Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A Los Angeles judge has found Robert O'Ryan guilty on felony stalking charges against former Olympic Gold Medal Winner and former Dancing with the Stars winner Shawn Johnson.

Anyone facing stalking charges should contact an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer to protect their rights. Under Massachusetts law (Chapter 265 Section 43), stalking is punishable by up to five years in prison. But, more than many other types of crimes, what constitutes stalking is debatable and defendants facing unfair allegations will need to mount a vigorous defense.

In the Los Angeles case, the judge heard three days of testimony concerning the actions of a Florida man who drove to California last March with the hopes of meeting the Olympic champion after she competed on the TV show "Dancing with the Stars." He had a shotgun and a handgun in his car, along with duct tape, a bulletproof vest, a knife, zip ties and writings addressed to Johnson. The judge found the defendant guilty of all counts and order him sent for a mental evaluation.

In Massachusetts, the law requires a defendant to "willfully and maliciously engage in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously harms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress."

While this case is obviously an extreme example, stalking charges often involve a souring relationship between two individuals or are made vindictively with little evidence. A Massachusetts defense attorney can defend the legal rights and reputation of a client facing a stalking charge. As the law states, prosecutors must proof you knowingly and willfully engaged in a series of acts that were intended to be deliberately harmful (malicious) and that the victim must have suffered substantial emotional distress.

If the state fails to prove any of these elements, you cannot be convicted of stalking in Massachusetts.

Continue reading "Massachusetts stalking charges require thorough defense" »

The Obama Administration is taking heat from Republican senators and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for remarks the President made during the State of the Union, which were critical of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance reform.

The independence of the court is little debated and often taken for granted. But an independent court is vital to democracy and has a far-reaching impact, from national debate over abortion and gun control to future cases the court might hear regarding Massachusetts criminal defense.

The judicial branch must operate independently of the executive branch (White House) and the legislative branch (Congress), which is the primary reason why Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the bench for life.

FOX News is reporting that two senators (with no apparent acknowledgment of the irony of the legislative branch now becoming involved with court affairs) have called on Obama to stop criticizing the court. Chief Justice John Roberts took umbrage at the President's criticism during his State of the Union address.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he agreed with Roberts, who also said it was "very troubling" that the annual speech has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

"But the president was wrong on the law, he was wrong on the facts and I thought it was unseemly for him to criticize the Supreme Court while they're sitting there ... they're a separate branch of government. They're not there to be lectured to by the president of the United States."

During the speech, at which six of the justices were in attendance, Obama criticized a 5-4 January decision that found government limits on corporate funded, independent political broadcasts during elections constitute a violation of free speech rights.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, also chimed in to voice his criticism.

"I was disappointed and dismayed to hear the president of the United States mischaracterize the decision of the Supreme Court and scold the members of the court in his State of the Union address for something they didn't do," Sessions said.

Chief Justice Roberts, speaking on Tuesday at the University of Alabama, questioned whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stood by the President's comments, saying the flood of corporate money is drowning out the voice of average Americans.

"The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government," Gibbs said. "That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

The Washinton Post said the issue may be resonating with voters after 1,500 comments were posted on its website.

The Wall Street Journal said the incident may be the most overt criticism of the court by a sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt engaged in an epic battle with the court over New Deal initiatives.

Continue reading "President Obama criticizes United States Supreme Court prompting response from Chief Justice" »

A Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer was denied a new trial for his client convicted of embezzlement after jurors were found to be discussing the case on facebook. During the trial, three jurors were found to be posting comments about the trial on their facebook page. In response, judges have cautioned jurors about going on social networking sites, doing a google search on the parties involved in the case and even going on the internet at all during the trial.

The problem with social networking sites impacting juror trials is not limited to Massachusetts. In Florida criminal case, nine jurors admitted to doing online research about the case. In Britain, a juror asked a friend on facebook to help decide a case. Problems with online social networking sites and there impact on juries in criminal cases will continue to be a challenge for Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys.