misdemeanor counts she was convicted of. In many misdemeanor cases in Massachusetts, it would be common for a judge to sentence a defendant to concurrent time on four separate misdemeanor charges meaning that the sentence would run at the same time for each count of the complaint.

In Anthony's case, she had substantially jail credit meaning that she had already served her sentence prior to trial. Jail credits are important for a Massachusetts criminal lawyer to calculate as well. In a Massachusetts felony or misdemeanor case, if a person cannot post bail and is held prior to trial or sentencing, then if there is a conviction or plea, the defendant is entitled to jail credits from the time that the defendant was held on the case. Where jail credits can get complex, is when a defendant is being held on more than one case or doing a sentence for another charge pending trial. A defendant is entitled to jail credits if being held on two charges at the same time, but would not be entitled to jail credit if serving a sentence pending the resolution of an outstanding charge.

Jury selection continued in the Roger Clemens perjury trial on Monday. Criminal defense lawyer Rusty Hardin asked prospective jurors about their feeling about steroids in baseball. In an effort to encourage jurors to share their feeling on the issue, Harden disclosed that he never received as much hate mail as when representing Clemens because of strong feeling regarding the impact of steroids on the game of baseball. Good Massachusetts criminal lawyers understand that Hardin's disclosure regarding his experience in representing Clemens was an effort to encourage jurors to honestly share their feeling on steroids in baseball, which would help the defense uncover jurors potentially hostile to the defense. Prosecutors questioned jurors regarding whether they thought the investigation was a waste of time and money; several jurors indicated that they thought more pressing issues faced Congress and justified the use of taxpayer money.

Experienced Massachusetts criminal lawyer understand that jury selection is critical to obtain a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial. In Massachusetts, criminal lawyers submit questions that the judge reads to prospective jurors. To see the questions submitted in the Clemens' case, click here. The goal of jury selection is to uncover jurors that may be hostile to the defense of the case and to learn as much as possible about each juror so that challenges for cause, referred to as peremptory challenges, can be used most effectively.

Brockton drug arrests have been on the rise as State and federal law enforcement have targeted drug distribution in Brockton, Massachusetts. Denita Goforth was charged with a Massachusetts drug distribution charge and held on $ 20, 000 cash bail according to a news report in the Brockton Enterprise. A bail amount of $ 20, 000 seems excessive for a charge of drug distribution, unless there was a serious history of not appearing for court or a substantial criminal record. When a judge sets a excessive bail or bail that a defendant has no chance of posting, a Brockton criminal attorney can file a bail appeal in superior court to attempt to reduce the bail. The superior court judge will review the case de novo, without regard to what the district court found, and will make an independent determination of what bail should be set. The superior court judge has discretion to raise or lower the bail; however, in most appeals, the judge would keep the bail the same or lower the bail.

There were 28 Brockton drug arrests made during the operation; and police describe the defendants as mid and low level street drug dealers of cocaine. Another individual arrested, Larry Brown, was held on $ 30, 000 cash. The purpose of bail is not to punish an individual prior to trial, but to ensure the defendant appearance in court.

In January Brockton police made a similar drug sweep while federal authorities conducted a drug sweep in November of 2010.

Continue reading "High Bail set in Brockton Drug Arrests in Operation Street Sweeper II. " »

The not guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony trial has caused outrage by many. However, the trial was 36 days long and few followed every detail of the trial as the jurors picked to deliberate and forced to put their lives on hold while performing this public service. For an excellent commentary on the trial see Liz Goodman's article on yahoo news attached here.

As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer, one of the points I make in any criminal trial is to remind the jury what it means to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Massachusetts law defines that as proof to a near moral certitude. When jurors take the oath for juror duty, sit in a court room listening to a trial and sitting before the American flag, they take their obligation to apply the law and constitutional protections seriously, and that is what happened in the Anthony case.

Based on the convictions on the misdemeanor counts, the jury likely believed that Anthony was involved with the death in some respects and tried to cover it up. However, the jury could never find beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony intended to kill or harm her daughter. The jury had circumstantial evidence of her acting strange, partying and not appearing to care that her daughter was missing, but never any DNA evidence or evidence that suggested a motive.

It is hard to accept that no person is responsible for this tragic death. However, the jury simply did not have proof to a near moral certitude to justify a conviction under the Constitution.

As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer, one issue that arises frequently is considering the immigration consequences of a possible plea offer or conviction after trial. In the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a criminal lawyer provides ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. The issue that arose after Padilla was whether this decision would apply retroactively to case prior to the Supreme Court's Padilla decision.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court resolved this issue in the case of Commonwealth v. Michael Clarke, decided on June 17, 2011. The Clarke decision raised the issue of the whether Padilla applied retroactive clearly as the testimony at the new trial motion was that counsel was unaware that the defendant was not a citizen and had no discussions regarding the immigration consequences of a conviction. Accordingly, the SJC held that ineffective assistance of counsel was demonstrated and the court agreed to apply the decision retroactively to encompass claims raised prior to the Padilla decision.

The Sexual Assault case brought against Dominique Strauss-Kahn may be on the verge of collapse according to a report in the New York Times. Investigators have uncovered substantial holes in the story of the alleged victim and police claim that she has lied to them. The alleged victim claimed that Strauss-Kahn attacked her in a Manhattan hotel room. Click here to read the MSNBC report.

Investigators learned that a day after the alleged incident that the alleged victim made a phone call to an incarcerated man discusses the benefits of bringing the allegations. The phone conversation with recorded. Further, police claim that the alleged victim lied about having numerous cell phones.

As a result of this dramatic weakening of the State case, Strauss-Kahn is likely to receive a substantial reduction in his bail and conditions of release.

Continue reading "Sexual Assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn substantially weakened as a result of reports that the alleged victim has lied to the police" »