Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

According to the MetroWest Daily News, Brooke Uttley, 23 of Haverhill, was reportedly seen drinking at a Framingham bar on Friday April 12th, which violates the terms of her personal recognizance release. Uttley is accused of crashing her car on December 3, 2011 and killing a fellow Framingham State University student Ashley Donahue while drunk. Uttley was released on personal recognizance, but given a condition of release that she consume no alcohol. Uttley is now being held without bail until her next court day.

Uttley is facing charges of vehicular homicide, as well as driving under the influence of liquor, causing serious bodily injury and driving to endanger. Uttley was allegedly drunk when she crashed her Honda Civic carrying four other people into a telephone pole on Badger Road in Framingham around 2:20 a.m. on December 3, 2011. Her blood alcohol level was reportedly .10 at the time of the crash, over the legal limit of .08.

Uttley allegedly ordered the drinks that she consumed before the accident from the same TGI Fridays in Framingham at which she was seen drinking on Friday. An officer who patrols Route 9 allegedly recognized Uttley and noticed she was drinking. Uttley reportedly stated that she was drinking cranberry juice; however, the bartender and Uttley's friend allegedly stated that she was drinking a cranberry and vodka drink. The bartender also allegedly stated that Uttley had ordered the same drink at the bar the week before that. The probation department reportedly issued an arrest warrant, and police arrested Uttley the next day in Haverhill.

Uttley's lawyer, Paul J. Andrews, has stated that Uttley was not purposefully drinking alcohol but had ordered a cranberry juice. However, he said that the bartender was mistaken because the bar was loud and may have served Uttley liquor in the drink accidentally. Andrews also stated that Uttley did order a drink with alcohol the week before but that it was for a friend. The judge, however, was not persuaded. Uttley will be held for 60 days in MCI-Framingham until her trial in June. The judge made the order without prejudice, which means that Uttley can appeal the decision. Uttley is also due in Middlesex Superior Court for a status hearing.

Uttley's story is an important reminder of how seriously courts take the conditions placed upon defendants when they are released on probation, bail or personal recognizance. If your or a loved one is worried that you may have violated the terms of your probation or the conditions of your release between court dates, consulting your attorney is an important step to making sure that you remain in good standing with the court. Being arrested for violating the court's orders can be a stressful situation, and can often result in your being looked upon unfavorably by the court at your next court date or in the future if you find yourself in court again. However, conditions that are placed upon defendants can often be confusing or difficult to follow. An experienced attorney may work with the judge or the probation department to make conditions more manageable. Being on top of the situation with your attorney is usually the best course of action.

Continue reading "Haverhill Woman Accused of Violating Court Order" »

Peter Moynihan, 55, of Northborough was arrested on Wednesday night, April 17th after allegedly getting into a car accident on Route 9, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Moynihan has reportedly been charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, making this his fourth time being charged with OUI.

An officer reportedly saw Moynihan pulled over to the side of the road next to another car. Moynihan and the other driver were standing outside of their cars, which prompted the officer to pull over and investigate the situation. The officer then allegedly smelled a strong odor of alcohol and noticed glassy, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech being exhibited by Moynihan. A passenger in the other car was reportedly taken to a hospital with unspecified injuries.

Moynihan reportedly told officers that he had drank some alcohol with dinner, but was inconsistent with his statements about how much alcohol and from where. Moynihan also reportedly volunteered to do a field sobriety test. He allegedly did not successfully complete the commands during the sobriety test and was arrested. He was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, driving to endanger, and driving without a license. His license reportedly expired on April 12th, 2013.

This arrest is Moynihan's fourth OUI arrest. His past drunk driving arrests all occurred nearly three decades ago. One arrest occurred in 1984, and two occurred in 1986.
At Framingham District Court on Thursday, Moynihan was released without bail and ordered not to drive after drinking alcohol. He is due back in court on May 20.
Moynihan is facing serious penalties if convicted of this charge because this is his fourth alleged OUI offense. Penalties for OUI offenses generally increase with each conviction. Mandatory sentences also make it difficult for judges to be lenient in many cases. Despite the almost thirty year time gap between his previous three offenses and the newest alleged offense, courts will still treat this at Moynihan's fourth offense, due in part to the changes brought into effect under Melanie's law.

If convicted, Moynihan is facing a mandatory two year jail sentence. A portion of that sentence could be suspended, but if convicted it is mandatory that he serve at least every day of 1 year in jail. When accused of OUI 4th offense it is essential to be represented by an experienced criminal defense litigator who may be able to win the case. Prosecutors are trained to prosecute multiple OUI offenses to the fullest extent of the law, so a plea bargain is rarely an option to avoid jail time. An experienced attorney can help Moynihan determine if he has potential motions to suppress evidence or to dismiss the case. Also a skilled attorney can help him determine if taking the case to trial is the right decision.

Continue reading "Northborough Man Charged with Fourth OUI Offense" »

Steven Gonzalez, 35 of Asland, was arrested on Wednesday, April 17th for allegedly stealing a lighter and some change from a car that was parked in a Shaw's parking lot, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Officers reportedly arrived at the Shaw's parking lot in the Pond Street Plaza before noon for a report of a fight. Upon arrival, officers allegedly witnessed several men fighting with Gonzalez, who was being held by two other men. The men then reportedly told officers that they had witnessed Gonzalez going into multiple cars in the parking lot, including a Ford pickup truck belonging to one of the men. The men reportedly also stated that when they approached Gonzalez, he fled across the street, and they caught him and brought him back to the Shaw's parking lot. The owner of the truck reportedly claimed a white cigarette lighter and some loose change from the center console was missing after the incident. An officer then allegedly frisked Gonzalez and found the missing items on him.

Gonzalez was reportedly arrested and charged with breaking and entering a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor, and larceny under $250, also a misdemeanor. He was released without bail on Thursday at Framingham District Court. Gonzalez was ordered to return to court for a pretrial conference on June 14.

Gonzalez is facing two misdemeanor charges. Many people may assume that misdemeanor charges will not lead to severe penalties like a felony can. However, Gonzalez may still be facing serious penalties, particularly if he has a record with other charges or convictions in it. If he has a record with other offenses on it, his punishment for this offense may be more severe than if this is his first time being charged with a crime. That being said, Gonzalez can still have a favorable outcome in this case and may avoid jail time. The amount of money and goods taken in this case was relatively minor, which is helpful to him.

Gonzalez may come away from this situation with only minor penalties if he has an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney on his side. In this case Gonzalez's crimes are economic crimes, rather than violent crimes. Courts can be convinced to look more favorably on defendants who are committing non-violent crimes motivated by economic need if the arguments are framed in a sincere manner and the defendant is determined to refrain from committing further crimes. Additionally, a skilled attorney may be able to help Mr. Gonzalez win his case altogether and clear his name of any wrongdoing. Either way Mr. Gonzalez is in need of an experienced criminal defender who will fight to protect his liberty.

Continue reading "Ashland Man Charged with Larceny Following Fight" »

In 2008, Massachusetts decriminalized the possession of marijuana in amount of one ounce or less. Since the decision, many question have remained about how this ruling affects other aspects of Massachusetts laws concerning marijuana. A recent article details a few cases that have recently come before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts for clarification.

Over time, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has handed down rulings that have helped to clarify those questions. I have written extensively about those changes as they have occurred. The latest rulings about marijuana from the SJC help clarify the laws regarding social sharing of marijuana. Additionally, the SJC has ruled that some statements given to police and some evidence seized in searches are not admissible in court against the defendants because these defendants came to the attention of the police due to civil infractions, rather than criminal violations. However, the SJC also stated once again that cultivating marijuana is still illegal.

Hempfest, an annual event in the Boston Common, involves many people publicly smoking marijuana. Many of these people share their marijuana with each other. Kityan Jackson, a Hempfest attendee, was seen by police sharing a joint with friends. Officers then searched his backpack without a warrant. Upon searching his backpack, officers found small amounts of marijuana packaged in small, individual bags in a quantity that totaled less than an ounce.

Jackson was charged and prosecuted for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. However, in one of the recent rulings, the SJC sided with Jackson and set aside his conviction. The reason that he cannot be convicted of this offense is that police first approached Jackson due to a civil infraction--sharing a joint with friends. Sharing a joint is not a criminal offense in Massachusetts. In the unanimous ruling, the SJC proclaimed that social sharing of marijuana is akin to simple possession and does not constitute drug distribution. There is no buyer or seller in social sharing of marijuana as there is in drug distribution. Additionally, and crucial to Jackson's case, observing the social sharing of marijuana does not give police justification to conduct a warrantless search.

In two more cases, and using the same reasoning as in Jackson's case, the SJC held that prosecutors cannot introduce evidence against defendants that were gathered as a result of police approaching people who have engaged in civil violations. One case involved a defendant who was stopped for a broken headlight and another involved a man who was approached due to a curfew violation. Both cases involved police conducting warrantless searches after approaching the individuals' vehicles and finding small quantities of drugs and weapons. All of the evidence that was found subsequent to police approaching the individuals for civil infractions was found to be inadmissible.
However, cultivation of marijuana is still illegal in Massachusetts, as the SJC made clear in the case of Kenneth J. Palmer Jr. Police found marijuana growing in Palmer's closet in 2010. The marijuana that police found in the closet was of less than one ounce. However, officers also found that he had outfitted his closet with lights, a thermometer, and empty plastic bags.

Continue reading "Supreme Judicial Court Rules Social Sharing of Marijauana not a Crime" »

Caleb Brannon, a 32-year-old Southborough man, was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, operating under the influence (second offense), and malicious destruction of property over $250 in Framingham District Court on March 11, the MetroWest Daily News reported.

Brannon was arrested by Natick police officers over the weekend following an accident on Route 9. He allegedly rear-ended a car stopped at red light. Police claim that Brannon was uncooperative during the booking process. As a result, an officer attempted to escort him to a holding cell. At that point, police claim, Brannon became "combative" with the officer, swinging at him and knocking the officer's eyeglasses onto the floor. Officers shocked Brannon with a Tazer.

In this particular article there is nothing suggesting there was any wrongdoing by the Natick Police Department. However, in general it is not unusual to sometimes see criminal defendants charged with assault and battery on a police officer after police use violence, unnecessary aggression, or unlawful force during an arrest. In order to protect themselves from allegations of unlawful use of police force, officers sometimes claim the defendant committed an assault and battery on an officer. The same is often true in resisting arrest scenarios. This is no secret to any experienced criminal attorney. It's not unusual for defendants facing these charges to walk into lawyers' offices having visible injuries. Luckily for defendants, in many departments the booking process is now videotaped, and some cruisers have video equipment. Particularly in commercial areas like Route 9, retail establishments might have video surveillance as well. Whenever possible it is always wise get a copy of the booking video or any other video evidence in order to look into what really happened during this encounter.

The malicious destruction of property over $250 charge relates to the officer's eyeglasses. If the glasses were damaged during this alleged struggle, Brannon might argue that any damage was not "malicious." Another possible defense would be that the value of or damage to the glasses was not really more than $250.

The article does not contain much information relative to the basis of the OUI 2nd charge, apart from the fact that there was an accident. Massachusetts law provides for increased penalties for second and subsequent drunk driving convictions. Prosecutors tend to be less sympathetic to OUI defendants when there has been an accident. Brannon might be facing some relatively serious penalties and should speak with an aggressive defense lawyer.

Continue reading "Southborough Man Faces Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Other Charges" »

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether police violate the Fourth Amendment by bringing a drug dog to the front door of a suspected marijuana grow house to execute a dog sniff, and the implications will be important for persons accused of drug crimes in Massachusetts and elsewhere.

The Court heard argument in the case of Florida v. Jardines, one of two recent dog sniff cases, in October 2012. The other case, Florida v. Harris, was decided in February 2013, with the court holding that the government does not need to produce records of a drug dog's field performance to establish reliability. Oral argument from Jardines suggests a result more favorable to criminal defendants and those who care about the right to privacy.

In Jardines, police received a tip that the defendant's home was being used to grow marijuana. Based on nothing more than that tip, police went to Jardines' home with a drug detection dog. Police brought the dog onto the front porch, and the dog alerted on the front door. Police then obtained and executed a warrant to search the house and found evidence of a marijuana- growing operation. The Florida Supreme Court determined that, in this context, use of the dog was an unreasonable search. That court relied on Kyollo v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that police use of a heat-sensing device aimed at the exterior of a house to investigate a suspected marijuana grow operation was unconstitutional. Florida officials are asking the Supreme Court to rule that, even at a home, a dog sniff is not a search at all.

At argument, the Justices seemed to be reluctant to adopt the government's position that a dog sniff executed on a front porch is not a search. Much of the Justices' questioning related to the academic question of whether the officer's bringing the dog to the door amounted to a trespass. Justice Scalia thought that it would be a "search" for a police officer, with an intent to smell for drugs, to go up to a door with or without a dog. Justice Sotomayor noted that officers doing "knock-and-talks" are usually looking for something inside the home.

Based on the argument, my guess is that the defendant will win this one. However, as a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, I am still concerned about the disturbing possibility of ever-increasing privacy invasions. Consider the frightening possibility of the police going door to door with drug dogs who, in light of Harris, might not even have a history of accurate field alerts. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government in Jardines, then there would seemingly be nothing preventing police from doing just that.

Continue reading "New Dog Sniff Cases to Impact Search and Seizure Law in Massachusetts Drug Cases" »

Micheal T. Balboni, a 24-year-old Natick man, was charged Monday with multiple counts of breaking and entering in the daytime and larceny from a building in Framingham District Court, MetroWest Daily News reported.

Police arrested Balboni after a Natick officer, off-duty at the time, allegedly saw Balboni depositing a large amount of change into a coin machine at a local grocery store. The officer took notice of this because police had been investigating a recent break-in, one in a series, during which $700-$900 in change had been stolen from the residence. Police allege that Balboni also took jewelry, cash, prescription drugs, and a baby stroller from the same residence. He allegedly used the stroller to wheel the coins to the grocery store. The prosecution alleges that Balboni confessed to the break-ins, admitting that he bought cocaine and heroin with the money.

Based on the reported facts, Balboni might have some solid grounds for motions to suppress both the evidence and statements. It seems that police seized Balboni based on his possession of a large quantity of coins. A seizure is illegal unless police have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There is nothing criminal about depositing a large amount of change into a coin machine. There is no indication that Balboni was known to police or that he matched any description of a suspect. There is no indication that the officer recognized the stroller used to transport the coins. Simply having money, even an unusually large amount of it, without more is not enough to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If the initial seizure of Balboni was illegal, then his alleged statements admitting to the break-ins might be so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree." Under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, direct and indirect products of an illegal search or seizure must be suppressed from use. The reasoning is essentially that the first illegality taints that which comes next. It applies to verbal evidence as well as physical evidence. Here, if police illegally seized Balboni based on nothing more than his possession of the coins, Balboni might argue that subsequent statements were tainted by that initial illegality.

This story illustrates the importance of speaking with an experienced criminal defense lawyer before giving any statements to police. The government claims that the coins and stroller link Baboni to one particular break-in. There is no apparent connection, apart from his alleged statement to police, between Balboni and the other six break-ins, and there might not have been probable cause to charge him in connection with them had he not allegedly confessed.

Continue reading "Natick Man Charged with Breaking and Entering in Framingham District Court" »

A Sudbury man, who police have not yet identified, allegedly drove his car into Willis Pond on Thursday, January 24th, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Police have alleged that the 27-year-old man was drunk when he drove out onto the ice. The front end of his car reportedly broke through the ice approximately 600 feet onto Willis Pond at about 12:45 a.m. Police are reportedly unsure what motivated the man to drive his car onto the ice.

The driver and a female passenger were reportedly pulled from the Toyota and taken to Emerson Hospital as a precautionary measure. Firefighters reportedly attempted to pull the car out of the pond but were unsuccessful. A towing company reportedly worked for nearly 17 hours before the car was successfully pulled out of the water. The Toyota reportedly was back on solid ground around 4:30 p.m.

The driver is facing charges of driving a recreational vehicle under the influence of alcohol and wanton destruction of property. Because the driver was not operating the vehicle on a street at the time police arrived, the police are charging him with driving a recreational vehicle, rather than operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Police are reportedly charging him with wanton destruction of property based on the destruction of the car. Police reportedly said that the driver's name would be available after the arraignment.

The driver is facing serious charges that could lead to fines and jail time. Because his car was not found on a street, the driver avoided a charge of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The charges he is facing are still quite serious, nonetheless. The driver needs a skilled Massachusetts criminal defense attorney to help him fight the charges he is facing.

In order to prove the charge of driving a recreational vehicle under the influence of alcohol, the prosecutors will have to prove that the driver operated the vehicle while having an intoxicating substance in his body beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth can establish that he was under the influence of an intoxicating substance by means of a blood test, Breathalyzer, or other test. The Commonwealth does not have to prove that he operated the vehicle on a public roadway. To prove the charge of wanton destruction of property, prosecutors will have to establish that the driver damaged or destroyed the personal property of another, that he did so wantonly, and that the amount of damage inflicted is more than $250. "Wanton" acts are acts committed recklessly or indifferently to the fact that the conduct will probably cause substantial damage to property.

If you or a loved one is facing a charge of destruction of property or an OUI or similar charge, you need an experienced and capable Massachusetts criminal defense attorney on your side. An attorney can help you fight for your freedom or negotiate a favorable plea deal with the prosecution.

Continue reading "Sudbury Man Facing Charges Following Car Crash in Pond" »

I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed for an article in the Metrowest Daily news regarding the frequent and sometimes over aggressive use of civil forfeiture laws by prosecutors and police.
.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1522324581/Drug-money-pads-DA-police-budgets

The article written by Jessica Trufant and Laura Krantz shines an important light on the civil forfeiture process that District Attorneys and police use to confiscate assets of those who might be involved in drug activity.

Three men, Caleb Conrad Pemberton, Princeton Atkins, and Justin S. Laliberte, were charged with larceny from a person, conspiracy to violate drug laws, and possession of more than an ounce of marijuana on February 3rd, according to the MetroWest Daily News. Pemberton, 30, and Atkins, 20, are both reportedly from Rhode Island. Laliberte, 22, is reportedly from Framingham. Police allege that the men traveled to Marlborough to purchase $2,000 worth of marijuana, but robbed their dealers instead.

Police were allegedly responding to a report of a domestic disturbance on Beach Street in Marlborough when a man and a woman flagged an officer down. The woman allegedly told the officer that a man had stolen her purse and run away with two other men toward Williams Street. Officers reportedly followed footprints in the snow to find the men in the Holiday Inn parking lot on Lakeside Avenue.

Police allege that Pemberton matched the description given to them by the woman whose purse was allegedly stolen. Police also allegedly found two pounds of marijuana and an air pistol on or near Pemberton.

Pemberton then reportedly admitted to the police that he, Atkins, and Laliberte had driven to Marlborough for the purpose of conducting a drug deal. Pemberton allegedly stated that the men had made an agreement with the alleged drug dealers in which the men would pay the dealers $2,000 for the marijuana. However, Pemberton allegedly stated that he did not have the money and had no intention of paying for the marijuana. He allegedly said he grabbed a paper bag containing the marijuana from the woman and ran away. Pemberton allegedly contended that the air pistol police reportedly found on him had been tucked into the front of his pants and had not been shown during the alleged robbery.

All three men were reportedly released on personal recognizance at their arraignment in Marlborough District Court on February 4th.

The man and woman who flagged down police had not been charged when police released arrest logs Monday morning.

In order to prevail on the larceny from a person charge, prosecutors will have to prove that each of the men took property that was owned by someone other than him and that he intended to deprive that person of the property permanently. To prove the conspiracy to violate drug laws, the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the three men joined in an agreement or plan, the purpose of which was to violate Massachusetts drug laws, and that each of the men knew the plan was unlawful and intended to help carry it out. Finally, to prove the charge of possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the men possessed marijuana in an amount greater than one ounce. Atkins and Laliberte may have a defense against the possession charge since the marijuana was found on or near Pemberton. However, it is also possible for the charge to be proven against them despite the marijuana being in a companion's possession. Pemberton, Atkins, and Laliberte are facing serious charges and could face the punishment of incarceration in prison or a house of corrections.

Continue reading "Three Men Charged with Larceny and Drug Crimes in Marlborough" »

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, Anthony Toledo, 31, was arrested on Saturday, February 2nd at approximately 2:15 p.m. on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon. Anthony Toledo's arrest allegedly stems from an argument in his hotel room at the Sheraton Hotel in Framingham. The argument reportedly involved two men named Terrance and Todd Toledo and Anthony. Anthony, Terrance and Todd Toledo, reportedly unrelated, work for a New Mexico company called Keystone. The men were reportedly staying at the Sheraton Hotel at 1657 Worcester Road to do installations at the hotel.

Around 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 2nd, Terrance, 22, allegedly stabbed Anthony in the chest, injuring him slightly. Anthony then allegedly attacked Terrance. Terrance reportedly sustained multiple lacerations to his face. Police allegedly found a small knife in the hotel room with blood on it. Anthony Toledo reportedly told officers that he was defending himself when he cut Terrance. Todd Toledo reportedly took Terrance to the hospital after the argument. The three men reportedly told police that "a long night of drinking" led to the dispute and resulting injuries and arrest.

Judge Robert Greco ordered him held on $2,500 cash bail. The judge was likely motivated to set such a high bail amount due to Toledo's being an out of state resident. The court wants to ensure that defendants are present for their next court date after arraignment. Therefore, defendants who do not have strong ties to the community are seen as more likely to flee and may receive higher bail amounts.

This case involves numerous complexities, including an ambiguity about Anthony Toledo's home state. Conflicting information has arisen about whether he is from Pennsylvania or Mississippi. Additionally, the alleged victim and witness are both from New Mexico. Having the directly involved parties in this case all from states other than Massachusetts will likely lead to challenges for the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and many other parties involved in the case. Because Toledo's bail is set at $2,500, he may remain in jail until his next court date. He has reportedly only worked for Keystone for a couple of weeks and only made about $200 thus far.

To prove the assault with a dangerous weapon charge, prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Toledo intentionally touched the alleged victim with a dangerous weapon. If convicted, Toledo is facing up to ten years in prison or 2 ½ years in a house of correction.

Someone facing a charge as serious as assault with a dangerous weapon needs an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney with the skills to advocate on his behalf. Toledo has a possible defense--self-defense--against the charge he is facing. Often, a fight results in one party being charged with a crime, even when that person was defending himself against an attack. The police who arrive on the scene may be missing crucial information that would allow them to assess who the instigating party was and who was merely defending himself.

Continue reading "Out-of-State Man Arrested for Assault at Framingham Hotel" »

Annie Dookhan pleaded not guilty to fifteen charges on Thursday December 20th at Suffolk Superior Court. The MetroWest Daily News has been following Dookhan's case. Dookhan is the former Massachusetts drug lab chemist accused of tampering with evidence in a drug testing scandal that threatens thousands of criminal cases. Dookhan has been charged with tampering with evidence and perjury. She was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday, December 18th. Dookhan of Franklin, Massachusetts faces another twelve charges in other counties.

Dookhan, 35, pleaded not guilty to one count of perjury, five counts of obstruction of justice, one count of making a false claim of holding a master's degree and eight counts of evidence tampering. Dookhan was released on $10,000 bail in September at the time of her arrest. Dookhan had previously but issued a 6:00 p.m. curfew. However, the Judge extended her curfew to 10:00 p.m. on December 20th. Dookhan has also been ordered to wear a GPS tracking device.

State prosecutors allege Dookhan fabricated test results and tampered with evidence when she tested substances for criminal cases. Judges throughout the Commonwealth have released approximately 200 defendants from custody over the last few months. Judges have put cases on hold for these defendants while this case is evaluated. The state is also reviewing thousands more cases that may be affected by Dookhan's alleged crimes. The lab has been shut down since August 2012.

State police shut down the lab in August. Many more than the 200 cases that were put on hold since then could be affected. Authorities say Dookhan tested more than 60,000 samples involving 34,000 defendants during her nine years at the lab.

During Dookhan's arraignment in September 2012, an Assistant Attorney General alleged that state police first learned of Dookhan's actions after a chemist at the lab in which she worked said that he observed "many irregularities" in Dookhan's work. The Assistant Attorney General also alleged that Dookhan admitted to state police that she would take shortcuts in her work, such as only testing five out of fifteen to twenty samples and then listing them all as positive for the presence of a drug.

She also allegedly acknowledged that sometimes, if a sample tested negative, she would take known cocaine from another sample and add it to the negative sample in order to make it test positive. Dookhan's alleged motive in this case is that she wanted to be seen as a good worker in the lab.

Dookhan was suspended from lab duties after she allegedly was caught forging a colleague's initials in June 2011. She resigned in March during an internal investigation by the Department of Public Health.

Dookhan's case undermines the validity of drug testing in criminal cases. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases in Massachusetts will be affected by the claims against Annie Dookhan.

Continue reading "Franklin Drug Lab Chemist Facing Multiple Charges" »

Devair Teodoro-Lima, 52, of Chelsea has been ordered held on $25,000 bail for charges of trying to extort $150,000 from a Framingham man, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. On Tuesday, January 8th Teodoro-Lima pleaded not guilty to charges of extortion, threatening to commit a crime, and making harassing phone calls.

Teodoro-Lima allegedly told the man he owed him money due to a land deal involving the man's father in Brazil. Teodoro-Lima and several of his friends allegedly began calling the man in 2011, demanding money. Teodoro-Lima also allegedly created a website, claiming that the man was a criminal and was wanted for murder in Brazil.

The Framingham man allegedly paid Teodoro-Lima $3,000 in January 2012 out of fear. Teodoro-Lima allegedly began calling the man again, demanding $150,000. Teodoro-Lima allegedly told the man that he had contacts in Brazil who would kill the man's family and that he would kill the man and his family.

If Teodoro-Lima posts bail, he has been ordered to surrender his passport and not to contact the Framingham man or the Framingham man's family.

Under Massachusetts law, Extortion is defined as the malicious threat to accuse another of a crime; or any person of authority unlawfully using his powers, with intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will

To prevail on the extortion charges, prosecutors will have to prove that Teodoro-Lima engaged in written, verbal, or printed communication; that the communication constituted a threat; that the threatening communication was undertaken maliciously; that the threat was to accuse another person of a crime or offense, or to do injury to the person or property of another; and that the threat was undertaken with the intent to extort money or other pecuniary advantage, or to compel another to do an act against his or her will. The prosecutors in this case have many elements to prove to prevail on their charge of extortion against Teodoro-Lima.

If Teodoro-Lima is convicted of these charges, he will be facing up to fifteen years in prison or up to two and a half years in a house of correction, or a fine of up to five thousand dollars, or both.

To prove that Teodoro-Lima made threats against the alleged victim, prosecutors will have to prove that he had the intention and ability to commit a crime, which would justify the alleged victim's fear. If Teodoro-Lima is convicted of threatening to commit a crime, he is facing fines and possible jail time.

Finally, to prevail on the harassment charges, prosecutors will have to prove that Teodoro-Lima engaged in a pattern, or committed a series of harassing acts over time. If convicted of harassment, Teodoro-Lima is facing up to two and a half years of incarceration, as well as fines.

Anyone facing such serious charges needs a serious and committed Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer.

Continue reading "Chelsea Man Accused of Extortion of Framingham Man " »

Jean Seariac of Framingham was arrested on Thursday, January 10th, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Seariac was reportedly arrested at approximately 11:00 a.m. after police reportedly found her sitting in a running car on West Union Street drinking rum from a plastic cup.

Police reportedly checked on the woman because she was sitting in her car for a long time. Police reportedly found her drinking from a cup. Seariac was allegedly startled by police; the officers also allegedly smelled alcohol on her breath.

Seariac allegedly denied drinking alcohol; however, she reportedly subsequently admitted that she had a drink and that she "likes to drink rum." Police reportedly administered several field sobriety tests to Seariac, which she allegedly failed. Police also reportedly tested the liquid in her cup; the liquid allegedly tested positive for alcohol. Finally, police reportedly administered a Breathalyzer test to Seariac, and she reportedly blew a .20. The legal limit for blood alcohol while driving is .08, meaning that Seariac reportedly tested two and a half times over the legal limit.

Seariac is charged with driving under the influence of liquor, driving to endanger, and possession of an open container of liquor in a vehicle. Seariac has reportedly been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol once already, making this a subsequent offense for her. If she is convicted again of this charge, she is facing more severe penalties under Massachusetts law. However, Seariac's first OUI offense reportedly occurred in 1978. Therefore, the court may look more favorably on her than if she had been convicted of this offense more recently. Because this second offense is alleged to have occurred more than 10 years after the 1st offense Seriac is eligible for a disposition that would help her avoid some of the more serious penalties often associated with second offense OUI.

Seariac pleaded not guilty at her Framingham District Court arraignment on Friday. She was released without bail. She is due back in court on February 11th for a pretrial conference.

To successfully obtain a conviction for the OUI charge, prosecutors will need to prove that Seariac was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Because Seariac took a Breathalyzer test, the prosecutors can use the evidence from that test as evidence that she was under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Seariac may claim that the Breathalyzer test was not properly calibrated as a defense. For the driving to endanger charge, prosecutors will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Seariac was operating a motor vehicle on a public road so as to endanger any person, including her. Because Seariac was sitting in a running car, but was not actually driving, she could have a defense against this charge.

If convicted of the OUI charge, Seariac will be facing serious penalties, including fines and a suspension of her license. A driving to endanger conviction can lead to penalties, such as jail time.

Continue reading "Framingham Woman Facing OUI Charge" »

A recent article in the MetroWest Daily news tells the story of Edward Rossi Jr. of Shrewsbury. Rossi is facing charges, including motor vehicle homicide by negligent driving, in connection with the death of a pedestrian he is accused of hitting. Rossi is a former bus driver for the Worcester Regional Transit Authority and was working when he allegedly struck 62-year-old Linda Sneed with his bus. Linda Sneed reportedly died on September 28, 2012. Rossi, 70, reportedly retired after the accident. A complaint containing Rossi's charges was reportedly issued on Thursday, December 13th. Rossi is scheduled to be arraigned next month. It will be decided whether Rossi will be held on bail, and how much, at the arraignment.

Sneed was reportedly six to ten feet into the road when she was struck by Rossi's bus. She also was reportedly not in a crosswalk. Police allege that Rossi never came to a complete stop before making a turn. Visibility was reportedly poor because of rain, as well as glare from other vehicles.

The charges Rossi is facing are serious. A conviction for motor vehicle homicide could result in incarceration.

Rossi could be facing a misdemeanor or felony offense of motor vehicle homicide. What the prosecution will have to prove depends on whether he has been charged with the misdemeanor or felony offense. Either way, the prosecutors will have to prove that Rossi operated a motor vehicle on a public way or where members of the public have a right of access or are invitees and that the defendant's actions caused the death of another person.

However, if Rossi is charged with the misdemeanor version of this offense, the prosecutors will only have to prove that he operated the vehicle recklessly or that he operated the vehicle negligently so as to endanger the lives and safety of the public. If convicted of the misdemeanor section of the statute you can be sentenced for up to 2 ½ years in jail.

If Rossi is facing the felony version of this offense, the prosecutors will have to prove that Rossi operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that he operated the vehicle recklessly or negligently.
Rossi could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison if convicted under this section. There is a minimum mandatory one-year jail sentence if he is convicted.

The article does not mention Rossi be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident. Therefore, Rossi is likely facing the misdemeanor charge of motor vehicle homicide. The article also makes it sound as though the prosecutors will argue that Rossi was driving in a negligent manner at the time of the accident.

Continue reading "Shrewsbury Bus Driver to be Charged in Pedestrian Death" »