DUI, OUI, DWI; -JURY TRIAL – NOT GUILTY-

June 30, 2015

Framingham District Court

 

Client had an extensive criminal record and had been unsuccessfully summonsed to testify in another matter.  A patron of a gas station had called 911 to report an erratic driver who she’d followed to a local gas station.  She told the operator that he was throwing up and that he had been driving very aggressively and in a dangerous manor.  As Client left gas station, caller offered to follow him but the operator told her not to.  She would dispatch an officer immediately.  The officers had a description of the vehicle as well as the driver, so when one of the officers passed Client’s car in the opposite direction, they promptly executed a U turn and began to follow him.

The officer’s report noted swerving and speeding, neither of which were egregious, but enough to pull the driver over for a routine traffic stop.  The officer noted not only the smell of alcohol on Client, but the pungent smell of gasoline, for which the client explained, he had just spilled it on himself.  Client admitted drinking beer and smoking marijuana hours before.  Client unsuccessfully performed several field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for suspicion of OUI.

Client showed up late for the first jury trial setting so the case had to be continued.  As a result of the additional time, the Commonwealth was able to provide Attorney with a recording of the booking video.  The booking procedure was all recorded on video and admitted over the defense’s objection at trial.

The jury pool was small that day so empaneling 6 jurors and one alternate took very little time.  At trial attorney was able to show that the client’s driving was indeed not unsafe, his speed reasonable and although he smelled strongly of gasoline, he was not intoxicated or impaired.  The trial itself was fast, the jury returning a verdict of NOT GUILTY, after less than an hour of deliberation, in time for all parties to enjoy a late lunch.

THREATS; HARASSING CALLS; STALKING; – COUNTS 2 AND 3 DISMISSED; COUNT 1 CONTINUED WITHOUT A FINDING.

 

 

December 1, 2016 Roxbury Municipal Court

Client was charged with Stalking, making harassing phone calls and threatening to commit a crime after his soon to be ex-wife went to a local police department where she reported that he had made numerous texts and calls to her, accusing her of stealing money and threatening to shoot her.

On Attorney’s second appearance a motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum was filed that if allowed would dismiss the Stalking charge. The Judge allowed the motion.  Only two charges remained.  Phone records were obtained and Attorney alongside his team of investigators reviewed evidence and prepared for trial.  One day before the jury trial Lawyer convinced the Commonwealth that they could not prove the Harassment charge.  They subsequently dismissed that charge and after minimal pandering Lawyer was able to obtain an agreed to plea to a CWOF, or continued without a finding on the charge of making threats, which the Commonwealth’s evidence including phone numerous recordings could prove.

MOTORCYCLE MAYHAM -NEWTON. OPERATING TO ENDANGER; FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A POLICE OFFICER; RED LIGHT VIOLATION; FAILURE TO SIGNAL; BLOCKING AN INTERSECTION. –6 MONTH CWOF RECKLESS, REMAINDER DISMISSED.

 

 

November 4, 2016 Newton District Court Reckless Driving   CWOF

Client was charged with Reckless driving, and whole lot more after an incident involving a group of motorcycles and scooters got out of hand. After an initial run in with an officer in an unmarked car, client fled on his motorcycle only later to receive a court summons which was hand delivered by the detective. With at least one prior charge for an almost identical crime, Client was looking at mandatory jail time.  Because of his record Lawyer was unable to prevent the magistrate from issuing the criminal complaint against client, but after some negotiating, Lawyer was able to persuade the district attorney to continue the reckless matter without a finding, dismissing all other matters on court costs on the first court date.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON; JURY TRIAL -NOT GUILTY-

 

 

September 22, 2016 Cambridge District Court

Client was charged with striking a woman in Cambridge after a business deal went bad.  All angles were pursued and as the case was prepped for trial, negotiations as to possible plea deals were discussed.  There was no movement.  The Middlesex District Attorney’s office refused to give an inch and negotiation attempts stopped completely after they offered a “deal” of guilty to the charges, 18 months, with 6 months to serve in jail.  The balance of the unserved time, they said, would be suspended, meaning that upon client’s release from jail, if he slipped up, or simply irritated his probation officer, he could be shipped back to jail for another year.  Client, a middle aged peaceful man, had no record.

On the first trial date the witnesses summonsed by the defense failed to appear.  On the second trial date the same thing happened again but this time Lawyer was pushed into trial, even though one of the necessary witnesses outright refused to come to court.

Over the course of two days Lawyer was able to show the the jury that the “victim” and her boyfriend were not victims at all.  On cross examination Lawyer exposed their untruths, as the two witnesses unsuccessfully attempted to line up the details of their stories.  Their motives were exposed and the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.  Client, shaken up after the ordeal, rejoiced at the decision, pleased that they saw the truth through the forest of lies.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY ON A FAMILY MEMBER; STRANGULATION. –DISMISSED-

 

 

September 7, 2016 Malden District Court

Client was dismayed to learn that he had been charged with striking and strangling his wife after he personally called 911 on her.  Client met with Lawyer and told him the story.

After an argument  and talk of divorce, his wife of several hears had become irate and inconsolable.  Client had heard horror stories about domestic violence accusations so he called the police to mitigate the situation.  When the police arrived that evening Client’s relief turned to horror as he was cuffed, taken down to the police station and booked. Because Client was not a US citizen Lawyer could not negotiate any sort of deal with the Commonwealth.  Domestic violence like so many other crimes, is considered a crime of moral turpitude, making pursuit of citizenship all but impossible.

The woman remained responsive and cooperative with the victim witness advocate as the case proceeded, fueling the Commonwealth’s misconception that a crime had been perpetrated against her by Client.  After protracted litigation and numerous court appearances the Commonwealth finally dismissed the charges against Client when they were left unable to prove their case.

DISTRIBUTION CLASS C; –DISMISSED-

 

 

August 16, 2016 –BMC Central Division-

Client was observed by undercover officers selling close to 100 pills of Adoral in downtown Boston.  One of three involved parties, Client was not found with the drugs, instead, he was found with a named amount of money which matched exactly the sum the buyer told police he gave him.  Client had no standing to file a motion to suppress the officer’s questionable search and seizure of the buyer.  The case slowly moved toward trial in the always busy, BMC, Central Division.  After numerous hearings and countless requests by Lawyer that the judge dismiss the case against Client for blatant discovery violations, the Commonwealth with some prodding by the judge, finally dismissed the case against Client.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE; OUI. –JURY TRIAL- NOT GUILTY-

 

 

August 9, 2016 -Haverhill District Court

After a long day of activities with his daughter, including her first Tee ball game, Client couldn’t complete the drive home safely.  He had dropped his daughter off with a family member and as he made his way back to Haverhill he was simply too tired.  When he pulled into the parking lot of a Starbucks to take a power nap he had no idea what was in store for him.  He was woken up by an officer shining his flashlight in his face and not less than three police cruisers, a fire truck and an ambulance.  To make matters worse, client was on probation for an unrelated offense.  Witnesses had called the police claiming that Client had driven into their fence, knocking it over, then passed out behind the wheel.

Lawyer’s first job was to successfully advocate to the court to reprobate Client, despite the fact that he had picked up a new case.   Lawyer successfully handled Client’s probation violation then began to chip away at the Commonwealth’s case. Motions were filed and several hearings followed. Client and Attorney were optimistic that the Commonwealth’s case, a seemingly week one, would be dismissed at the motion to suppress hearing. It was not. The judge credited the police officer’s testimony and the case inched closer to trial. Client was very eager to move this case forward quickly. He needed to get back on the road, for work and for his family.

On the first trial date, much to everyone’s satisfaction, the case called.  A jury was empaneled and client would finally get his day in court. On cross examination Lawyer finally had an opportunity to ask the Commonwealth’s star witness some important questions.  Prior to this date the witness had successfully avoided Attorney’s investigator.  On the stand witness admitted that he was at a party when he claimed to have seen Client driving and that members of the party were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. The jury saw through his questionable testimony and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty after only a short time. The Not Guilty verdict was entered but the fight was not yet over. Lawyer filed a motion to reinstate Client’s license and brought the matter in front of the trial judge. Without the order the registry of motor vehicles could outright refuse to reinstate client’s license.  The judge signed the order which would force the RMV to reinstate Client’s right to drive.

ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON; (KNIFE). -DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT –PRETRIAL DIVERSION-

 

August 10, 2016 -BMC Roxbury

Client was only 19 years old when he was arrested and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, a knife and a felony in Massachusetts. Growing up in the city can be difficult and as the living isn’t always easy.  Tight living quarters and thin walls make disputes between neighbors in apartment complexes common place.  Hot weather and school vacations makes for open windows and short tempers, summer was upon them.  After months of family feuds between Client’s family and their downstairs neighbor things came to a head.   One afternoon on the front steps of the multifamily they lived in a fight broke out. Client’s mother and the neighbor, a 50 something man, were arguing when it turned into a fight.   Client perceived his mother to be in danger as the Man’s son tried to join in the scuffle, client had no choice but to come to his mother’s aid.

After the initial interview it became clear to Lawyer immediately that Client was a perfect fit for a pretrial diversion program.  This would allow the case to be dismissed by the judge, but even better, it would prevent him from even being charged with a crime. Client was under 21 years old, employed, attending school part time, with no record, the program was an easy sell. Lawyer, with help from a reasonable DA was able to give this young man a chance to pursue whatever he wants to in the future, with a clean slate and no record of the events that caused him to appear in front of a judge.

LARCENY OVER $250 BY A SINGLE SCHEME; IDENTITY FRAUD. -DISMISSED-

 

June 23, 2016 –BMC Roxbury-

Client was charged with larceny after a local furniture company reported her to the police. Having previously rented items from the business it didn’t take the manager long to tie the pieces together.  The rental company was certain they had a smoking gun  when an account was opened in someone else’s name by what appeared to be my Client.  Things went from bad to worse when an ex-roommate of Client filed an almost identical case against Client in Dorchester. That case had almost identical facts. The State couldn’t use the Dorchester case as evidence in the Roxbury case but it did not inspire the Commonwealth to dismiss the charges against Client either.

Lawyer and investigator combed through page after page of rental documents, meeting with witnesses taking photographing comparing evidence, searching for the missing piece which would exonerate Client.  A theory of defense had been crafted months before the trial and by late June the pieces had been lined up by Attorney and staff to support that theory.  Moments before empaneling a jury the Commonwealth dismissed all  charges against Client.

LARCENY OVER $250; CONSPIRACY. –DISMISSED-

 

 

June 14, 2016 –Orleans District Court  -CAPE COD-

Client had been fired, arrested, interrogated on video for almost an hour and finally charged with a crime which she had no involvement.  To make matters worse, her employer was holding back her final paycheck.   When Client and her mother met Attorney neither of them had any experience in the criminal justice system.  Client told Lawyer that she had been accused of a crime that she did not commit.  She had no record and wanted to keep it that way.  She had recently obtained her bachelor’s degree and wished to work with children, a path which would require a clean record.

As for the accusations, she and a coworker at a seasonal restaurant job on the cape had been charged as co-conspirators, accused of stealing cash from the register and tip jars. She looked Attorney in the eyes, “I didn’t do it”.  Having heard this many times, Lawyer had doubts but listened carefully, preparing a defense strategy.  Cape Cod and the Islands do not treat crime lightly but as the case proceeded, more and more evidence came to light, verifying Client’s contention that she was not involved and knew nothing of the crime. This did not deter the district attorney. As the case proceeded, the allegations grew. What started as a few hundred dollars on one day was now nine thousand dollars, and a plan which spanned the summer.  The closed circuit video footage provided little help to either side, but the owner of the restaurant did not want the charges dismissed.  Finally after several trial dates, the Commonwealth recognized that they could not prove their case and dismissed the charges against Client.

site design by Leap3 Creative LLC