Boston Criminal Lawyers Blog

Alexis David, 17 of Roxbury, and Jordan Jones, 21, of Jamaica Plain, both were employees at the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation for the summer and were both arrested for Distribution of a Class D Substance, Marijuana, at Revere Beach on Saturday night.

Massachusetts State Police Officers assigned to monitor ongoing drug activity at Revere Beach were actively engaged in the investigation that led to David's and Jones' arrest. No details concerning the arrests were disclosed by the Massachusetts State Police.

Although Possession of 1 Ounce or Less of Marijuana has been decriminalized by the Massachusetts State Legislature, the sale or distribution of marijuana still remains a crime.

Both David and Jones were arraigned this morning in Chelsea District Court on Drug Charges, including Distribution of a Class D Substance.

Continue reading "2 Massachusetts State Employees Charged with Distribution of Marijuana" »

Jesse Bumbaca of Waltham, and Marino Spirakis of Peabody, were arrested last evening for allegedly engaging in a drug transaction involving almost 1,000 oxycodone pills.

The Boston Police Department reports that Drug Officers were investigation a Kingston Street, Boston, address where Bumbaca was allegedly running a drug business. Sometime around 7:00 p.m. last evening, officers report they observed Spirakis park at that address and Bumbaca came out and handed him a black box. There was no indication that the Boston Police Officers could see what was in that black box, nor was there any elaboration as to why they believed that Bumbaca handing Spirakis that black box constituted a drug transaction.

After both men left the area in separate cars, Boston and Massachusetts State Police Officers stopped Bumbaca's car at the Regatta Hotel in Cambridge. Police Officers seized a backpack containing 950 oxycodone pills, and $8,000. In the meantime, other Boston and Massachusetts State Police Officers stopped Spirakis' car, seizing the black box which was found to contain $52,000.

Bumbaca was charged with Trafficking a Class B Controlled Substance over 100 grams and Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws; and Spirakis was charged with Possession of a Class E Substance and Conspiracy to Violate the Drugs Laws. Both men are expected to be arraigned in Boston Municipal Court this morning.

It is not known what information, if any, Boston Police Officers had regarding Spirakis. It doesn't appear to me, however, that there is a strong case for the government, at least as it pertains to Spirakis. Several issues give me many red flags, including issues of Search & Seizure, specifically, whether the Boston Police had 'reasonable suspicion' to stop his car. Without more, what has been reported does not appear to amount to 'specific and articulable facts' to justify a search and seizure of Spirakis' vehicle.

Continue reading "Waltham Man Arrested for Drug Trafficking in Boston" »

I was scheduled to begin a trial today in Suffolk Superior Court, which never happened. My client, a woman, had been charged with Trafficking Over 200 grams of Heroin, a Drug Crime which carries a minimum-mandatory sentence of 15 years in state prison.

As insurmountable as the charge might sound, my client actually had an extremely strong defense. The government had no evidence to prove that she had knowledge that the FedEx package that was delivered to her home from India and which was addressed to someone else. Her defense against the Drug Trafficking charge was so strong that, despite her awareness of facing 15 years if she lost at trial, she at all times unequivocally maintained her innocence and rejected several offers by the prosecutor to plead guilty to reduced charges that would not result in jail time.

The prosecutor initially offered to reduce the charge of Trafficking to the lesser offense of Possession With Intent to Distribute (which doesn't carry a minimum-mandatory sentence) if she agreed to three years' probation. She said no. More so than anything else, she couldn't bring herself to change her plea to guilty in open court and admit to something that she didn't do. She continued to maintain her innocence, even up until the day of trial, when the prosecutor offered just a Guilty finding, without any probation or any committed time so that she would be free to walk out of court that day.

Seeing that the client wouldn't budge and was resolved in putting the government to proving its weak case against her by going to trial, the government engaged what I maintain are 'bush league' tactics...

Just days before trial, and without my knowledge, the lead detective on the case against my client called the defendant's family. He proceeded to tell them the 'grave' penalties that my client was facing if she lost at trial, and that it was in her 'best interest' to just take a deal. This communication to the client's family, without my knowledge, was no doubt done to scare the family into convincing the defendant to just take a deal. The client's family called me in a panic...they were convinced they said, even though they knew the client was innocent, she had to take a deal.

Well, it worked...the client ended up taking an "Alford Plea"...meaning she changed her plea to guilty but without admitting any wrongdoing and she was released shortly thereafter. A woman, who had denied any wrongdoing, and who did not have any previous arrests, let alone convictions, is now a convicted felon, must submit her DNA to the state's DNA database, will lose her Driver's License for 3 years, and will suffer all the indignities and collateral consequences of having a felony drug conviction follow her for the rest of her life.

If the government believed so strongly in the case against her to bring forth an indictment for Trafficking, why then practically beg her to take a plea on a reduced charge?

If the government's case was so strong, then why employ the police detective to engage in scare tactics to her family in the hopes of them convincing her to take a deal?

At the end of the day, if the government doesn't have a good faith belief in the cases they indict, then either don't prosecute or don't be afraid to be put to the test at trial.

File under: Bull....

As a follow-up to my June 4, 2010 post on the Boston Criminal Lawyers Blog, Stephen Woodard, who had escaped from a Suffolk County Sheriff's van, surrendered this past Monday in Charlestown, Massachusetts.

You may recall that Woodard escaped from the Sheriff's van on foot last Friday and then stole a Department of Public Works vehicle that had the keys inside. A tip to the Boston Police Department led them to an apartment in McNulty Court in Charlestown, where Woodard was found.

Woodard is currently facing Armed Robbery and Drug Charges and Charlestown and East Boston District Courts, but could also face additional charges, including Escape and Larceny of a Motor Vehicle.

Continue reading "Fugitive Who Escape from Sheriff's Van Apprehended in Charlestown" »

Joseph F. Cruz, 28, of Dorchester, Massachusetts, was arrested on May 3rd for allegedly selling Oxycodone pills at the South Shore Plaza in Braintree.

Braintree Police Detectives allege that they had received complaints that Cruz was selling drugs out of his apartment. After an undercover surveillance operation was established, Braintree Police observed Cruz exit his apartment and drive to the South Shore Plaza in Braintree. At the mall, another man entered Cruz' vehicle where a drug transaction is alleged to have taken place.

When Braintree Police tried to approach the two men, Cruz drove away and the two men ultimately fled into Nordstrom's Department Store where Cruz was apprehended by mall security. The other man, however, was not caught.

A subsequent Search Warrant executed at Cruz' apartment led to the discovery of marijuana, digital scales and packaging consistent with drug distribution. Additionally, a bulletproof vest was found along the route where Cruz is alleged to have fled when Braintree Police initially approached him; and an Oxycodone pill and other evidence of drug distribution was found in his car.

Joseph F. Cruz is to be charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws, Failure to Stop for Police, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle.

The other man who fled apparently had dropped a prescription pill vial with his name on it, and is currently being sought for Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle and Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws.

Continue reading "Dorchester Man Arrested for Drug Dealing at Braintree's South Shore Plaza" »

Matt McDonald, the "Big Brother" contestant from Charlestown, Massachusetts, was arrested twice this past month on two separate criminal charges.

Earlier this month, McDonald was arrested in Winthrop, Massachusetts, for allegedly beating up his pregnant girlfriend. His girlfriend alleges that he kicked her in the collarbone, put her in a headlock and began punching her in the arms, and also threatened to kill her father if he called the police. According to the Boston Police Department, McDonald's girlfriend had visible bruising on her arms, neck and collarbone. The Suffolk County District Attorney's Office has charged him with Aggravated Assault & Battery in connection with this incident.

Just yesterday, McDonald was also indicted in Boston's Federal District Court on various Drug Crimes allegedly being involved with a purported drug operation run by another former "Big Brother" contestant, Adam Jasinski. According to the Boston Federal prosecutors and the Drug Enforcement Agency, McDonald conspired with Jasinski in selling Oxycodone, which were reportedly purchased from Jasinski's Big Brother winnings. Jasinski, meanwhile, was arrested in North Reading, Massachusetts, last October after he tried selling Oxycodone to a cooperating government witness.

Continue reading "Big Brother Contestant Arrested in Boston on Drug and Assault & Battery Charges" »

In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Jorge Vasquez, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently overturned the conviction of the defendant, who had been tried and convicted of Possession of Cocaine, as well as Distribution of Cocaine. Despite his criminal defense lawyer's failing to object at trial to the admission of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory Certificates of Drug Analysis, the Supreme Judicial Court still reversed his convictions as a result of his being deprive of his Right to Confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

At his criminal trial, the prosecutor did not call the Massachusetts State Police Crime Analyst at trial, but simply admitted the 'Drug Certificates'. The Drug Certificates were signed by the analyst, but the court found a Sixth Amendment violation because the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine the drug analyst. Although this was the preferred practice not too long ago, in the recent case of Melendez-Diaz, the United States Supreme Court ruled that drug certificates are testimonial in nature whose admission into evidence against a criminal defendant triggers the protections of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court further ruled that, without the admission of the Drug Certificates or testimony certifying the seized substances were, in fact, cocaine, the defendant's convictions on the charges could not stand and must be reversed. Although there was evidence that the 'substances' were "consistent with cocaine" and testimony from police officers relating to the likeness of the substances with cocaine, this was simply circumstantial evidence. Although a conviction can stand on only circumstantial evidence, the convictions in this case had to be reversed because the court could not say whether a jury would still have convicted had the improperly introduced Drug Certificates not been introduced.

Notably, that the defendant's criminal defense attorney did not object at trial to the admission of the Drug Certificate was not held against him during at his appeal of his convictions. The Supreme Court explained that, because an objection to the admission of the Drug Certificate would have been futile, the rationale for denying the defendant review on this issue doesn't apply.

Continue reading "Drug Conviction Overturned for Constitutional Violation" »

A drug investigation by the West Roxbury Boston Police Drug Control Unit, relying on information provided by a 'confidential informant' about drugs being sold at BK's Pub at 4272 Washington Street in Boston's Roslindale section resulted in the arrest of two people. Alexander Perez-Figueroa, of Dorchester, and Elsa M. Parrilla, also of Dorchester, were both arrested and each charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class B Substance.

The confidential informant told police that a woman would sell drugs from BK's Pub in Roslindale by receiving orders in the bar and receiving money for the drugs. A 'drug dealer' would then be contacted, she would meet him on Poplar Street to obtain the drugs, and then allegedly distribute those drugs to the buyers.

The Boston Police Drug Control Unit allege they observed several people approach the woman and hand her money. She was then observed using her cell phone, thereafter leaving the bar in her car and conducting the transaction with occupants within another car. At the time of her arrest, the Boston Police report that she admitted to be in possession of cocaine, for which she reportedly paid $1,000.

That other car was also stopped by the Boston Police, and both the driver and passenger were arrested for violation of the drug control laws. Interestingly, only $407 dollars in total was seized from these two men. They were charged with Distribution of a Class B Substance and School Zone Violations.

Additionally, the 'buyer' from the bar was also summonsed to be charged in West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court with the drug crimes of Possession of a Class B Substance with Intent to Distribute and School Zone Violation.

Continue reading "Boston Police Make Drug Arrests in Roslindale Pub" »

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently reversed the conviction of a man who had been convicted in 2004 for the crime of Trafficking Cocaine of over 28 grams. In the case of Commonwealth v. Mario M. Perez, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the jury's guilty finding on the grounds that the defendant's Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation was violated by the introduction of the Certificate of Drug Analysis without the chemist's testimony.

The defendant's reversal for the crime of Trafficking follows the United States Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, which essentially ruled that the Drug Certificates were testimonial evidence. At the time of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court had granted certiorari but not yet decided United States v. Melendez-Diaz, which now prevents the prosecutor from proving its case by way of ex-parte court affidavits and without the proponent being subject to cross-examination.

This case is particularly interesting because the District Attorney's Office attempted to convince the Massachusetts Supreme Court to adopt a broader rule of law that would allow them to bypass having to call a drug chemist at trial. Massachusetts prosecutors are trying hard to convince the Court to allow them to prove what a particular substance is through the use of 'police expert' testimony only. In this way, the prosecutors could attempt to prove the controlled substance at trial through their usual police witnesses and without having to bring in the chemist who tested the drugs.

In Commonwealth v. Perez, the Suffolk District Attorney's Office argued that a police officer who had experience with a particular drug, packaging, street-selling prices, and based on his experience, could then offer the required proof that a substance is a particular drug without having the chemist testify.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court said, no, but nice try...

Continue reading "Massachusetts Court Reverses Drug Conviction, Police 'Expert Testimony' Still Live Issue In Drug Cases" »

A defendant who was convicted for the gun crimes of Carrying a Firearm Without a License and Carrying a Loaded Firearm recently had his convictions overturned because the admission of the Ballistics Certificate, without live expert testimony, violated his Right to Confrontation under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

At his criminal jury trial in the District Court, the prosecutor sought to prove that the gun at issue was an operable firearm with evidence consisting only of the Ballistics Certificate, which is simply a police ballistician's certification that the firearm has been examined, tested and found to be functional. The ballistician who examined the firearm was not called as a witness by the prosecutor at trial, and therefore was not available to the defendant's criminal defense lawyer for cross-examination. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that, because the ballistician was not made available to the defense for cross-examination of his findings, the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. Read the full Massachusetts Supreme Court's opinion in Commonwealth v. William Rivera.

The reversal of the defendants gun convictions follows the recent ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the prosecution cannot prove its case with affidavits and without the benefit of live witness testimony. The case of Melendez-Diaz involved a drug trial where the prosecutor admitted a Certificate of Drug Analysis in lieu of the chemist's testimony that the contraband seized by the police was, in fact, cocaine.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Supreme Court Reverses Gun Conviction for Constitutional Violation" »