Boston Criminal Lawyers Blog
Published on:

Earlier this month, Massachusetts enacted the “Act Relative to Domestic Violence”. Though arguably the intent of the act is in good faith, it has very profound and serious implications on those defendants charged with a domestic violence offense in Massachusetts, directly altering the landscape at a defendant’s arraignment and bail, as well as the potential criminal penalties a defendant may face.

There are now dramatic changes to the domestic violence laws in Massachusetts, including new criminal domestic violence charges; changes to issues concerning bail, release upon arrest, and detention hearings; as well as issues affecting the person’s CORI information.

First, persons who are charged with a criminal offense that involves ‘domestic abuse’ are not eligible for release or bail within 6 hours from their arrest (unless the release or conditions of bail are imposed directly from a judge in court).

Published on:

In circumstances where criminal defendants, for whatever reason, elect to change their plea to guilty, the attorney must ensure that the client understands the full panoply of potential consequences that might result. One of the issues that must always be addressed before any change of plea is ensuring that the client, if he is not a citizen, understands the potential consequences of deportation of a conviction.

A conviction for many crimes may lead to deportation, removal from the country, or denial of re-entry, and it is the attorney’s duty to inform the client if the offense for which he pleads guilty to would result in removal. Following certain amendments to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, if a non-citizen commits a removable offense, his removal is essentially inevitable, with a few exceptions.

Where a client elects to plead guilty to those removal offenses, simply advising the client that he is “eligible for deportation” or that he would “face deportation” is not enough.

Published on:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered the case of Silva v. Carmel, and decided that an abuse prevention order may issue where the defendant and victim live in the same state facility may not issue.

Both the defendant and the victim in this case were intellectually disabled persons who both resided at the same state-residential facility of the Department of Developmental Services. Following an altercation where the defendant pushed the victim into a bathtub and caused her injuries, the victim applied for and obtained a restraining order from a district court judge. The order was issued for one year following the judge’s finding that both parties resided in the same “household”.

On appeal, the SJC agreed with the defendant that the district court judge was mistaken in issuing the restraining order because the parties (1) did not reside together in the same household as contemplated by the statute; and (2) the relationship of the parties was not of the type the abuse prevention statute set out to protect.

Published on:

The Massachusetts SJC unfortunately decided a case, in my opinion, the wrong way. In Commonwealth v. Kevin Keo, the Supreme Judicial Court considered whether the defendant, convicted of first-degree murder, was entitled to a new trial where his attorney failed to obtain a full transcript of a witness’s testimony from a separate trial and where the prosecutor gave two inconsistent closing argument at the two trials as to who the shooter was.

At the defendant’s murder, trial the prosecutor presented a theory of deliberate premeditation and he was convicted by a jury. HIs trial, however, came after the trial of his co-defendant, in which the prosecutor proceeded under the theory that the co-defendant was the shooter. In this case and in the subsequent trial, the prosecutor suggested that the defendant was the shooter – arguably inconsistent theories.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, however, held that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated because the Commonwealth proceeded on a theory of aiding and abetting – that he had or shared the intent required to commit the crime of murder. The SJC also pointed out that that, in both trials, the prosecutor stated in his closing argument that it didn’t matter who shot the victim and the evidence was similar in each trial.

Published on:

In a recent decision in Commonwealth v. Shabazz Augustine, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that prosecutors seeking access to a defendant’s cellular site location information are first required to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause.

In recent years as the popularity of cell phone use has become so widespread, prosecutors have increasingly sought search warrants of a defendant’s cell phone records from their cell providers. The information commonly sought not only included a defendant’s call list, incoming and outgoing phone calls, text messages and pictures on the phone, but also cell site location information.

Cell site location information, or CSLI, is when a user’s cell phone transmits signals to cell phone towers that ‘ping’ the coordinates of the person’s mobile phone. The cell phone towers assist the cell phone in connecting to a call, and if the person moves closer to a different cell tower, the call is automatically transferred to that closer cell tower. By triangulating these pings, the user’s cell site location information can reveal a specific geographic location of where the phone was on a particular date and time.

Published on:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today decided the case of Commonwealth v. Michael Robertson and considered the issue of whether secretly photographing or videotaping a person in a nude or partially nude state is illegal. The court ruled that it is not.

The defendant in this case was charged under M.G.L. c. 272, section 105, “Photographing, Videotaping or Electronically Surveilling Partially Nude or Nude Person”, which states in part:

“Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstances would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed or videotaped…and without that person’s knowledge and consent…”

Published on:

A New York federal judge ruled that the United States government’s phone gathering system is constitutional and a necessary measure to combat possible terrorist attacks against the country. The judge further ruled that Congress was within its rights to establish the system and that it does not violate any citizen’s constitutional rights.

Notably, this New York decision is contrary to the rulings of a Washington D.C. judge who held earlier in December that the program is likely unconstitutional. Essentially, one judge found that the NSA program is successful in thwarting potential terrorist attacks before they come to fruition; while the other judge ruled that he was not convinced that the program was producing any results at all. Given the contrary rulings and expected appeals in both cases, the issue will likely find its way to the United States Supreme Court at some point.

The New York federal court judge based his decision on several points, including reliance on a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held that individual telephone consumers do not have privacy rights in the data that the company retains regarding their use of service.

Published on:

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution afford every citizen with certain fundamental rights, including the right to remain silent and assert one’s privilege against self-incrimination. Just about everyone has heard of that right, but believe it or not, many people charged with a crime either don’t exercise it, or don’t properly assert.

The United States Constitution states that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Accordingly, every person subjected to a custodial interrogation must be warned that he (1) has a right to remain silent; (2) any statement he makes can be used as evidence against him; (3) that he has a right to consult with an attorney and that if he cannot afford one one will be appointed; and (4) that if he does choose to speak, that he has a right to stop questioning at any time. Once these warnings are provided, a defendant’s subsequent statements are only admissible as evidence against him at trial if the government shows, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant gave a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of those rights.

Against this backdrop, it’s not enough to just tell the police that you “might” want to speak with a lawyer or are “considering” consulting with an attorney. Police are only required to stop questioning upon a clear and unambiguous request for counsel. In other words, the invocation of the right to an attorney must be sufficiently clear that the police officer understands the statement to be a request for a lawyer.

Published on:

A 20 year old man from Boston was arrested this past Thursday on Massachusetts Drug Charges in Weymouth. He was charged with Drug Distribution, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws, and Resisting Arrest.

According to the Weymouth Police Department, the defendant was alleged to have engaged in a drug transaction with a Weymouth man at a home on Pierce Road. That man was arrested on similar drug charges. Police had received tips about alleged drug dealing at that address.

One of the most important steps in defending any drug case is evaluating the specific facts and circumstances involving the person’s arrest. Anyone who has been the subject of a search to their person or property by police can challenge that search under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Published on:

A Somerville High School student was arraigned yesterday on several Massachusetts Sex Crimes Charges, including Aggravated Rape of a Child in connection with the alleged sexual assault of another young high school athlete with a broomstick.

A total of three Somerville students who were attending a retreat in the Berkshires at Camp Lenox and allegedly sought out three other students and attempted to assault them. The students were members of the Somerville’s soccer team and several other students who were participating at a summer camp at Camp Lenox in Otis.

Police allege that the three students took a broomstick to rape and sexual assault a freshman student; and also tried to do the same to two other students but they were able to escape. According to prosecutors, blood and other evidence was recovered from the scene.