Boston Criminal Defense Lawyers Blog

Two Fights Reported Aboard MBTA Trains

Thu, 17 May 2012 11:41:27 -0500

Early Monday, more than a dozen teenagers were removed from an outbound MBTA train after "T" police received reports of a fight on board the Franklin line commuter rail. MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo stated that transit police responded to the Readville Station and removed the teenagers.

In a second incident, MBTA and Quincy police were called on reports of a fight at the Wollaston red line station. When police arrived at the station, they located two groups of males who admitted to being involved in an altercation. Reports indicated that neither group intended to press charges.

In addition to the fight, MBTA employees reported that a window on the red line car had been destroyed during the fight. Quincy Police detained a man, 28, of Abington, after he was identified as having broken the window by a witness.

The full article can be seen here.

Brockton Police Officer Caught in Sting

Thu, 10 May 2012 11:23:56 -0500

In a sting operation that was being monitored by cameras, a Brockton police officer was caught and arrested on charges of shaking down an undercover police officer. The officer, who has worked on the force for 24 years, was charged with two counts of larceny from a person.

According to reports, law officials stated in March that the officer was captured on a security camera taking money from an unidentified victim. The police report officially stated that, "at this time several similar incidents have been noted to have taken place between the March incident and the date of this report, which are under review with the intention of charges to follow."

The officer's defense attorney, a 1977 graduate of Brockton High School, said "this is a very serious allegation ... He's very appreciative of the support from his friends and family and by his fellow police officers, many of whom have reached out to him to say he enjoys their complete support."

The full article can be seen here.

Men Suspected of Stabbing Cab Driver in Boston

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:58:41 -0500

Two men are being held on $10,000 bail after allegedly stabbing a cab driver near Washington and Lenox Streets in the South End after a failed robbery attempt. The men are being charged with armed assault with intent to rob, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon.

Boston Police reported that the cab driver, 50, of Lynn, sustained life-threatening injuries after being stabbed several times following the failed robbery attempt. Police arrived to the scene around 1:22 a.m., after receiving a distress report of the stabbing.

The driver was rushed to Boston Medical Center as Boston Police attempted to track down the suspects. Police were able to quickly locate one of the suspects who had blood on his hands and face and was carrying a knife. The suspect then gave police a description of his accomplice who was then taken into custody.

To read the full article, click here.

Drug Evidence Discovered Missing from Secure Storage

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:27:55 -0500

According to the Boston Globe, a recent routine audit of physical evidence held at the Boston Police Department's drug depository, has shown a discrepancy. The random sampling of 500 pieces of evidence, executed by the Boston Police Audit and Review Unit, was all accounted for with the exception of one package of evidence.

Boston Police spokesperson, Elaine Driscoll, has stated that the department is now trying to discover what has caused the particular piece of evidence to have gone missing. "The Boston Police Department is taking every appropriate investigative measure to reconcile that discrepancy. Those findings will determine if other investigative steps will be necessary."

After a January 2008 audit found that drugs were missing or stolen from 265 cases, the department reorganized its drug evidence storage procedures. Drugs missing included heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, but most were prescription oxycodone. The Globe reported last year that no one had faced internal discipline or criminal charges.

To read the full article click here.

Analysis by Parker | Scheer LLP Attorney Vincent A. Tofani:

This will be an interesting investigation to keep an eye on because anytime evidence goes missing, it is a huge deal! In an attempt to minimize the risk of issues regarding missing evidence, both the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Boston Police Department policies provide for strict guidelines instructing the appropriate manner in which to handle and store evidence. It is essential that such guidelines are followed in order to preserve evidence and prevent the possibility of contamination or any tampering therewith.

Occasionally, during the course of a criminal case, issues may arise with regard to the storage and transfer of important pieces of evidence that the Commonwealth intends to offer against the defendant. For example, an experienced criminal defense attorney may file a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that the Commonwealth can not sufficiently establish the "chain of custody" of the piece of evidence that is meant to be offered. Essentially, to establish the "chain of custody," the Commonwealth often introduces sworn testimony of the custodian of the evidence in question in an effort to prove: 1) the receipt of the item; 2) the ultimate disposition of the item, (i.e. - whether the item was stored, transferred, tested, etc.); and, 3) the steps taken to safeguard the item during the time that it was in custody, specifically designed to prevent the contamination of, or tampering with the piece of evidence. Notwithstanding, the court will not automatically exclude evidence when there is a question as to the sufficiency of its storage or the record indicates the possibility of a "missing link" in the "chain of custody."

Instead, the court exercises its discretion in order to fashion the most equitable remedy given the specific circumstances of the particular case and piece of evidence that is involved. The court will generally look to the materiality of the evidence (i.e. - its evidentiary value with respect to the criminal case in which it is being offered), and whether the record indicates a likelihood of contamination of the evidence. Additionally, the court will often consider whether the exclusion of the particular piece of evidence will result in significant prejudice to either the Commonwealth or the defendant. Like so many components of criminal proceedings, the underlying objective is to afford every individual charged with a criminal offense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts due process to the full extent of the law, in accordance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

12 Year Old Arraigned on Gun Charges at Boston Municipal Court

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:43:09 -0500

Boston.com reported that on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, a twelve year old boy was arraigned on felony firearm charges at the juvenile division of the Boston Municipal Court. Members of the Boston Police Department reported that, while on routine patrol in the area of Forest, Vine and Mt. Pleasant Streets in Roxbury, they observed a boy toss an object into the front yard of a Forest Street home before running away. Upon further investigation, the officers reportedly discovered that the discarded object was a fully-loaded, .380 caliber handgun.

The Boston Municipal Court Judge presiding over the juvenile session ordered the suspect to be held on a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) cash bail. He was reportedly charged with: 1) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm; 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition; and, 3) Unlawful Carrying of a Loaded Firearm.

Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley commented: "Think of the damage a child of that age could do with a loaded firearm. Think of the harm he could cause, to someone else or even himself. Who on earth would give a twelve-year-old a gun, and for what possible reason?"

Analysis by Parker | Scheer LLP Attorney Vincent A. Tofani:

As a resident and member of the community of the Greater Boston area, it is extremely disheartening to watch as illegal firearms appear to be flooding the Boston streets. As a Boston criminal defense lawyer and member of the criminal defense litigation group at Parker|Scheer LLP, we have represented many individuals charged with illegal possession and carrying of firearms and ammunitions.

An experienced criminal defense attorney will often challenge the evidence that the Commonwealth intends to offer at trial against the defendant with Motions to Suppress Evidence. The Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure allow for such Motions to Suppress Evidence when such evidence is obtained illegally, i.e. - contrary to the Massachusetts General Laws, or the State or Federal Constitutions. For example, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article Fourteen of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights prohibit government officials from obtaining evidence by means of "unreasonable searches and seizures." An experienced criminal defense attorney will scrutinize the facts of the particular case and analyze whether any of the evidence was seized illegally; thus, is eligible for suppression.

One potential issue that I see with challenging the seizure of the firearm in this case, if the reporting of the facts is accurate with respect to discovery of the firearm, is whether the defendant will have "standing" to bring a motion to suppress. Massachusetts common law may prevent this under the theory of "abandoned property." In other words, the issue may turn on whether the defendant had any possessory interest in the seized firearm at the time of its discovery and seizure by the police; or, if the piece of evidence would be considered abandoned property after it was thrown into the front yard.

This will be an interesting case to keep an eye on.

5 Former New Orleans Police Department Officers Sentenced in Post-Katrina Shootings

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:25:16 -0500

Multiple news outlets reported that, on Wednesday April 4, 2012, varying prison sentences were ordered by Judge Kurt D. Englehardt of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisianna. Judge Englehardt ordered federal prison sentences ranging from six years to sixty five years in response to the guilty findings of five ex-New Orleans Police Department Officers that shot six unarmed civilians two days after Hurricane Katrina. Two of the unarmed civilians were killed, and the ex-officers were apparently involved with wide ranging cover-ups to obstruct the investigations in relation thereto.

A number of ex-officers that were directly involved with the shootings and the subsequent cover-up previously entered pleas of guilty, and were ordered to serve significantly reduced prison sentences in return for their guilty pleas and testimony offered at the trials of the remaining co-defendants.

The evidence painted an alarming and tragic story of police misconduct in the immediate aftermath of one of the nations' most severe natural disasters. On September 4, 2005, as most of the city of New Orleans lay submerged in flood waters caused by Hurricane Katrina, members of the New Orleans Police Department responded to distress calls from the area of the Danziger Bridge in the eastern part of the city. Immediately upon arrival at the scene, officers began shooting, apparently indiscriminately, at numerous individuals that were desperately searching for food and shelter. A number of the victims were shot in the back as the attempted to flee the unprovoked assault.

Evidence further showed that the broad cover-up attempt included fabricated witnesses and a planted hand gun.

Before ordering the federal prison sentences, Judge Engelhardt condemned the mandatory minimum sentences that were linked to the charges involved because of the chilling effect these sentencing requirements have on the discretion of the Judge to analyze the totality of the circumstances, both aggravating and mitigating, in an attempt to reach the most equitable sentences. Judge Engelhardt further expressed displeasure by the significant range in sentences meted out, and the plea deals that were entered into by the federal prosecutors with cooperating witnesses.

Analysis by Parker | Scheer LLP Attorney Vincent A. Tofani:

Taking a moment to step back, away from one of the most troubling and tragic examples of police misconduct that I have ever heard of, I would like to address Judge Engelhardt's apparent displeasure with mandatory minimum sentences. As an experienced criminal defense attorney, specializing in drug trafficking offenses, I often grapple with the pitfalls associated with mandatory minimum sentences.

Most common, pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws, a "School Zone" count carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years, to be served consecutively to any sentence(s) ordered for the underlying offense. As a criminal defense attorney practicing in the densely populated cities comprising the greater Boston area, in my experience a "School Zone" count (essentially when a drug offense other than simple possession occurs within 1,000 feet of a school or 100 feet of a park) is applicable more often than not. This provides the prosecutor with substantial leverage when negotiating with a criminal defense lawyer, to determine whether the respective parties can favorably resolve a criminal matter prior to trial because of the severe implications that a school zone count carries.

I share Judge Engelhardt's concerns regarding sentencing guidelines that remove the discretion of the judge because I have never encountered two clients or two cases that are exactly the same. In most cases, an experienced criminal defense lawyer will identify mitigating circumstances involved in the criminal charges that their client faces. But, when a charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge has absolutely no discretion to take into account the unique circumstances that exist in every case, whether aggravating or mitigating.

I can appreciate the argument that harsh mandatory sentences act as an effective deterrent against the prohibited conduct. Notwithstanding, I believe that it is more important to afford judges in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with discretion to order equitable sentences after taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Every individual is exactly that: an individual, with a unique background and circumstances. Mandatory minimum sentences ignore this fundamental concept that is inherently intertwined in every criminal case. Accordingly, a judge's ability to exercise his or her discretion when determining a sentence is an essential element in reaching an equitable result.

For a more comprehensive discussion regarding "school zone" counts pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, please click here.

Brockton Man Registers a Breathalyzer Test Score of .384

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:38:38 -0500

A Brockton man was reportedly pulled over by the Rhode Island State Police in Providence, and suspected of drunk driving. Apparently, upon arrival at the police station, the suspect agreed to submit to a breathalyzer test.

Keeping in mind that the legal limit is .08, the suspect registered a staggering .384. Deni Carise, the senior vice president and chief clinical officer at PhoEnix House addiction recovery center reportedly advised that, using industry standards, a male about the same size and body weight of the suspect would have to consume 20 alcoholic beverages in the previous hour to reach the recorded breathalyzer test score of .384.

Analysis by Parker | Scheer LLP Attorney Vincent A. Tofani:

The frighteningly high score reported indicates one thing to me: a faulty breathalyzer machine. As a practicing criminal defense attorney, I have never represented an individual that registered such a high score after submitting to a breathalyzer test. In my experience, any individual with such a high blood alcohol level would not be able to function; instead, would likely be in a near death coma.

Inaccurate breathalyzer test scores as a result of both human and mechanical error are all too common in cases involving suspected drunk driving. This is one of the many reasons that we advise our clients to exercise their right to politely decline to submit to the breathalyzer test after they have been arrested. Instead, a more accurate mechanism for measuring one's blood alcohol level is to go directly to a hospital where a health care professional can draw a blood sample.

Both the Massachusetts General Laws and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations include guidelines addressing the proper maintenance of the machines, and method of conducting the particular test in an attempt to mitigate the likelihood of inaccurate scores being recorded. Notwithstanding, these machines often malfunction, and the results can be devastating for an individual suspected of operating under the influence of alcohol because the state courts of the Commonwealth treat the breathalyzer test score as prima face evidence of impairment, which is one of the elements of the offense that the prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. In other words, the element of impairment is satisfied, as a matter of law, when an individual registers a breathalyzer test score of .08 or higher.

Allegations of Operating Under the Influence

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:58:04 -0500

Patricia Anderson, Norwell Town Clerk, was arrested on March 16, 2012, by Hingham Police, and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. The Patriot Ledger reported allegations made by police that Anderson was found standing in a pool of gasoline, next to her sport utility vehicle, which was stuck on a traffic island. It appeared that she had been travelling south on Whiting Street (Rt 53) Hingham, when she struck the island at the Gardner Street intersection, knocking over the "keep right" sign and blowing out two tires.

Ms. Anderson, 61, of Norwell, appeared confused, and had trouble answering questions according to the Hingham police officer, who noted that he could detect a strong odor of alcohol on Ms. Anderson.

According to the Ledger, the police allege that Anderson admitted to having consumed three glasses of wine earlier in the evening. She was arrested after a series of sobriety tests, charged with drunken driving and failure to stay within a marked lane. She was to be arraigned in Hingham District Court on Monday, March 19, 2012.

Read the entire Patriot Ledger article here.

Analysis by Parker | Scheer LLP Attorney Francis T. O'Brien, Jr.:

This story, as reported in the Ledger, is an example of how certain allegations by police may be presented in a manner which causes the casual reader and inexperienced trial observer to conclude that the operator was guilty of operating under the influence. However, after more than 25 years of practicing criminal defense law, including handling thousands of OUI/DWI cases, many in the Hingham District Court, I have learned that most often the complete story and true facts do not appear in police reports or newspapers. This is not to insinuate that police officers or journalists are intentionally untruthful, (although some undoubtedly are). It is more a product of the fact that police reports are written after a defendant has already been arrested, so police officers will naturally record those observations which they believe support their decision to arrest. Police reports are not written in a manner reflective of what a judge or jury might write if they were analyzing all of the facts surrounding an arrest and applying a neutral and detached eye to the rendering of a verdict.

The fact of the matter is that police officers are "interested" parties in cases where they have made an arrest. It is a natural human tendency to recollect facts favorable to support one's decision and police officers do just that. They present themselves in the most flattering way possible. This oft times slanted view can be further exacerbated when newspapers report on arrests. Most often, newspaper articles reporting on arrests receive their facts exclusively from the police, either directly or through court prosecutors reciting the words of the police. Therefore a newspaper article on an arrest is often times reporting a totally one sided account of the facts.

This case illustrates the importance of being represented by an experienced and knowledgeable drunk driving/OUI/DWI attorney, whether in Hingham District Court or any other District Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I see numerous issues which may be effectively developed for the defendant in this case:

Any time there is a motor vehicle accident, dazed, erratic, unsteady or confused behavior might be attributable to injuries suffered in the collision. Symptoms which police attempt to portray as signs of alcohol impairment may be equally consistent with injury. Additionally, a question arises how a police officer encountering a defendant standing in a pool of gasoline, which obviously emits overpowering noxious fumes, might detect the odor of alcohol from the defendant?

The fact that a defendant may have consumed alcohol earlier in the evening is by no means an indication that the defendant was legally impaired. It is not a crime to drink and drive. It is only a crime if the amount of alcohol consumption has diminished the person's ability to operate safely. Three glasses of wine does not necessarily constitute legal impairment and the passage of time only serves to diminish the effect of the alcohol.

Other than alleging that the defendant was arrested after submitting to field sobriety tests, there are no details in this article concerning the tests. Field sobriety tests are entirely subjective. Often times at trial, when all of the relevant facts are brought out by a skilled and knowledgeable drunk driving attorney, juries do not agree with the opinions expressed by police officers concerning the reasonableness of the defendant's field sobriety performance.

With regard to the accident, there are many reasons why people are involved in accidents, other than alcohol impairment. It will be interesting to watch this case proceed in the Hingham District Court.

Obama's Uncle Temporarily Loses License After OUI Case

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:55:10 -0500

According to a report by WBZ 1030's Lana Jones, the half brother of President Obama's late father, will lose his license for 45 days, as of today after a hearing in Framingham District Court.

Oyango Obama was arrested August 2011, in Framingham, MA after a police officer claimed Obama had made a rolling stop at a stop sign. The officer alleges that this caused him to almost crashing into Obama's SUV. His blood alcohol registered 0.14, the Massachusetts state limit is 0.08.

Obama's attorney told the judge that there are sufficient facts in the case against his client. He agreed to a continuance without a finding, avoiding a plea of guilty to drunk driving and the charge will be dismissed, if he stays out of trouble for one year. He will lose his license for 45 days and pay fines and fees of $1,000.

"By admitting to sufficient facts today to operating under the influence and failure to yield at an intersection, the defendant has admitted responsibility for the essence of the crime he committed and has now been held accountable for his actions," District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement.

Immigration investigators became aware of Obama after the August arrest and claim he violated a 1992 order to return to Kenya. This case is still before the immigration court.

Analysis by Parker | Scheer LLP Attorney Francis T. O'Brien, Jr.:

The fact that this case involves a relative of the president is irrelevant. The defendant in this case received no "special" consideration from the court. What this case illustrates is the fact that defendants in drunk driving/OUI/DWI cases do not always wish to proceed to trial. Sometimes clients are interested in having their cases resolved quickly. Reasons vary from financial (legal fees are significantly less in cases where defendants advise us that they wish to resolve the case via some form of plea bargain, rather than proceeding to trial), to emotional (some clients simply do not like going to court and want the process to end as quickly as possible), to practical (some clients need to obtain a hardship license for work purposes as soon as possible, and hardship licenses may not be obtained during the period of time waiting for trial), to self recognition (some clients simply believe that they are guilty of the offense and want to "cut their losses"), to criminal record preservation (some clients want us to attempt to preserve their lack of a criminal record by obtaining for them a "continuance without a finding" such as the defendant Obama obtained in this case).

This case also illustrates the frequently occurring situation where a non United States citizen is a defendant in a criminal case. It is imperative that a non citizen be represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney IN CONJUNCTION WITH an experienced immigration attorney. In my opinion, although some attorneys dabble in both criminal and immigration courts, it is extremely rare that an attorney can accurately be described as an expert in both criminal and immigration law. At Parker | Scheer, we never resolve a case involving a non citizen without consulting with an immigration expert. We are affiliated with immigration experts and we are also willing to work in conjunction with our clients' own immigration attorneys.

We advise every client on the various options that are available to them. We give them candid opinions on the likelihood of achieving the result that the client wants. Ultimately, however, we respect the choice of each individual client and attempt to obtain the desired result for each client. There is no blueprint to be applied in every case. Each client and each case is different and must be treated on an individual basis.

Red Sox Reliever Bobby Jenks Arrested

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:20:39 -0500

Local and national news outlets report that Red Sox relief pitcher, Bobby Jenks, was arrested early Friday morning in Fort Myers, Florida for suspected DUI, Property Damage and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. It was further reported that Lee County police officers stopped Jenks's vehicle after apparently observing erratic driving.

It was further alleged that Jenks made a number of statements to the investigating officers during the motor vehicle stop, concerning his "erratic" driving, ingestion of medication and an accident that he was involved in outside of a Florida nightclub earlier in the evening. Jenks was reportedly arrested at approximately 3:43 AM, and released from police custody a few hours later, presumably on his own personal recognizance.

Red Sox General Manager Ben Charington reportedly responded to the allegations via text message, indicating that Red Sox team officials are aware of the incident, and currently gathering information regarding the allegations.

To read the full article, please click here.

Attorney Tofani, of counsel to Parker|Scheer LLP and an associate of the firm's criminal practice group, reflects:

Reviewing the complete police report would allow for a more complete picture of the allegations that are involved with the reported incident involving Lee County police officers and Red Sox relief pitcher Bobby Jenks. At first glance, the most problematic elements with respect to Jenks's defense are the reported statements that he provided during police questioning. As a general rule, I advise my clients to be cooperative and respectful when stopped by police; but, to politely exercise their constitutionally protected right to remain silent. Despite the commonly cited fear of angering police by doing so, in my experience, most police officers respect the polite and respectful exercising of one's right against self incrimination.

The rules of evidence generally prohibit the inclusion of out of court statements, when they are offered as proof of the matter asserted - otherwise known as hearsay. But, one of the most commonly utilized exceptions to the rule against hearsay is the admission of out of court statements offered for their truth when such statements are declarations made by the party opponent. In other words, when the defendant in a criminal matter makes statements out of court, the prosecution, as the "party opponent," can introduce such statements as evidence under this exception to the rule against hearsay.

Accordingly, if the news reports are accurate, the statements that Jenks offered during police questioning will likely be introduced as incriminating evidence against him to prove: operation; impairment; consciousness of guilt; intent; and, destruction of property. These are merely a few examples of the elements that the prosecution will likely use Jenks's out of court statements as evidence in support thereof. Therefore, these admissions could prove to be a substantial obstacle for his criminal defense attorney, in furthering Jenks's defense to the charges of Driving Under the Influence, Destruction of Personal Property and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.

Often, members of the criminal defense litigation group at Parker|Scheer LLP successfully argue motions to suppress physical evidence and statements that is being offered against our clients. When preparing Jenks's defense, an experienced criminal defense attorney would likely scrutinize the totality of the circumstances surrounding these alleged admissions. For example, I would be interested in determining whether the statements were the result of improper police interrogation and whether Jenks was entitled to being advised of his rights to remain silent at that point. More specifically, if the officers continued to pepper Jenks with questions that were specifically designed to elicit incriminating responses during a custodial interrogation, and failed to advise Jenks of his Miranda rights, he would have a colorable argument in support of suppression of the damaging statements.

College Student Criminal Defense Lawyer

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:09:47 -0500

A question that we are commonly asked when a college student who is charged with a crime in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts meets with us for the initial free consultation is: What is the difference between defending criminal charges before the university disciplinary review board and the Massachusetts court system?

This is question is quite broad, and would take more than a single blog post to address the myriad of differences between strategy and procedure when defending criminal charges before either a university disciplinary board or a court in the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding, I will generally discuss a couple of the most glaring differences between the two situations.

First, the attorneys at the criminal defense litigation group at Parker|Scheer LLP approach every client and every case differently. Every client that steps into one of our conference rooms has his or her own idea of what the ideal outcome would be for their particular situation. In a similar vein, every case is extremely fact specific and must be addressed accordingly - the most effective strategy often varies because an experienced criminal defense attorney works with each client to tailor the approach to the individual goals and the specific facts and allegations that are involved with their particular situation.

With that being said, the first palpable distinction between criminal proceedings before a university disciplinary board and a state court in the Commonwealth is the underlying objective of each respective establishment. The structure and procedures vary slightly at every individual university disciplinary board; but, the primary objective is universal - education. This is the first glaring distinction between a university disciplinary board and the Massachusetts courts. In contrast, the courts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts place less emphasis on educating an individual that is charged with a criminal offense. Instead, the objectives of Massachusetts courts consist of a blend of punishment, restitution, acceptance of responsibility and rehabilitation. An experienced criminal defense lawyer adapts the particular strategy of the defense to the underlying objectives of the establishment.

A second common distinction between the proceedings before university disciplinary boards and the courts are the rules of procedure and evidence. In criminal proceedings before the state courts, we utilize the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the common law rules of evidence to the advantage of our clients in pursuit of a favorable outcome. For example, the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for the opportunity to challenge incriminating evidence that was obtained illegally, utilizing motions to suppress evidence, and motions to dismiss criminal complaints that lack probable cause. Additionally, the rule against hearsay and other evidentiary principles allow an experienced criminal defense trial lawyer to exclude and move to suppress incriminating evidence that would otherwise be introduced and offered against our clients. These rules of procedure simply do not exist when we assist our clients in effectively resolving a matter before the university disciplinary boards. Thus, the strategy differs, and we work with our clients to reach each individualized objective.

In sum, differences in strategy and procedure exist from the underlying objectives of the respective establishment, to the rules that govern the proceedings. Accordingly, it is extremely important to retain an experienced criminal defense lawyer that is familiar with the different approaches that are necessary to effectively represent the interests of a college student that has been charged with a criminal offense before both the state courts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a university disciplinary board. While every client and every case is different, the objective of the criminal defense litigation group at Parker|Scheer LLP always remains the same - to protect the rights of our clients, and put them in the best position possible regardless of the venue or the allegations.

Woman Charged in Crash That Injured Her Children

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:05:28 -0500

According to police, a Norfolk woman is being criminally charged in a Wednesday accident that injured her three children. The woman, 36, is being charged with driving under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury, child endangerment, and a seat belt violation.

The Norfolk woman is being hospitalized at Caritas Norwood Hospital. In addition, her children, ages 7, 10, and 11, are also being hospitalized at three local hospitals.

Police reported that the woman lost control of her car on Marshall Street and then struck a utility pole and rolled over. Emergency personnel needed to use the Jaws of Life to free the woman and her children. According to police, additional charges may be filed.

The full article can be seen here.

Police Save Two from Home Invasion

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:34:31 -0500

According to Brockton Police, officers were called to a home invasion late Friday night involving two armed men threatening a family. Officers burst into the house and arrested the two armed men. Brockton Police received a call around midnight from a girl who stated that she was hiding in a closet while her brother and grandmother were being tied up.

Reports indicated that one of the robbers had hit a family member with a gun and held a knife to a woman's throat. The robbery took place at a home on Claremont Avenue, and police could see someone inside the house running around as a man attempted to escape out a window.

On the scene, police recovered a .40 caliber handgun and a backpack with a ski mask and small pry bar in it. Both men, 26 and 22, from Brockton, were arrested on the scene and charged with armed home invasion, two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful carrying of a firearm, and kidnapping while armed.

The full article can be seen here.

Lowell Man Accused in Two Carjacking Incidents

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:34:05 -0500

According to authorities, a Lowell man who was being arraigned for a carjacking attempt, managed to escape from Lowell District Court on Thursday afternoon and carjack another vehicle. The Lowell man is facing charges of escape, carjacking, larceny of a motor vehicle, operating to endanger, and operating with a revoked license at his second arraignment.

The Lowell Sun is reporting that the man, who was wearing a leg cast and hospital gown, escaped in handcuffs after being held without bail. The second carjacking involved a 1996 red Ford Explorer from a man in the parking lot of the Auto Zone on Church Street.

The first carjacking took place on when the man allegedly stalked a woman, stole her car, and then led police on a high-speed chase which ended when the car rolled over. In the most recent attempt, the suspect was arrested around 20 minutes after his escape when he was found hiding under a trailer.

The full article can be seen here.

Red Line Attack Posted on YouTube

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:55:52 -0500

An attack that took place on the MBTA's Red Line was recorded and uploaded to YouTube by a passenger. In the video, a woman on the train begins yelling at a man who allegedly stepped on her dog while trying to sit down. The woman then threatens that she is going to hit the passenger before she gets off at her stop.

As the video continues, the woman continues threatening the man before she follows through and begins punching the man. The MBTA Transit Police have spoken to the man and he does not wish to press charges.

However, the woman in the video has turned herself in and will be summoned to appear in court. Police report the woman will be charged with assault and battery and disorderly conduct.

The full article can be seen here.