This is especially true for college students charged with a New Bedford sex crime. With an entire future ahead of him, college students must find an experienced and knowledgeable defense attorney, whether the charge is date rape, statutory rape, sexual battery or other sex offense.

In a lot of Massachusetts sex crimes that allegedly occur on campus, victims will report those allegations to university police. There is supposed to be specific protocol in place for how such cases should be handled, although there have been some high-profile instances in recent years in which top university brass have come under fire for attempting to sweep such situations under the rug. These institutions don't want to gain a reputation as being unsafe for students.

But now, a U.S. Justice Department probe in Montana may have implications for reversing that trend. While it's important for our universities to provide a safe learning environment, false or unsubstantiated claims could be aggressively pursued, which in turn could lead to unfair charges.

Here's what we know so far of the situation in Montana, as reported by CNN:

At the University of Montana, there have been at least 11 allegations of student-involved sexual assault over the last year-and-a-half, and 80 sexual assaults in the city over the last three years. Two of those involved football players. One involved an alleged gang rape and the drugging of a student by several others.

A spokeswoman with the Justice Department says the probe was kick-started by allegations that the criminal investigations into those matters was lacking due to gender bias. The Justice Department's focus reportedly has to do with not the number of complaints, but rather how the university handled them. Basically, some are saying that prosecutors and the university didn't fully press the criminal investigations because of general attitudes that tended to favor the accused, rather than the victims. Both the university and the district attorney deny this.

As part of the investigation, it seems likely that the federal agency will be looking at how crimes were reported and to whom, and what communication those agencies had amongst one another in the wake of the allegations.

It's not clear from CNN's report how many of those allegations resulted in criminal charges.

Under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 272 Section 3, anyone who drugs another with the purpose of engaging him or her in a sexual act faces a minimum of 10 years in prison - all the way up to life. That means if you're facing allegations of a New Bedford sex crime, you absolutely can't afford to leave it up to chance with a public defender.

Laws that pertain to sexual assault vary from state-to-state. However, as the Justice Department has authority in all states, it's likely that colleges in Massachusetts will take note of what's happening in Montana.

Call (617) 694-6287 for more information.

Additional Resources:
Justice Department investigates handling of rape allegations in Montana, By Moni Basu and Lateef Mungin, CNN

More Blog Entries:
Boston Sex Crimes Watch: Military Members Accused, April 27, 2012, Massachusetts Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer Blog

Abington domestic violence defense lawyers know that such an allegation can have implications not only for the officer's criminal record, but also his job and child custody arrangements.

Domestic battery cases in Massachusetts often stem from very personal matters. It's not uncommon for one angered spouse to exaggerate or flat-out lie out of spite about what actually happened.

In this case, there is reportedly an on-going child custody case waging between the girls' mother and the officer. Children in these situations find it difficult to fully comprehend everything that's happening, and can sometimes be easily persuaded to take sides with one parent over the other. In some scenarios, that can also lead to exaggerated or false claims.

Of course, every case is going to be different, but this is why it's so critical to hire a criminal defense attorney who is experienced with regard to domestic battery cases.

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 209A, Section 1, defines domestic abuse as any attempt to cause or actually causing physical harm or placing someone in fear that they will be seriously harmed or sexual assaulted by force or threat.

In this case, the daughters told investigators that he had pushed and hit them both, locked one outside in inclement weather and ordered them not to tell anyone what happened - that they would not be believed anyway.

Through his Abington attorney, he has denied those allegations. He was subsequently arrested on assault and battery charges, and released on $2,500 bail.

The officer's attorney said that the allegations stem from a bitter fight between the officer and the girls' mother that is occurring in family and probate court.

Following his arrest, the officer was placed on unpaid leave from his job as a patrolman at the Weymouth Police Department. It is not uncommon for those who work in the public sector and have been accused of a crime - despite the fact that he or she has not been convicted -- to be removed from their job.

The girls reportedly told investigators that they were at their father's home, folding laundry. They said he became angered at the way they were doing their chores. One of the girls said she was pushed into a bed, causing her arm to be bruised. The other girl said she told her father she wanted to go back to her mother's house. In response, her father reportedly pushed her outside into the rain. She was not wearing shoes, she said, and he locked the door. He then let her back in, she said, when she began yelling for someone to contact the police. When she was allowed back in, she said she tripped and then her father pushed her back to the ground, causing her to strike her head on the floor on two occasions. The girls said their father told them that his friends were police, and that no one would believe them if they told what had happened.

The girls' mother told investigators the girls were shaking with fright and hungry when they returned to her residence. One of the girls told her mother her head hurt. Her mother took her to receive medical treatment, and doctors reportedly found she had a concussion.

The officer's defense attorney, however, tells a much different story.

First, he said that he has reviewed the medical records, and there is no mention of a concussion.

Secondly, he says the girls were out of control during the visit. They were disrespectful to their father, and engaged in spitting, kicking, swearing at and punching him. The only time the father touched his daughters was to control them, the attorney has said.

This is very much a he-said-she-said case (as are a lot of domestic assault cases). That's why it's critical to have an attorney who can be effective in presenting your side and protecting your interests.

Call (617) 694-6287 for more information.

Additional Resources:
Weymouth cop 'vehemently denies' striking daughters, lawyer says, By Christian Schiavone and Erin Shannon, The Patriot Ledger

More Blog Entries:
Selectman Faces Massachusetts Domestic Assault and Battery Charge, Feb. 15, 2012, Massachusetts Domestic Assault and Battery Attorney Blog

Attleboro drug trafficking attorneys have read that the suspect told arresting officers he was only selling the drugs in order to scrape together enough money to feed his family. In today's struggling economy, it's certainly believable. The family was receiving government assistance at the time of his arrest.

While this was the fact highlighted by the media, the man's Attleboro criminal defense attorney has said he is likely to be taking a closer look at how officers obtained and carried out their search warrant.

Here's what we know of the case, as reported by The Attleboro Sun Chronicle:

Local and state police raided the man's Attleboro apartment, where he lived with his girlfriend and two small children. Inside, they allegedly found drugs, paraphernalia, an unlicensed handgun and more than $7,000 in cash. Unfortunately, his apartment was also located within 1,000 feet of a preschool, so he was additionally charged with drug violations in a school zone.

He has plead innocent to the charges, which include possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, trafficking of heroin and carrying a gun without a license. Drug trafficking laws are laid forth in Massachusetts General Law, Part 1, Chapter XV, Chapter 94C.

A judge ordered that he be held without bail.

While the suspect told police he sold the drugs to feed his family, investigators reportedly found two electronic benefit transfer cards, or what are commonly known as food stamps. They are government-funded debit cards that allow users to purchase necessities.

First of all, the fact that he was receiving government assistance doesn't mean the family wasn't still struggling. The average, family-of-four beneficiary of this program receives about $800 a month. For those who have ever tried to support a family of four, you will know this isn't much.

Secondly, defense counsel will have to attempt to exclude statements made by the defendant from evidence. As tempting as it might be to explain yourself or your actions and no matter how weighted the evidence against you may seem, you should never offer a statement to police before you've had a chance to confer with your Attleboro drug trafficking defense attorney.

That said, police reportedly found several high-end, luxury items in the home, including large-screen television, expensive watches and jewelry. Among the other items that law enforcement officers listed as "high-end" were a laptop and printer.

The man's girlfriend is also expected to face Attleboro drug charges, though she has not yet been arrested and she maintains she was unaware of her boyfriend's activities as a drug dealer.

The raid came at the conclusion of a month-long investigation, though investigators would not say how they were tipped off to the suspect.

The suspect's Attleboro criminal defense attorney said he intended to closely scrutinize how officers obtained and carried out their search warrant. The suspect reportedly tried to block investigators from entering, but they busted down the door.

There are very specific laws with regard to what information has to be present in order for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant and there are also very stringent methods for how they can be carried out.

If you are unsure whether the search warrant in your case was handled properly, contact an experienced Attleboro criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Additional Resources:
Arrest in city drug raid, BY DAVID LINTON SUN CHRONICLE STAFF, The Attleboro Sun Chronicle

More Blog Entries:
When does the presence of marijuana justify a car search, Massachusetts Appeals Court addresses the issue in Commonwealth v. Daniels, March 30, 2012, Attleboro Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

This is particularly true when the accused is a member of the military.

Boston sex crimes attorneys have been closely watching the allegations unfolding from the U.S. Military Academy in New York and the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland. In both of these cases, the alleged victims have admitted they were intoxicated at the time the alleged crimes occurred.

While any prosecutor will tell you this does not prevent sexual assault charges from being filed or pressed, it can make for a more favorable situation for the defense.

In instances where there are just two witnesses - the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator - it is already a he-said/she-said situation. If one or both of those individuals was intoxicated at the time of the alleged encounter, their testimony is generally going to be deemed less credible.

What's more, in both of these situations, the alleged sex crimes weren't reported for some time after they supposedly occurred. This diminishes the strength of the evidence, whether physical evidence or witness statements.

Case law in situations of alleged sexual assault with the presence of alcohol or other intoxication is laid out in Comm. v. Blanche, 450 Mass. 583. What that case essentially decided was that when there is a lack of consent to a sexual act because of intoxication, the prosecutors must prove first of all that the alleged victim was in fact intoxicated. They must also prove that the level of intoxication was such that it rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent to the sexual act.

Additionally, they have to show that the accused knew or should have known that the other person was not able to consent due to his or her intoxication. Oftentimes, that last part would mean that the defendant was not also so inebriated as to be unable to determine the intoxication level of the other.

For military members, sexual assault falls under the Department of Defense Directive 1350.2. Under that guideline, sexual assault is defined as sexual contact that is intentional and characterized by physical threat, abuse of authority, force or when the victim doesn't or can't give consent. Specifically, consent is not determined by the level to which a victim physically resisted, but rather if there is force or threat of force, coercion or if the victim is incapacitated, asleep or unconscious.

What these two female former servicewomen allege is that while they were underclassmen - one at the Naval Academy and the other at West Point - that they became intoxicated and were subsequently raped by upperclassmen.

Both women eventually dropped out.

The women told CNN that they did eventually report the alleged incidents, however both of the accused were not punished and remain in the military.

Additional Resources:
Betrayal of Trust? Allegations of rape at West Point, Annapolis, By Kyra Phillips and Jessi Joseph, CNN

More Blog Entries:
Massachusetts sex crime charges brought in Framingham District Court requires an aggressive defense, May 10, 2011, Boston Sex Crimes Attorney Lawyer Blog

Massachusetts defense attorneys know that the potential is there to completely tarnish a person's reputation, future employment prospects, living arrangements and personal relationships.

Of course, we also know that a great deal of the allegations aren't true, or are some exaggeration of the truth. We may see a lot of this in cases where multiple plaintiffs come forward in the wake of a high-profile case.

This is what's happened in the case of Bernie Fine, an ex-assistant coach at Syracuse University. Once having four allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against him, each and every single one has failed to stand up to the credibility test - including the most recent allegation, in which the accuser flat-out admitted he lied.

Fine was fired in November, in the wake of the allegations.

It seems one can hardly turn around without word of some new sex abuse allegation being lobbed at educators and coaches around the country. The case against former Penn State Coach Jerry Sandusky is one. Then there are the host of allegations that continue to be filed against coaches and teachers in California.

Some of the reasons have to do with the very nature of the job in working closely with children on a one-on-one basis. It leaves employees in these positions susceptible to false allegations - particularly those made years after the fact - because you're left with a he-said-she-said scenario. Plus, children and youth may not understand the full scope of consequences of their false accusations. And accusers may believe there will be some form of eventual pay-out if the coach or teacher is high-profile -- and they figure the odds are better if there is more than one accuser.

A skilled defense attorney who is aggressive in getting to the bottom of these accusations may be able to confront the accuser with a greater weight of evidence favorable to the defendant. Sometimes, this results in a full recanting of the original allegation.

This is what happened in the Bernie Fine case.

A 23-year-old man from Lewiston, Maine is currently preparing to serve more than three years in a Massachusetts prison on allegations that he sexually abused a teenaged boy. The defendant in that case is one of the four who accused Fine of sexual assault.

The defendant said that when he was 13-years-old, Fine fondled him in a Pittsburgh hotel room, and that he and the assistant coach had watched pornography together. He filed a civil lawsuit in December, but his attorney withdrew it several weeks later.

He now says that not only were the allegations untrue, but he had never actually met Fine, and that he "takes pride in lying."

Then there was the accusation that came from another prison inmate who made allegations against Fine. Those reports were never published because media outlets deemed them not credible from the start.

Two other accusers, former ball boys for the Syracuse team, said they too were molested by Fine for a number of years. However, the statute of limitations on those allegations has expired.

Call (617) 694-6287 for more information.

Additional Resources:
Man says his allegations about Bernie Fine sex abuse were lies, By Ronni Berke, CNN

More Blog Entries:
Attleboro Gun Charges Dropped by Prosecutors, March 18, 2012, Boston Criminal Defense Lawyers Blog

Through the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment, every criminal defendant has a right to assistance of counsel. In a recent stint of U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Court granted criminal defendants a post-conviction right to effective assistance of counsel.

In the case of Missouri v. Frye, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant who rejects a plea because of ineffective counsel may be able to have a harsher sentence vacated if the defendant can show that the deal would have been accepted and it would have been imposed by the court.

The United States Supreme Court also decided the case of Lafler v. Cooper which involved a claim of ineffective assistance when counsel told the defendant that the Government could not prove an element of the case and the defendant rejected a plea and received a significantly harsher sentence. In this case as well, the court held that the Sixth Amendment would allow the court to reconsider the sentence based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court stated that defendants are entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel if the attorney's poor legal advice leads to a more severe punishment than the prisoner would have received had the attorney not given such advice. In both cases Justice Scalia wrote a strong dissenting opinion.

Obtaining effective counsel begins with the hiring of an attorney. When searching for and selecting an attorney (via Google or any other means), it is always a good idea to check the lawyer's state bar status, credentials, and any references the attorney might have. Taking these steps gives you reassurance that you are getting the most effective representation possible. And in a time of crisis, this step is crucial.
In addition, client cooperation is essential.

To avoid any potential obstacles, it is best that every client be actively involved in their case. Knowing the status of your case, understanding your options, and being in contact with your Massachusetts criminal attorney, gives you the best possible shot at a positive outcome throughout all stages of litigation. And as the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, no client deserves anything less.

However, if that same crime is allegedly against an older adult, the penalties double. It could mean 10 years in prison a maximum fine of $50,000 - and that is for each charge.

Having a skilled criminal defense attorney on your side through every step of the process can help mitigate those consequences. In some cases where it might be beneficial, an attorney can also speak to the press on your behalf, as often, media only hears one side - the other side - until the trial or resolution.

In this case, the 51-year-old pastor has pleaded innocent to identity fraud, attempted larceny and uttering a false document. His case is being heard in Wrentham District Court. His bail has been set at $5,000.

Of course, we don't know all the details of this case, yet but here's what know according to The Sun Chronicle:

Investigators say that the pastor, who heads an Adventist church, chose the alleged victims at random. Reportedly, all four of the individuals are in their 70s and 80s. They are from New Mexico, Michigan and Arkansas. They reportedly offered up their personal information to the pastor after he told them they were lottery winners.

The pastor is accused of then contacting the Social Security Administration to have the individual's checks sent to a local Massachusetts bank account that he controlled. Bank officials contacted police after becoming concerned that four separate Social Security checks were being funneled into the same account. Police were contacted by bank administrators after the pastor showed up to ask about the deposits, as he intended to make a withdrawal.

The investigation is ongoing, and officials are trying to determine whether there are additional victims in other states. The pastor's Foxboro defense attorney has indicated that the pastor was recently a victim of a scam, and had sent more than $3,000 to an individual in Florida.

It appears the pastor may have had additional financial difficulty, as he was given loans that topped $60,000 at six separate financial institutions two years ago. He has since filed for bankruptcy.

The pastor further told investigators that he forwarded all the money to an account in Great Britain to help with an estate there that he reportedly inherited.

Call (508) 455-4755 for a free consultation, 24 hours a day, including weekends and holidays.

Additional Resources:
Foxboro pastor charged with scamming elderly, By David Linton, The Sun Chronicle

More Blog Entries:
Fall River Fraud Charges Brought Against Businessman of Mortgage Scheme while out on Bail, March 18, 2011, Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

The Daniels case involved the issue of whether the smell of burnt marijuana and the recovery of two packages of marijuana justified a search of the car. As a result of the car search, police found a hand gun and charged the defendant Daniels with a Massachusetts gun crime.

In Daniel, the lower court had suppressed evidence of a loaded firearm in the defendant's glove compartment because the officer's search of the vehicle was prompted by the smell of marijuana coming from the car. Under Commonwealth v. Cruz, the judge ruled that the officer lacked probable cause to search the vehicle for marijuana without a warrant.

On appeal, the Appeals Court distinguished several circumstances in Daniel that did not occur in Cruz. The Appeals Court distinguished Cruz on the basis that the defendant in that case was in an illegally parked vehicle, not negligently operating a motor vehicle endangering others. In Daniel, the following occurred: First, the traffic stop was made due to the defendant driver's erratic behavior in traffic and the lack of one headlight. Second, when the officer approached the car, the passenger had his head down and was making suspicious motions. Third, when asked if there were any drugs in the car, the driver produced two small baggies of marijuana from her clothing.

The passenger emptied his pockets, which had held a knife. Fourth, after having both occupants exit the vehicle, the officer searched the car and found a loaded semi-automatic pistol in the glove compartment at which time he ordered the defendants to the ground and called for backup. Both defendants were then arrested and charged with carrying a gun without a license.

With the limitations under Daniel, while possession of a small amount of marijuana may no longer be a crime by itself, it may still result in criminal charges when the circumstances surrounding the possession warrant a search with probable cause. As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer, gun and drug crimes, typically involve Constitutional defenses of whether the police complied with the Constitution in making a search.

Double jeopardy is an important concept for any client to understand - particularly when your case mirrors the facts in Cruz vs. Commonwealth, decided on March 15, 2012. Cruz was indicted for trafficking cocaine in June 2007. In October of that same year, his defense counsel filed a request for discovery. Nearly three years later, on the second day of trial, his' Massachusetts criminal attorney discovered that the Commonwealth had failed to supply the defense attorney with at least 500 pages of information obtained during the police investigation - essentially, violating the discovery order.

In such a situation, a judge can either grant a Continuance (allowing the defense attorney to review the documents), grant a Motion to Dismiss, or declare a Mistrial. Given the extensive nature of the documents withheld, a continuance did not appear to be feasible. The defendant's criminal attorney moved for a dismissal of the case. He also objected to a mistrial because a mistrial would only prolong the already financial and emotional burden on the defendant.

The lawyer representing Cruz argued that because this case had already spent three years in discovery and motion practice, the discovery order violation was extreme. In addition, the documents were highly relevant and could have assisted the defendant's case. Although the judge found that the Commonwealth violated the discovery order, the violation was not intentional and therefore a mistrial was declared.

The double jeopardy clause comes from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and is also found in Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. It states that no person may be twice placed in jeopardy for the same criminal offense. In
Massachusetts, once a defendant is placed in jeopardy, a judge can declare a mistrial if it is manifestly necessary. The Commonwealth has the burden to prove that manifest necessity exists. For a judge to declare a mistrial over the defendant's objection, the judge must consider the defendant's right to a trial. In addition, the court must give the objecting defense attorney the opportunity to be heard and the judge must consider any alternatives to a mistrial.

The high profile perjury prosecution of Roger Clemens raised the issue of Double jeopardy recently. The trial of Roger Clemens raised the issue of double jeopardy where a mistrial was caused by conducted of the prosecutor in violating a pretrial ruling of the judge. The judge has ruled that a second trial would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and the retrial is scheduled to resume; should Clemens be convicted, the Double Jeopardy issue would be raised on appeal.

Prosecutors in Attleboro have been forced to drop gun charges after a judge ruled police lacked probable cause for a car stop.

When an Attleboro criminal defense attorney is able to show authorities lacked an acceptable reason to stop your vehicle, a motion to suppress evidence in Massachusetts can result in a dismissal of the case based on the fact that authorities violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

In this case, firearms charges against Joshua Demers, 19, of 70 Roberts St. in Attleboro, and Dylan Contreras, 19, of Pawtucket, were dismissed after a judge ruled in favor of defense attorneys, who argued there was insufficient information to warrant the police stopping the defendant's vehicle.

The two defendants were stopped by police about 3 a.m. Sept. 17. The stop occurred on Thacher Street, about a quarter mile from a disturbance call at a Shell Gas station. Police were responding to a call from the station about a disturbance allegedly involving the defendants and the occupants of a limousine.

Police claimed they stopped the defendant's vehicle based on a description at the scene. However, neither the limo nor its occupants were ever located. Once stopped, police found a gun in the car and charged both men with carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a dangerous weapon. Nobody at the scene ever saw a weapon, although a witness reportedly heard someone yell something about "letting rounds fly," according to the report in the Sun Chronicle.

Both defendants were also charged with disturbing the peace; police found a .22-caliber gun at the feet of one of the defendants and a .22-caliber bullet in the back seat of the cruiser used to transport one of the defendants to the police station.

The judge ruled there was insufficient information to justify the police stopping and searching the defendant's vehicle and that just because a gun was allegedly involved was not enough to form suspicion that the person was carrying it illegally.

Two other defendants in the case also had their charges dropped because prosecutors lacked enough evidence to prove the defendants knew there was a firearm present in the car.

Prosecutors had contested the judge's ruling in favor of the motion to suppress, but ultimately decided to drop their appeal.

In this case we have four young defendants who were stopped by police based on a vague vehicle description. Once stopped, gun charges and disturbing the peace charges result -- fairly serious criminal charges. It could have been a case of mistaken identity or of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Police can charge you with whatever they want -- whether you are convicted in a court of law is what matters. With an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, such charges may not survive the light of day.

The short answer is in many cases no. If you download the attached special report, on domestic assault and battery charges in Massachusetts, you can understand how the case can be proven without the cooperation of the alleged victim. Each case is different and the handling of your case will depend on the prosecutor involved, the seriousness of the allegations alleged in the police report and your criminal record or lack of a record for similar offenses.

It is important not to taking any domestic assault charge lightly not matter what your relationship to the alleged victim. These charges can have serious consequences upon conviction and carry immigration consequences for noncitizens as domestic assault and battery is an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. For a noncitizen, any conviction of a domestic assault and battery charge is likely to have the consequence of deportation or denial of naturalization; under federal immigration law, even a CWOF or continuance without a finding on the charge will count as a conviction.

Prosecutor have ways to prove domestic assault and battery charges even without the testimony of the alleged victim and may rely on the statement you made to the police, 911 tapes in the testimony of other independent witnesses. In many courts, a domestic assault and battery charge will be assigned to a prosecutor who handles only domestic assault and battery cases. This special attention that these cases received from prosecutors can make these matters more difficult to resolve even when the alleged victim does not wish to proceed with the case.

Great Barrington police received a call on May 23, 2010 from a woman informing them that her daughter and five others were smoking marijuana on her property. Police arrived to the home of the woman, searched Keefner and found three sandwich bags containing the substance along with a cell phone and $98 in cash.

Police considered this enough evidence to charge the defendant with intent to distribute, which is illegal in the state of Massachusetts regardless the amount of 's marijuana that is found. Keefner's Massachusetts drug crime lawyer argued that Police could not charge him with intent to distribute because the amount that was found on him was below the decriminalized amount of one ounce.

Prosecutor in the case argued that telling jurors about jury nullification amounts to intimidating jurors and was without constitutional protection. The doctrine of jury nullification is premised on the idea that the jury may disregard the letter of the law to render a just verdict. Jury nullification has resulted in not guilty verdicts in low level drug crimes in Washington DC where jurors felt the drug laws were being selectively enforced.

The United States Supreme Court has held that jurors had no right to be told about jury nullification; however, the idea has been part of the Constitution since its formation, that citizens, may place common sense and justice above the letter of the law. As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer, I feel as though prosecutors should not be concerned with jury nullification because when it occurs, and it is rather rare, it is generally the right decision.

What happens after the arrest? After you are arrested, your case will proceed to court in either one or two ways. You will be notified that you will receive a summons to appear for an arraignment or a clerk magistrate hearing; or you will be given notice that you must appear for an arraignment in court the next day.

Types of cases where you are likely to receive a summons, include shoplifting offense, larceny and other theft offense. If you were taken to the hospital as a result of an alleged drunk driving incident and were not arrest at the scene, you may receive a summons to appear before a clerk magistrate hearing on a Massachusetts OUI charge.

Criminal charges such as OUI/DUI, drug offense, domestic assault and battery, generally result in a defendant being given a court date for an arraignment on the next day after the incident.

What is an arraignment? An arraignment is a formal reading of the criminal charges; it is the official notice that you are being charged with one or more criminal offenses. The significance of being arraigned is that once you are arraigned you will have an entry on your Massachusetts Board of Probation Record. In some cases, this can be avoided by requesting and succeeding at a clerk magistrate hearing.

An arraignment will be very quick and a formality if you have little or no record and face minor charges. In theses cases, a not guilty plea will be entered and the case will be scheduled for a pretrial conference. If you face minor charges, it is not necessary for you to have a lawyer at the arraignment as the case will be scheduled for a further date.

When should you have a lawyer at an arraignment in Massachusetts?

If you face serious charges, such as third or fourth offense OUI, any sex crime, gun offense, drug distribution or domestic assault and battery, it is important to hire a Massachusetts criminal attorney to appear at the arraignment, as there could be an issue of bail or requests for pretrial detentions.

According to the Sun Chronicle

The police reported that Whelan had fled the house in his car prior to their arrival. However, Whelan's lawyer argued that his client "didn't flee the scene, he merely left a heated situation." Whelan had been driven to the police station by a friend about an hour after the incident. Police arrested Whelan and they alleged that he had a "moderate" smell of alcohol on his breath.

Whelan denied the allegations in Taunton District Court and the judge ordered him held in jail on $1,000 cash bail. Sharon Whelan had told the court that she is concerned that her husband may be doing drugs because of some past incidences. As a result, she requested that a restraining order be put in place.

Under Massachusetts law, a person who has been a victim of a Massachusetts assault has the right to file for a temporary restraining order while the case is pending. Whenever the Massachusetts court issues a restraining order, the defendant must refrain from contacting the alleged victim and it prohibits the defendant from entering the victim's house of residence. A violation of a Massachusetts restraining order is a criminal offense.

Due to her allegations of his drug abuse and violent episodes, Sharon Whelan obtained a restraining order against her husband that also prevents him from contacting the children, pending any action involving custody in probate court which is scheduled next week. As part of Whelan's conditions of his bail, the judge also ordered him to refrain from alcohol or illicit drugs. He also has to submit to random drug tests. Whelan's lawyer affirmed that he thought his client's position as a selectman and his connections to the community did not put him as a flight risk. Therefore, he requested that Whelan be released on personal recognizance. The prosecutor did not request a dangerousness hearing because Whelan was not consider a danger to his wife at the present time.