Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Michael Herren is back in legal trouble again after being charged with assault and battery in Fall River in the wake of a fight over a betting debt that left a man on crutches, according to the Herald News.

Herren, 40, appeared in Fall River District Court on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and assault and battery. He was released on $500 bail. Police contend his foot was the deadly weapon.

The charges stem from an incident in June outside Raw Martini. Witnesses say Herren was in a fight with a 39-year-old man when the man's 38-year-old brother-in-law also joined the fray. When police arrived, the men told them there was no fight. However, the brother-in-law later filed a police report after determining he had suffered a broken ankle.

The brother-in-law claims he was assault by Herren when he jumped in to try and help the other man, who was fighting with Herren over a $500 bet.

In this case, a defense lawyer will also look at self defense. Regardless of who started the fight, it appears obvious even from the brother-in-law's account, that he jumped into the fray and was subsequently assaulted. Herren told police he was attempting to leave when he was assaulted by both men. And that the victim fell and broke his ankle while jumping up and down in a boxing stance.

In addition, A hearing has also been scheduled to determine whether the arrest violates the terms of his pretrial release on an assault charge filed last fall. In that case, he is accused of pushing his then-girlfriend. He accepted nine months of pretrial probation and was told the case would be dismissed if he stayed out of trouble.

It's another example of why an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Fall River is so important when working out such agreements or when defending yourself against violations.

Continue reading "Herren Facing Massachusetts Assault Charges in Fall River District Court" »

After Massachusetts legislators passed the Criminal Offender Record Information registry reform last year, most companies can't ask a potential employee if they are a convicted felon.

That change has led to many ex-felons getting jobs throughout Boston. One Roxbury company, Roxbury Technology, strives to hire convicts because the company's CEO believes that if people have nothing to strive for, they will continue to commit crimes. If they have a steady job, they are dedicated, the CEO believes, according to ABC News.

While it is good news that some convicts are able to find jobs in this difficult economy, there may be many more who are unable to find steady employment. And given the power of the internet and ability to do online searches for blog posts and news media articles, some records stay in the public realm forever.

There may be circumstances in which a criminal history record may not impede on a person's ability to find work or move on with life, but that doesn't mean it's the rule. A defendant is always best off challenging a criminal charge, for the criminal penalties as well as the social ramifications. Fighting criminal charges in Massachusetts is critical and must be handled by an experienced Attleboro Defense Attorney.

In Massachusetts, the Criminal Offender Record Information reform is starting to take place. While employers now can't use a prospective employee's criminal history in a job interview, the second phase kicks in this May. In the second phase, convicts will have to wait less time before they seek to seal records for misdemeanor and felony convictions.

Here are some common facts about the CORI changes and a person's criminal history record:

• If there is an error with your criminal history record, such as charges appearing that you never faced, you must contact the probation department in the court where the charge originated.
• A person convicted of a felony previously had to wait 15 years before they were able to seal the record from public viewing. As of May, the time will change to 10 years. For misdemeanors, the time a person must wait dropped from 10 years to 5 years.
• Who gets to see a person's criminal history record depends, according to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. The general public can get publicly accessible conviction information, such as records of people convicted and either serving or who have already served. Certain criminal justice agencies or others with clearance can also access these records.

Continue reading "Criminal Offender Record Information Reform makes it easier to seal records in Massachusetts" »

A former Mansfield High School football player recently had his case continued without a finding for one year after admitting to punching a police officer and running from an arrest, The Sun Chronicle reports.

In Massachusetts, a continuance without a finding -- or CWOF -- is equivalent to a "no-contest" plea in other states. It's an admission that the Commonwealth would be able to prove the charges in court, but it's in the defendant's best interests to simply end the case. After entering this plea to the court, however, the defendant must prove through conditions of probation in the court where the case was resolved that they haven't slipped up.

If they have a probation violation, they can be sentenced to the maximum sentence allowable for the charge, which is a big reason to complete the conditions of probation without any problems. An experienced Attleboro criminal defense lawyer can properly advise you on what may be the best path to take in your criminal case. The prospect of future violations and the conditions of probation are two excellent reasons why consulting an experienced attorney is best done before accepting a plea offer.

Jamel Marshall, 18, was ordered to perform four hours of community service per month and pay $300 in court costs. The charges stemmed from an underage drinking party in Mansfield recently at which police attempted to break up the party. Prosecutors said the 18-year-old Marshall refused to sit down and then chest bumped and punched an officer in the face.

The former running back outran the police officer, but was later arrested nearby. He was one of two dozen students arrested and charged with unlawful possession of alcohol. The 52-year-old homeowner, whose 17-year-old daughter was the party's host, was in the house at the time.

For admitting to what happened, the 18-year-old had the charges of assault and battery of a police officer and resisting arrest continued without a finding for one year. The charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful possession of alcohol were dismissed.

While it sounds like a good deal for Marshall to only get court costs and community service, the benefit of the deal really rest on the defendant's ability to comply with terms.

With probation or other non-incarceration conditions, a defendant can slip up and miss reporting to their probation officer, skip an alcohol-based program if the charge is OUI or another misstep that can result in being back in front of the judge who just sentenced you.

If this happens, a hearing will be conducted in which the judge will have to determine whether the defendant indeed violated their probation. If the judge finds the defendant did violate, the court can send the defendant for prison for the maximum possible sentence for that charge, even if a term of probation has already been agreed to by both parties.

Your Massachusetts criminal attorney will explain this situation to you and help you understand the responsibilities you have after a continuance without finding in your criminal case to help ensure you have the best possible outcome.

Continue reading "CWOF in Massachusetts Can Still Lead to Jail Time if Violation Occurs" »

According to a news report in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle by Stu Skerker, three Rhode Island residents and one Attleboro teenager were taken into custody and all charged with a Massachusetts gun crime of possession of a firearm without an FID card. This charge carries with it a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 18 months.

The news report states that police arrive at a gas station for a report of a disturbance and one suspect allegedly showed a handgun. As the vehicle was leaving the gas station, it was stopped by Attleboro police.

A search of the car resulted in the recovery of a .22 caliber handgun and .22 caliber ammunition. It is unclear from the news report where the handgun was found; all four individuals were charged with possession of a firearm.

As a Attleboro criminal attorney, the four individuals in this case appeared to have some viable defenses. First, a motion challenging the basis of the stop can be filed. It is unclear from the news report what information the police had prior to stop. The police officers in this case would have to show reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of the vehicle. The Attleboro Patch news account by Patricia Resende indicates that the four individuals were involved in an argument with other individuals on a limosine bus. The defendants could challenge the reliability and veracity of this tip.

Secondly, a defense lawyer in Massachusetts could file a motion to challenge whether the police complied with the Fourth Amendment in searching the car. Third, given that it appears that the firearm was not found on any one individual, the Commonwealth may have a difficult time proving who possessed the firearm. The Commonwealth would proceed on a joint venture theory, meaning that the Government would claim that all four individuals constructively possessed the firearm and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over. Crucial to the defense in this case will be, who is alleged to have possessed the firearm at the gas station and where were the four individuals positioned in the car when they were at the gas station, and where in the car was the firearm and ammunition found. The Commonwealth would likely ask for dangerousness hearing to seek to hold each of the four individuals without bail for up to 90 days.

While the dangerousness hearing in the case would potentially hold the defendants without bail, it would be a valuable opportunity to begin establishing the defense of lack of possession of the firearm and to establish the facts necessary to successfully pursue a motion to suppress.

Continue reading "Four individuals arrested in Attleboro on Massachusetts gun charges" »

The recent arrest of former World Series MVP Manny Ramirez is typical of many Massachusetts domestic assault and battery arrests, in that the case will involve the issue of the admissibility of the 911 call. According to a Yahoo news report, Manny Ramirez's wife, Julian Ramirez, called 911, to report that she was struck in the face and her head, and had a bump on her head. The 911 dispatcher asked Julian if she had she was able to get away from her husband. Ramirez's wife said that the conflict had ended because Ramirez knew she had called the police.

Ramirez was released on $2500 cash bail, according to the Washington Post. As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer, Ramirez made a crucial mistake in speaking to reporters after being released from court. A individual charged in a criminal case should never speak about the case to anyone other than the criminal defense lawyer handling the case. After leaving court, Ramirez told reports that he grabbed his wife by the shoulders during an argument, causing her to hit her head on the headboard of their bed. While it is understandable that Ramirez wants to explain what happened, it does not benefit his case. Ramirez would have an opportunity to explain his side of what happened if the case went to trial. By making statements prior to trial, Ramirez subjects himself to being impeached at trial by his prior statements.

Ramirez's case, is like many Massachusetts domestic assault and battery arrests. In Massachusetts, if Ramirez's wife did not want to testify she could assert her marital privilege. But that would not be the end of the case. Even though a victim does not wish to testify, in many cases, the district attorney will still attempt to pursue the charges without the cooperation of the alleged victim. The reason is criminal charges are taken out by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and not taken out by the alleged victim.

If the victim does not wish to testify the government will attempt to admit the 911 calls into evidence, pursuant to case law from the United States Supreme Court, that that allows statements made to a 911 operator to come into evidence without the defendant being given the opportunity to cross-examine the victim under a case known as Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006).

Continue reading "Domestic Assault and Battery Charges brought against Manny Ramirez" »

A Provincetown man is suing amid claims his privacy rights were violated after authorities allegedly kept records in connection with a voluntary DNA sample he submitted during an investigation into the killing of a fashion writer, the Boston Globe reports.

Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys are seeing an increasing number of criminal charges being brought in cold cases after hits from the DNA database link defendants to the crime. In addition to the state system, samples are submitted to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which compiles and compares samples from defendants and unsolved crimes nationwide.

While seldom discussed as a reason to fight a conviction on felony charges in Massachusetts, keeping your DNA out of such databases can be critical to protecting your privacy rights.

In this case, Keith Amato sued after trying for two years to get his sample back from law enforcement. He claims the submission was voluntary and that authorities told him he would get the sample back if his DNA did not match a sample collected at the scene of the killing of Christa Worthington. While the sample was returned in October 2008, he claims the state crime lab has held his DNA profile, along with records and samples provided by other men.

Last week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled his lawsuit can go forward; it had been tossed out by a lower court.

"The allegations that the defendants have retained Amato's highly sensitive DNA records without his consent and made them available for nonconsensual use in other criminal investigations are sufficient to constitute an unreasonable, substantial, and serious interference with Amato's privacy," the court ruled.

Worthington's trash collector, Christopher McCowen, was convicted in 2006 of her rape and murder and is serving life in prison. Worthington lived in Cape Cod at the time of the crime. Investigators solicited samples from numerous men who knew the victim. Amato was a relative by marriage of the father of Worthington's 2 1/2 year old daughter.

The lawsuit claims as many as 200 men gave samples and that Amato was assured any samples that did not match the crime scene would not become part of any state or federal database. McCowen also provided a sample before being arrested in 2005.

Amato was unsuccessful in retrieving his sample, despite requesting its return on numerous occasions from the Cape & Islands District Attorney's Office. The office said state lab protocol requires retaining evidence in murder cases for 50 years.

Such DNA dragnets are an example of law enforcement operating in a gray area. The "voluntary" collection of samples comes perilously close to unreasonable search and seizure and must be aggressively challenged by a Cape Cod criminal defense lawyer.

Unfortunately, such tactics have been around since the advent of DNA. The first use of DNA in a criminal case occurred in England after the rape and murder of two girls. "Mass screening" of male subjects was used to solve the crime. The case is recounted in "The Blooding: The True Story of the Narborough Village Murder," by Joseph Wambaugh.

Wambaugh is a former detective with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Continue reading "DNA Database Another Reason for Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Massachusetts" »

The Massachusetts Appeal Courts addressed the issue of when police may make an investigatory stop based on 911 tips. The case of Commonwealth v. Alfredo Perez arose from an appeal of the defendant's conviction in the Brockton District court of possession of a firearm without an FID card in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10. As a Brockton gun crime lawyer, charges of unlawful possession of a firearm often raise Constitutional defenses.

In the case, Brockton police received a report of guns shots fired. A police officer responded within minutes to the call. The police then received a second dispatch claiming to seeing a car leave the area where the shots were heard. The police were able to identify the vehicle and made a motor vehicle stop.

In assessing whether the police had reasonable suspicion for the stop, the Massachusetts Appeals Court applied the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), which addressed the issue of what type of evidence the police need to make an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip. The Perez Court held that the Commonwealth had to establish both the indicia of reliability of the transmitted information and the particular description of the motor vehicle.

To establish particularity the Court held that the Commonwealth must show that the description provided sufficient detail to allow a police officer relying on the dispatch reasonably to suspect that the motor vehicle matched the description and was occupied by the person under investigation. To establish reliability the Commonwealth must show the basis of knowledge of the source of the information and the underlying circumstances demonstrating the source of the information was credible or the information reliable, which is known as the veracity test.

The Court found that the basis of knowledge test was satisfied with regard to both calls based on first hand observation. The Appeals Court next addressed the issue of whether the veracity component was satisfied. The Court noted greater reliability is assigned to those whose identity is known. The Court held that both calls were anonymous, with one callers identity never being known while the other caller's identity was only known after the motor vehicle stop. The Court stated that the fact that the officers went back to the scene to speak to the first caller supports a reasonable inference that they were able to do so because the caller either identified herself or could be traced by reasonable means.

The Court found that there was no additional evidence of police investigation to corroborate the veracity of the caller. However, the court noted that it could consider the imminent nature of the threat in assessing whether there was reasonable suspicion as well as the proximity between the call, the location of the incident and place of the stop. Accordingly, the Court found that the stop was permissible under Article 14 and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Continue reading "Brockton gun charge brought to the Massachusetts Appeals Court challenging lawfullness of the stop" »

In the case of Commonwealth v. Gentle, decided on August 25, 2011 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the SJC addressed two important issues for Massachusetts criminal lawyers. First, the Court reversed the defendants' drug conviction because the Commonwealth failed to present live testimony under the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Second, an more importantly, the SJC suggested that it would not follow the United States Supreme Court decision of Kentucky v. King if presented with the issue under Article 14 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

On the confrontation issue, the Commonwealth argued that because the defendant fled during the trial, the Court should hold that the defendant should not get the benefit of recent case law that would not have been available had the defendant not fled during trial. The SJC rejected this argument and held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the United States Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

The SJC next addressed the police created exigent circumstances rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011). The SJC held that because the defendant did not raise a claim under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, that the motion was properly denied based on the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal constitution. However, the SJC strongly suggested that the Court may not follow this rule under the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is significant decision for a Massachusetts criminal attorney. The decision emphasizes the importance of basing motions to suppress on Article 14 as the Massachusetts court will not always follow the narrow interpretation of the Fourth Amendment adopted by the United States Supreme Court.

A man on probation for stealing $11,000 in Beanie Babies more than 10 years ago allegedly went on a shopping spree recently, stealing a minivan, breaking into a truck and stealing two televisions before taking a nap and getting caught by police, The MetroWest Daily News reports.

Theft charges in Natick typically get more serious depending on the value of the items taken. Yet, the value must be proven and that's after the prosecution can even prove the defendant committed the crime.

Hiring an experienced and aggressive Framingham Criminal Defense Attorney to defend against similar allegations is the right first step. An attorney must be consulted in order to ensure justice is done and the rights of the defendant are upheld.

According to the newspaper, 41-year-old Brian William Doubleday already had warrants out for his arrest in Lowell District Court and Framingham District Court, though the newspaper doesn't say what the warrants are for. The report also states that upon his arrest, the New Hampshire Probation Department issued an arrest warrant because he was serving time on probation from 1999, when he was convicted of stealing the Beanie Babies there.

Natick Police said an officer was on patrol when a minivan parked in a hotel parking lot caught his attention. After running the New Jersey plates through databases, the officer found it was stolen.

Inside, Doubleday was sleeping and after officers woke him up, he got out. Inside the minivan, they found a laptop and other items they believe were stolen from a U-Haul truck in Natick recently, police said. Police also believe video surveillance shows Doubleday stealing two 32-inch televisions from a hotel, but those televisions haven't been found. The man faces charges of receiving a stolen vehicle, receiving stolen property worth more than $250 and larceny of property worth more than $250.

In this case, a defense lawyer may challenge probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives every American the right to not be subjected to illegal search and seizure. That means that police officers can't just knock on a person's door and force themselves in looking for evidence of a crime. The same goes for when you're driving in your vehicle. You can't get stopped for no good reason just because the police want to go on a fishing expedition.

So, it will be interesting to see if police have any real reason for why they walked up to the vehicle Doubleday was in and determined they should question him. They also cited video surveillance as proof that he stole televisions, yet they found no televisions.

Video surveillance, as well as eye witness accounts, can be unreliable. People fudge details or don't really remember what they saw in the first place. And sometimes, video cameras show fuzzy pictures or only the back of a person's head. Rarely do the cameras really capture what a person looks like and zooming in makes the image more difficult to see.

It's important to fight all aspects of a larceny or theft case because the penalties include years in prison as well as thousands of dollars in fines. They are serious and must be aggressively fought. This case also illustrates the consequences of long probation sentences -- which can result in additional legal hassles long after a defendant has paid for his crime.

Continue reading "Lowell Man Caught Napping After Allegedly Stealing in Natick" »