Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A Hudson auto shop owner faces drug- and weapon-related charges based on searches of his business and home, according to a recent report in the MetroWest Daily News. Richard Hatch, Jr., 38, of Sudbury, was arrested along with Carl Lagrassa, 40, of Marlborough, after a police search of Hatch's business, Advanced Automotive Experts. The search, for which police had a warrant, yielded a semiautomatic handgun and a rifle, for which Hatch did not have a permit. Police also found and confiscated 150-200 prescription pills for drugs such as Ambien, a sedative sleep aid, and two opiates used to treat opiate addiction, methadone and Suboxone. Officers also seized a cell phone, a computer, and about $175 in cash from the auto shop.

It was not clear why police originally searched the shop. However, after the shop's search, Sudbury police searched Hatch's home and Marlborough police searched Lagrassa's apartment. The search of Hatch's home yielded eight rifles, a black-powder rifle, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and more prescription pills. The search of Lagrassa's apartment also yielded more prescription pills, including the painkiller Suboxone (buprenorphine), and weapons, including a .44 caliber Smith & Wesson, other handguns, and a loaded 12-gauge shotgun. The weapons and ammunition were stored in a wooden gun case. According to court records, Lagrassa had a permit for large-capacity firearms, but police suspended it because he was selling prescription drugs. Police also observed a man enter and exit Lagrassa's apartment before the search; upon pulling over his car after he left, they found two bottles of Suboxone with Lagrassa's name on them in the car.

Hatch has been charged with possession of a Class B substance with the intent to distribute, possession of a Class C substance with the intent to distribute, possession of a Class E substance with the intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a firearm and improper storage of a firearm, all based on the search of his auto shop. Charges resulting from the search of Hatch's home have not been filed. Lagrassa was charged with possession of a Class C substance and improper storage of a firearm. Both Hatch and Lagrassa were arraigned in Marlborough District Court, were released on $500 and $300 cash bail respectively, and will return in April for pretrial hearings.

As a Marlborough, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer with expertise in drug and weapon offenses, it is clear to me that anyone charged with such offenses should contact an experienced lawyer immediately. Possession of a firearm without a Firearm Identification Card carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence. Drug possession with intent to distribute is a felony and can result in substantial jail time, oppressive probationary conditions and loss of driving privileges. However, prosecutors may simply assume that there was intent to sell based on the amount of the drug found. A Westborough, Massachusetts drug crimes defense lawyer can help anyone faced with such charges by forcing prosecutors to prove that there was such an intent -- and intent is difficult to prove. An experienced attorney can also review the search warrant to determine whether it was obtained and executed properly.

Continue reading "Police Search Results in Weapon and Drug Charges for Sudbury and Marlborough Men" »

Massachusetts gun and drug charges have been dropped against a 30-year-old Worcester man after a judge tossed out evidence he ruled had been unlawfully obtained by police, the Worcester Telegram reported.

An experienced Worcester, Massachusetts defense lawyer should represent anyone facing Massachusetts weapons charges, drug charges or other serious criminal charges in Worester Superior Court. An experienced Worcester defense attorney can sometimes use search and seizures laws in Massachusetts drug cases to get evidence dismissed.

In this case, the defendant was indicted in 2008 on 30 firearm and drug charges after a police raid that authorities say netted heroine, cocaine and two caches of loaded weapons.

An Assistant District Attorney said the charges were dropped after the defense won two motions to suppress evidence, noting the remaining evidence was not sufficient to obtain a conviction.

The Worcester police vice squad and SWAT team conducted the raid after obtaining a search warrant. The defendant was not home and officers arrested him before an arrest warrant had been officially prepared and issued. The judge threw out evidence found during the arrest, including heroin and ammunition. The judge also ruled evidence found in one of five garage units was inadmissible because the warrant had not specified which garage unit was to be searched.

Continue reading "Massachusetts gun charges, drug charges, dropped as a result of faulty Worcester search warrant" »

Two teens and a young male defendant are facing Massachusetts drug charges and weapon's charges in Milford District Court.

Police arrested the trio in separate drug raids last week; one of the suspects reportedly fired a pellet gun at detectives as he tried to flee, the Milford Daily News reported.

The men, ages 17, 19, and 22, were all held on bail following arraignment. An electric stun gun and prescription painkillers were among the items seized by police.

The 19-year-old man allegedly offered crack cocaine to an undercover detective. When police identified themselves, he reportedly pulled a gun from his pants and started shooting at detectives while running away. The gun turned out to be a fake and shot only plastic bullets.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine, distribution of cocaine and assault with a dangerous weapon. he was arraigned in Milford District Court and held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing.

The other two defendants were arrested without incident in a separate bust, after police reported seeing a drug deal at Countryside Liquors on Central Street. Police confiscated Percocet, an electric stun gun and about $1,300 in cash.

The 17-year-old teen was charged with drug distribution and conspiracy to violate drug laws. He was ordered held on $5,000 cash bail following his arraignment.

The 22-year-old was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, possession of an electronic weapon, possession of Percocet and conspiracy to violate drug law. Police say he also is wanted on two out-of-town warrants and was held on $2,500 cash bail following arraignment.

Continue reading "Massachusetts trio facing drug and gun charges in Milford District Court" »

A 64-year-old Framingham man is facing Massachusetts gun charges after a neighbor reported the man aimed a laser sight into his home, according to the MetroWest Daily News.

The defendant posted $10,000 bail and placed under house arrest after appearing in Framingham District Court. A Framingham defense lawyer experienced in handling Massachusetts weapons charges should represent anyone facing gun charges in the Boston area.

Police arrested the defendant at his Henderson Circle home, shortly after 2 a.m. Sunday after a neighbor called to report a red laser was being pointed into his house from the defendant's residence.

Police found a Black & Decker laser turned on and pointed out the window; they also reported finding a marinjuana pipe nearby, a prosecutor said.

Officers found several guns, including an assault rifle and a 9mm handgun, as well as a black powder handgun and a large-capacity magazine, according to the new's account. Prosecutors said the defendant did not have permits for the firearms.

The defendant was charged with disturbing the peace while armed, two counts of possession of a high-capacity firearm, unlawful possession of a high-capacity magazine, unlawful possession of a firearm, three counts of improper storage of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The judge ordered the house arrest in response to the concerns of neighbors and reports that the defendant had acted in a threatening manner in the past. His attorney said his client has never been charged with a violent crime and did not point or threaten anyone with a gun.

Continue reading "House arrest ordered for man facing Massachusetts gun charges in Framingham District Court" »

The recent weapons charge against NBA star Gilbert Arenas illustrates the serious nature with which prosecutors, judges and the public view weapon's violations and the importance of having an experienced attorney fighting for your rights.

Boston Defense Lawyer Michael DelSignore knows the challenges of representing clients facing a Massachusetts weapon's charge. The stigma associated with concealed weapons can cloud the legal issues; having a Massachusetts defense attorney experienced in handling gun charges can be critical to protecting your freedom and your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Arenas, who had a six-year $111 million contract to play for the Washington Wizards, which could be in jeopardy after he was charged with taking four handguns into the team's locker room, has been suspended indefinitely by N.B.A. Commissioner David Stern.

The Wizards have distanced themselves from their star since he pleaded guilty last week, including removing images of him from the arena, according to The New York Times.

"Gilbert Arenas has been a cornerstone of the Washington Wizards for six years," the organization said after Arenas reached his plea deal last week when he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of carrying a handgun without a license. "We are deeply saddened and disappointed in his actions that have led to the events of this afternoon. Gilbert used extremely poor judgment and is ultimately responsible for his own actions."

Arenas is scheduled to be sentenced March 26 and could avoid prison time, an outcome that could work in his favor if the Wizards pursued removing him for breach of contract.

Continue reading "Gun charges against NBA star illustrate need for Boston defense attorney when facing Massachusetts gun charges " »

A Wareham, Massachusetts man, Randy Kennedy and female, Christine Conte were arrested after the Wareham police executed a search warrant of their residence at 20 Linwood Avenue according to news accounts.

Kennedy was charged with drug distribution and drug trafficking. Conte was charged with weapons offenses as a result of having a handgun without an FID card and possession of ammunition.

In this case, a good Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer would review the search warrant to determine if there was probable cause to execute the warrant. To challenge the validity of a warrant a criminal defense lawyer reviews the affidavit in support of the warrant. Once the warrant is obtained a hearing date can be set to have a judge review the determination that probable cause existed to support the search of the residence. The warrant must contain facts indicating that there is probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the residence. Often in drug cases the police rely on confidential informants to provide the basis for obtaining the warrant. A court will carefully review the reliability and veracity of the unnamed informant to determine whether the search was proper under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

A Massachusetts criminal defense attorney would also review the search warrant to ensure that there is probable cause to believe that illegal activity was occurring at the residence searched. In some drug cases, the police improperly obtain a warrant to search a house of a defendant based on drug activity occurring away from the house. In those situations, a motion to suppress the search should be successful.

Based on the news account, the Wareham defendants face serious charges that could result in the Commonwealth seeking a cash bail. This case will require a criminal lawyer to carefully investigate the case to prepare a defense.

Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers defending gun charges must prove that the defendant did not exercise dominion and control over the firearm. If a firearm is not found on a defendant, the Commonwealth will argue that the defendant constructively possessed the firearm, either by arguing that the defendant had access to the firearm or that it was discarded prior to the police arriving. Massachusetts gun charges, of ="_blank">possession of a firearm without an FID card or unlawful discharge of a firearm, carry mandatory jail sentence, typically involve the prosecutor asking for a high bail and are cases that are a priority on the court docket.

In Commonwealth v. Mendes, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a conviction for possession of a firearm without an FID card and unlawful discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a building after a trial in the New Bedford District Court.

Mendes involved a situation where an officer was on patrol, heard gun shots and saw the defendant running toward her; when the defendant saw the officer, he tried to hide and avoid the officer. The defendant ran around a car and was stopped by the officer and the officer testified that she noticed the smell of gunpowder. The gun was found underneath a minivan and police testify established that the defendant was scene in the area of the minivan.

The gun smelled as if it had been recently fired. The defendant was given a gunpowder residue test that came back negative and no fingerprints were found on the gun.

The Appeals Court found sufficient evidence to prove constructive possession based on the defendant's close proximity to the gun shots, his flight from the area, the officer's detection of the smell of gunpowder as she confronted the defendant, the defendant's presence in the area where the gun was found. This case seemed to present very little evidence that the defendant shot the firearm, and was not in the wrong place at the wrong time. A jury's verdict cannot be based on speculation or conjecture and it seems as though the jury assumed that the defendant fired the shots, despite the most compelling evidence, fingerprint evidence and gunpowder residue failing to connect the defendant to the gun. The defendant will likely seek further review of his conviction by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Continue reading "Gun possession conviction affirmed by Massachusetts court on constructive possession theory" »

A Massachusetts defendant convicted of possession of a firearm without an FID card was overturned by the Massachusetts Appeals Court as the Commonwealth failed to prove that the gun was a firearm under the statute. The case decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Commonwealth v. Hollister, involved a case where the defendant raised on appeal that the Commonwealth did not prove that the firearm fell within the definition of a firearm under Massachusetts gun law. Under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 140 Section 121 a firearm is defined as follows: a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured.

The Commonwealth must prove that the firearm is capable of discharging a bullet. In the Hollister case, the Commonwealth relied exclusively on the ballistic certificate which was an affidavit from a ballistics expert stating that the gun met the definition under the statute and was test fired and found to be in working order. Prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachustts, 557 U.S. ___, (June 25, 2009), prosecutors were allowed to prove elements of cases, including drug cases and guns cases by way of affidavit. The Commonwealth relied on the statute that allowed the affidavit of the ballistics expert to be substituted for live testimony under Massachusetts General Laws.

The Commonwealth did not present any live testimony from any witnesses that verified that the gun was working. Hollister's criminal lawyer objected to the introduction of the ballistics certificate under Sixth Amendment Confrontation grounds and the case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Appeals Court held that under and the recently decided Melendez-Diaz decision from the United States Supreme Court that the defendant was denied his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.

The court found that the denial of the defendant's right of confrontation was not harmless error and reversed the defendant's gun possession conviction. This case demonstrates the importance of hiring an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer as the defendant was able to prevail on appeal because his lawyer preserved at trial his objection to the improperly admitted evidence.

In Commonwealth v. Young, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Commonwealth could not hold a defendant charged with unlicensed possession of a firearm without an FID card without bail under the dangerousness statute of Massachusetts law. A Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer should object to any attempt by the Commonwealth to hold a defendant without bail under the dangerousness statute in light of this decision.

The dangerousness statute, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 276 Section 58A allows the Commonwealth to hold a defendant without bail for up to ninety days. The statute sets forth a list of predicate offense that allows the Commonwealth to seek a detention under the dangerousness statute, but also had language that was construed by the Commonwealth as a catch all that would support an expansive use of pretrial detention without bail. This portion of the statute included any felon that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result. The Commonwealth used this language to argue that possession of an unlicensed firearm fell within this language of the statute and allowed for a defendant to be held without bail for up to ninety days.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that possession of an unlicensed firearm does not necessarily fall within the definition of the statute because the crime of possession of an unlicensed firearm does not require the Commonwealth to prove that an individual used the gun for an illicit purpose, just that it was not licensed. Accordingly, the Court held it was a regulatory offense that did not necessarily mean that the individual used the gun for any illicit purpose.

The Young decision means that the Commonwealth should not be successful in detaining a defendant charged with possession of a firearm without an FID card without bail under the dangerousness statute. Gun charges will likely result in the Commonwealth seeks a high bail as a Massachusetts gun offense carries with it a mandatory minimum eighteen month jail sentence.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Gun charges and dangerousness hearings after Commonwealth v. Young" »