Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

“I AM BEING ACCUSED OF MASSACHUSETTS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WILL I LOSE MY CHILDREN AND GO TO JAIL?”

Mon, 20 May 2013 14:45:31 -0500

An allegation of Massachusetts domestic violence can affect your entire life. It can create irreversible harm long before you have a trial or resolve the criminal charges. This Boston criminal lawyer has handled many such cases over the past quarter century. Through my Attorney Sam’s Take, I have attempted to warn you how serious these charges are.

The warning deserves repeating…both for the sake of the accused as well as the accuser.

Years ago, society did not treat such allegations with the appropriate amount of seriousness. Now, the courts tend to err on the other side of the occasion. I still come across cases where a complainant admits that he or she called the police claiming a domestic disturbance out of anger, even when no such violence took place. They are then surprised to learn that they cannot simply tell the police or the prosecutor that they have decided they want to forget about the whole thing.

The fact is that, once the police are called, it is too late for that.

"What exactly is domestic violence? Do I actually have to hit someone in order to be charged with a crime?”

Actually…not always. Other crimes, such as harassment, can sometimes be brought even if no physical violence is alleged. Further, allegations of “emotional abuse” can be prosecuted by law enforcement and acted upon by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”).

“What does DCF have to do with it? I thought that only the police and the prosecutors get involved when these charges are made.”

Not so if there are kids in the home. If there are children in the home, then DCF starts its own investigation. The rules governing DCF are much more elastic that common sense would indicate. Let’s take the following fact scenario:

Husband and wife have an argument. Wife calls the police. The police arrest husband (as they are practically mandated to do…regardless of what the wife wants). Husband and wife make up and wife admits that she overreacted. No violence actually took place. She even shows up in court the next day at the arraignment to tell the judge and prosecutor that the case should be dropped.

The case is not going to be dropped.

Instead, the prosecutor will likely refuse to speak with wife (once it becomes clear that she wants to drop charges) until the day of trial many months later. Ironically, if the couple are legally married, the prosecutor cannot force wife to testify and so the case will be dismissed anyway (if the case cannot be proven without her testimony). The bottom line is that husband and wife are now trapped in the system until the wheels churn and bring them to a trial date.

Meanwhile, if there are children in the home, DCF will become involved. While the prosecution is pending, DCF may do things like threaten wife to take away the kids if she does not divorce husband or, at least, testify the way the prosecution wants her to.

“Well, DCF has to make some kind of showing of violence in the home, don’t they?”

You would be surprised at how little DCF need show to become involved and support their case against husband and/or wife. DCF is an agency with a great many powers and very few restraints.

“If the prosecution dismisses the case, then DCF will as well, right?”

Not necessarily. The rules are different for each.

“Wait a minute. You have written many blogs about a clerk magistrate hearing. Doesn’t the defendant have a right to such a hearing to determine probable cause if the allegation is simply a misdemeanor?”

Nope. We have become so tough on domestic cases that there is an actual exception in the law for these cases. Even if the defendant is not arrested (which would negate the need for such a hearing in itself), there is no right to a hearing in domestic violence cases.

“So, what can I do?”

Two things. The first is preventative. It is important that folks realize what a quagmire they are instantly thrown into once that call to the police is made. This is not to suggest that someone who is actually a victim of violence should not call the authorities, but those who would make claims simply because they are angry should understand the nightmare that their call will bring.

Once the allegation is made, of course, there is really only one thing to do. Retain the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney to advise, guide and defend you.

"Can the right attorney do any good?"

Yes. As with most criminal actions, the rules surrounding domestic violence and DCF cases can be complex. However, the best way for the Commonwealth (either agency) to simply trample your rights and get a very simple result to your detriment is for there not to be a qualified and experienced attorney opposing them.

It is up to you to prevent that from being the case.

Fail to do so at the first possible opportunity at your own risk!

BOSTON GRAND JURY BRING WHITE COLLAR FELONY CHARGES AGAINST MASSPORT EMPLOYEES

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:21:45 -0500

As we have discussed many times over the past years, we are seeing more and more prosecutions for things that we barely even heard about, much less saw Massachusetts criminal prosecutions for... although we kind of knew they existed.

Today, the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog brings you another one.

A Suffolk County grand jury has now returned a 53 criminal charges for bribery against five Massachusetts Port Authority employees. They include Kenneth Clement, 67, of Attleboro; Michael Garvey, 51, of Melrose; Vadim Mkrtychev, 38, of West Roxbury; James Mulrey, 45, of Canton; and Donald Potis, 47, of Medford (hereinafter, collectively, the “Defendants”).

The Defendants allegedly accepted bribes from cab drivers in exchange for better spaces in line at the Boston Logan International Airport taxi queue. They now face charges of accepting a bribe as a public employee and soliciting or accepting an unlawful gratuity as a public employee, the Suffolk County district attorney’s office said in a statement.
State Police Superintendent Colonel Timothy P. Alben adds that, “We have a duty to protect the right of businesses to operate on a level playing field, without their being forced to pay a bribe or engage in any other illicit activity for that right.”

The actual allegations are not terribly new. They were made back in February when the State Police arrested the Defendants after multiple cab drivers told investigators that the men, known as “cab starters,” regularly took money, as well as cigarettes, scratch tickets, and other items in exchange for favoritism in the cab queue, law enforcement has said. Now, the Defendants have been indicted which moves the matter higher up the ladder to superior court. Superior court arraignment is set for May 24th on the indictments that have been returned. However, the Commonwealth has warned that more indictments are possible as the criminal investigation continues and additional evidence is gathered.
To this Boston criminal lawyer, this translates to the fact that it is now time to further squeeze potential and actual defendants for information so that such charges can be brought.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Conspiracies, Cooperating Witnesses and Changing Times

The fact that this money has been changing hands in this fashion is probably no shock to anyone. This is particularly so given that some of these “pay-offs” are not even in U.S. currency. That fact that such things may be unfair and ethically wrong has not always made them crimes worthy of prosecution…particularly superior court prosecution.
It makes me wonder when law enforcement will crack down on differences in treatment some folks claim when they do not tip or give holiday gifts to postal employees and such workers.

The fact is, however, that this is bribery, regardless of the form of payment and it is considered a Massachusetts white collar crime.

You may be wondering how such cases are built. Well, as the story reflects, certain cab drivers complained. I would imagine that these were cab drivers who were not receiving the special treatment. Most likely, then, these are not the folks who were witnesses to the “pay offs”. Unless authorities relied solely on undercover officers who posed as cab drivers, it would seem that some of the bribers themselves are Commonwealth witnesses.

You might wonder what would possess such people to turn on their co-conspirators.

“Sam, what do you mean, ‘co-conspirators’?”

Well, offering a bribe is illegal too. So, it would seem that if, as apparently alleged, this was a regular practice, it had to be a conspiracy to violate these laws. As any regular reader of this blog knows, co-conspirators are held responsible for the acts of others in the conspiracy when those actions are in the furtherance of the conspiracy.
It is very likely that the Commonwealth’s case consists, to some extent, of folks who chose cooperating over being prosecuted themselves. This could include some of the bribe-offering cab drivers as well as some of the other cab-launchers.

The fact that additional indictments may be forthcoming may well be the expectation that more potential defendants will be adopting the mantle of Commonwealth witness.
Now what does this mean to you?

It is yet another example of something that one would assume to be “no big deal” being actually illegal and, potentially, successfully prosecuted. After all, even if you think you have left no “proof” behind, you would be surprised how “proof” ends up being discovered in the mouths of co-conspirators who have made a good deal to save their own skins.

Anyone can make mistakes of judgment without even considering that it might be a prosecutable offense. Once done, you would be surprised who is willing to aid in your prosecution to avoid the loss of liberty.

Be careful. If suspected, be alert and consult an experienced criminal defense attorney…and nobody else. Anyone else could wind up on the stand at your trial.

That’s it for me on our new Monday & Thursday schedule.

Have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

For the original story upon which this blog was based, please go to http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/15/grand-jury-issues-indictments-against-five-massport-cab-starters/yK0bRRdChHJCVC4NKmQJ9J/story.html

3 EVERETT RESIDENTS FACE CHARGES FOR DRUGS AND GUNS POSSESSION

Mon, 13 May 2013 10:35:49 -0500

This Boston criminal lawyer has been around long enough to recognize what may be the tip of an upcoming criminal justice iceberg.

Late last week, three Everett residents were brought in and arraigned on various possession charges. They stand charged with Massachusetts gun and drug charges. Included in the listing of the firearms is allegedly a gun that had been stolen from the Chelsea District Court evidence locker two years ago, according to Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan’s office.

The arrests took place after the execution of a search warrant at the home shared by Jeffrey Sanon, 30; Liban Ali, 21; and Malensky Oscar, 21, (hereinafter, collectively, the “Defendants”). According to documents, law enforcement was not even looking for the drugs and guns. They were actually on the trail of a laptop that had been taken from a Winchester business. Law enforcement indicates that an anti-theft tracking device installed on the computer indicated it was currently located in the home.

The weapons found during the search included several high-capacity guns (including the .40-caliber Glock pistol stolen from the court) as well as a shotgun, high capacity magazines, and other ammunition. The evidence of drug crimes seized included more than 36 grams of cocaine and packaging materials according to the District Attorney’s office. The gun from the evidence locker was one of three stolen from Chelsea in 2011. According to Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley’s office, a Charlestown resident was arrested in April for possessing one of them.

The Defendants stand charged with three counts of possession of a high capacity firearm, three counts of possession of a high capacity magazine, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, trafficking in cocaine over 36 grams, conspiracy to violate the drug law, and receiving stolen property, according to prosecutors.

“The firepower and drugs that were discovered at that home created a potentially lethal combination and a real danger to nearby residents,” Ryan said in a statement. “I applaud the teamwork and joint efforts of the Winchester and Everett police departments, whose search for a stolen computer led to an unanticipated and significant seizure of weapons that now no longer pose a threat to the community.”

The Defendants’ next day in court will be on June 5th. While it is apparently currently scheduled for a pretrial hearing, it is more likely that the case will not stay in district court, but be indicted and moved up to Massachusetts superior court.

Attorney Sam’s Take On The Seizure Of Evidence

Clearly, the Commonwealth’s interest in the Defendants did not begin with the execution of the search warrant.

In order to get a search warrant, law enforcement must make a showing to a clerk magistrate or a judge that there is enough probable cause to issue the warrant. This takes place after a criminal investigation of sorts.

In this case, law enforcement is said to have been simply looking for the laptop computer. The probable cause burden for that would certainly be satisfied by the signal the laptop was allegedly sending as described above.

An experienced criminal defense lawyer should have questions regarding the application for and language within the search warrant. The procedure followed by police investigators should also be reviewed. For example, did the search which resulted in the seizure of the contraband exceed what was allowed by the warrant?

You will notice that no charges have been brought by the Commonwealth for the theft of the stolen gun. This is because there is no evidence, so it would seem, that the Defendants are the folks who actually stole the laptop. However, they may well be facing charges for possession of stolen property.

In the beginning of today’s blog, I mentioned that I expected this to be merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. This is because not only do we know everything about the investigation leading up to this seizure, we do not know anything about another facet of this story which I would hope the Commonwealth is investigating. Namely, how did the the .40-caliber Glock pistol get stolen from the court?

In a time when we have chemists and seasoned police officers accused, if not actually prosecuted, for the mishandling and theft of evidence, one would hope that this is of interest to prosecutors.

If not, it should be of interest to counsel for the Defendants.

That is, if they are experienced enough to realize its import.

Announcement Regarding Upcoming Changes To This Blog: The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog is going through some changes. One such change is that it will be posted only twice a week for now. In most cases, the two postings will be on Mondays and Thursdays. Please stay tuned.

For the original story upon which this blog was based, please go to http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/12/everett-residents-arraigned-drug-and-gun-charges-including-gun-stolen-from-chelsea-district-court-evidence-locker/MVNMNG5VcAtJBXBEEI300I/story.html

SPRINGFIELD HIGH SCHOOL PARTY IS SCENE OF MASSACHUSETTS ASSAULTS WITH DANGEROUS WEAPONS

Tue, 07 May 2013 21:29:27 -0500

A few words of alleged wisdom to our younger readers and those who love them.

School is not quite over yet! Parties are for good times spent with friends! Stabbing people in throwing bricks at them do not qualify as fun times!

They qualify as felonies, such as Massachusetts assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and potentially assault with intent to commit murder.

This past weekend, it would appear that these words were forgotten. It took place in Springfield at a high school graduation party.

Things apparently were fine until some uninvited guests decided to attend. Their attendance included the stabbing of two guests as well as hitting the host in the head with a brick.

You may have thought that this would be enough to get someone in trouble under normal circumstances. You would be correct. However, this was not normal circumstances. This house is owned by a retired Springfield police officer. He has vowed that the culprits would be captured.

METHUEN TEEN HELD WITHOUT BAIL OVER ALLEGED BOMB THREAT

Fri, 03 May 2013 14:08:01 -0500

Today, I bring you a case that I have already told you I feel is “disgustingly unreasonable”. It is a case that takes what I have warned you might happen and shown you that it is already happening. It involves the loss of one of the most basic of Constitutional rights that you rely on every day.

…At your own risk apparently.

Cameron D’Ambrosio is an 18-year-old high school student (hereinafter, the “Song Writer”). Song Writer likes rap music. In fact, he writes and performs his own songs. His latest music video, however, has not only landed him in criminal court, but due to what I can only imagine to be inept lawyering, overzealous (to be generous) prosecuting and a judge who I must assume has let his fear of the press lead him to a shamefully ugly stain on his judicial record has locked him away for awhile.

Like so many rap songs, his songs are said to contain profanity. They also contain images of violence. It is the genre which has not yet been declared illegal. Yet.

Claiming that his recent video contained a “bomb threat”, law enforcement decided, by way of a blatant and reprehensible taking advantage of the recent Boston Marathon Bombing, to perform alittle censoring of their own. They arrested Song Writer and brought him to court.

Once in court, Song Writer pleaded not guilty. Apparently, his defense attorney got that move right. The prosecutor then came up with the brilliant idea of requesting a Dangerousness Hearing in over a week and, in the meantime, holding Song Writer in custody without any right to bail.

According to accounts, the prosecutor did not go into details of the offense in order to justify the outrageous request. She did not have to. She had something better… the consent of the defense attorney!

THREE DARTMOUTH STUDENTS ARE HELD WITHOUT BAIL IN BOSTON’S FEDERAL COURT

Fri, 03 May 2013 09:51:02 -0500

In my last Attorney Sam’s Take I told you I would discuss the other high profile court case taking place on Wednesday. The other matter took place at Boston’s federal court.

That’s right, the Boston Massacre bombing case. However, there is a twist to this posting. One that could have easily involved you or your child.

As you may have heard, three college pals of the surviving bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (hereinafter, “Surviving Bomber”), were charged in a related case. No, there is no allegation that they actually participated in the planning or actual bombing. They are alleged to have helped out afterwards.

As authorities have already announced, this criminal investigation is continuing. Investigators intend to find out brothers Dzhokhar and Tam¬erlan Tsarnaev learned the tricks of the terrorist trade, including constructing bombs.

The fact that such information is freely posted on the internet as well as other places notwithstanding.

Leaving no potential stone unturned, officials arrested Dias Kadyrbayev, Azamat Tazhayakov and Robel Phillipos — all 19 years old and friends of Dzhokhar’s from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (hereinafter, collectively, the “Defendants”). Officials further indicate of the investigators that “…there are all kinds of avenues —  international, domestic — they’re going to go down until there’s no one else to talk to…If these young people (the Defendants) have other information they haven’t shared with law  enforcement at this point, they would be well advised to cooperate.”

WAKEFIELD MAN FACES MULTIPLE CHARGES OF CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT IN MIDDLESEX AND ESSEX COUNTIES

Thu, 02 May 2013 13:27:54 -0500

Yesterday both Salem and Boston were buzzing with high profile matters. First, let’s discuss Salem and then, later today, Boston.

Salem’s figure of interest was John Burbine, 49, of Wakefield (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). The Defendant stands charged with Massachusetts sexual assault.

Prior to yesterday’s court date, the Defendant was facing criminal charges in Middlesex County for allegedly sexually abusing children at his wife's day care is facing new allegations in Essex County. Said children, approximately 13 of them, ranged in ages from 8 days to 3 years of age. These assaults are alleged to have happened over a two-year period, beginning in August of 2010.

They are said to have occurred at the Defendant’s wife’s day-care business which was allegedly not duly licensed.

The Defendant’s criminal justice woes did not begin with the Middlesex case, however. In 1989, he was apparently convicted of assaulting a child.

In fact, his wife is currently charged with recklessly endangering children, and the Commonwealth contents that she knew about his prior conviction and allegations that he sexually assaulted young boys in 2005 and 2009. The latter two allegations, by the way, were never prosecuted.

Meanwhile, the Defendant was before the court in Salem yesterday on similar charges, although this time with only one complainant.

A BOSTON CRIMINAL LAWYER DISCUSSES MIRANDA AND MAKING STATEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Wed, 01 May 2013 07:08:44 -0500

The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has discussed the suggested procedure when law enforcement is upon you and investigating you for a possible crime. I have maintained that the safest practice is to not try to out-run, out-talk or out-fight the investigators. I suggest you invoke your right to an attorney and comply politely with what you are required to do.

After all, you are suspected of committing a crime. That is why it is called a criminal investigation.

The case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) and the issue of his timely receiving Miranda Rights goes to the very heart of this. Think twice before you wish to make exceptions to his Constitutional Rights because he is the villain of the day.

Tomorrow, you may be a suspected villain.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Miranda Rights, Statements And You

When it comes to answering questions of investigating officers, most folks do not understand the ground rules. The investigators do, of course. They utilize them every day for a living. The Miranda Rights do not fully advise the target of those rules either, by the way. It only advises that the rules exist to some extent.

Miranda Rights are necessary in only certain circumstances. They fit here. The Defendant has to be in custody and in that custody because he is the suspect of the crime about which he is being questioned. Both are undeniable here. It cannot, then, fit under any of the exceptions which would otherwise allow law enforcement to delay reading the Rights. The only one here is the public safety exception.

BOSTON’S FEDERAL COURT BEGINS TO DEAL WITH DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV’S MASSACHUSETTS MURDER AND TERRORISM MATTER

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:24:04 -0500

Ok, I admit it. Since all the action with the Boston Marathon bombing, Attorney Sam’s Take has been fairly quiet. No, it is not that there have been no further drug, gun or assault arrests in the Commonwealth. It is not even that there was a dearth of things to talk about. And, no, simply because the bombing took place on April 15th, I was not detained by the IRS. There have been other reasons which we might get to some other day.

If I had been writing about the bombing and surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), I would have been warning you about issues that have arisen anyway.

The Defendant's case is pending in Boston's Federal District Court. His alleged crimes are federal crimes because of how they were carried out. A simple shooting during the Boston Marathon would likely have been prosecuted in state court. However, when terrorism is involved, not to mention the use of weapons of mass destruction...the federal system steps in.

Any regular reader of this back-to-being daily blog knows how I have ranted about the issues that have arisen the case of James “Whitey” Bulger. It has seemed that the prosecutors, and to some degree the court itself, has handled the matter with different rules than in all other cases. Perhaps it is because of the high level of media coverage Maybe it is because Mr. Bulger seems to personify for many the opposite of presumption of innocence. Whatever the reason, basic tenants which we hold sacred under our Constitution seem to be suspendable in that case.

Enter the case of the Defendant and his deceased brother.

A great deal of media coverage? Absolutely.

High level of public acceptance of immediate guilt? Certainly.

And so, once again, the Constitutional issues have come up in the case as it now is pending in Boston’s federal court.

MEN OF NORWOOD FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN MASSACHUSETTS PERSCRIPTION DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:34:38 -0500

Alain Barbara of Norwood was arrested and charged with the crime of distribution of a class C drug. The drug was nor cocaine, heroin or even marijuana. In fact it is a commonly prescribed medication.

The drug was Adderall.

The description reads like your typical observation sale type of criminal investigation.
Members of the Boston Police District E-5/E-18 Drug Control Unit in the Home Depot parking lot, a known place for drug transactions, according to law enforcement. One vehicle allegedly parked in the farthest spot from the store when there were plenty of other spots closer to the store. soon,
another vehicle came, and one driver got into the other's vehicle.

Believing they were seeing a drug deal, police approached the vehicle and displayed their badges.

Apparently not regular readers of Attorney Sam's Take, the pair decided to make statements to the police.

Inconsistent statements.

Mr. Barbara was arrested for the distribution of Adderall and his companion was charged for buying it.

Mr. Barbara and his alleged customer are not the only ones charged in such a scenario. Two other gentlemen were charged for a similar suspected drug deal in Roxbury. This time it was Percocet.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Perscription Drug Prosecution

Perhaps it isn't a surprise to you that illegal drug transactions can involve prescription drugs. Maybe the fact that law-enforcement actually prosecutes such cases does not surprise you either. However, I find that many people do not realize that the laws regarding these medications is the same as it is with illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin and ecstasy.

MASSACHUSETTS MARIJUANA HEARINGSTO START ON FRIDAY IN BOSTON

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:43:51 -0500

If you thought that decriminalizing marijuana in Massachusetts would make the use of the drug easier and less complicated...think again.

On the state side, prosecutions for possession of over an ounce or possession with the intent to distribute the stuff continue. As far as federal law enforcement, of course, it is illegal per se.

Of course between having to keep away from marijuana altogether and being able to possess some at will there is a gray area. Comfortably nestled in that gray area is the issue of medical marijuana.

In November, we voted in approval of the legalization of marijuana for debilitating medical conditions including cancer, Parkinson's disease and AIDS.

The Department of Public Health issued draft regulations last month.

This week, Massachusetts officials will begin to hold hearings around the state to get public input on proposed regulations for medical marijuana.. Three such public hearings will be held Friday at 10 a.m. at the Public Health Department's headquarters in Boston, Plymouth Memorial Hall in Plymouth and Look Park Garden House in Northampton.

Speakers are asked to provide a copy of their testimony. People can also email testimony to Reg.Testimony@state.ma.

The proposed regulations require operators of marijuana dispensaries to test their products for contaminants and to adopt inventory control measures.

The Public Health Council is scheduled to vote on the regulations May 8th.

Attorney Sam’s Take On The Complexities Of "Legal" Marijuana

Have you ever heard the saying, "water, water, water everywhere… And not a drop to drink?"

The same might now be true for marijuana in Massachusetts. You see, while it may no longer be a crime to posess a certain amount of marijuana, it is illegal for anybody to sell it to you. That would be distribution, together with possession with intent to distribute, and that would be a felony crime.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY NANNY IS YET ANOTHER FEMALE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT FACING MASSACHUSETTS ASSAULT OR MURDER CHARGES

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:51:18 -0500

34-year-old Aisling Brady McCarthy (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is one of the latest Massachusetts assault or murder defendants who are female.

The Defendant is also the second Irish nanny to be charged in Middlesex County in a high-profile murder case involving the death of a baby in her care. Last week, she was indicted on that matter.

Authorities say that a Middlesex County grand jury indicted the Defendant on charges of murder and assault and battery on a child causing bodily injury. They say she's accused of "violently injuring" the child.

The baby was hospitalized with severe head injuries in January on her first birthday and died two days later. The Defendant had previously pleaded not guilty to assault and battery on a child. At the time, she was jailed on $500,000 bail while authorities awaited the baby's autopsy results. Apparently, those results are in…along with and indictment to move the matter up to superior court.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Female Defendants

Last week we began the topic of female defendants and the new movement to reach out to young females to prevent such crime. We discussed one young lady who had been arrested for the stabbing of an apparent romantic rival with a butcher knife. We touched upon another 15-year-old girl who had been accused of being part of a mob who beet up an MBTA driver in Dorchester. Yet another such a case involved three girls who attacked a mutual former friend.

MASSACHUSETTS VIOLENT CRIME PERPETRATED BY FEMALE DEFENDANTS IS PUT OFF UNTIL MONDAY

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:00:37 -0500

As you may recall, yesterday's Attorney Sam's Take was as slated to continue the story of representing females in criminal cases Massachusetts violent crimes cases.

Unfortunately, this post was unable to be made yesterday as planned. I apologize. However, it will greet you bright and early on Monday morning.

In the meantime, have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

FRAMINGHAM TEEN FACES MASSACHUSETTS DANGEROUSNESS HEARING FOR KIDNAPPING AND RAPE CHARGES (PART TWO)

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:10:27 -0500

As we left off, Attorney Sam’s Take was discussing the matter of Nathan P. Williams, a 19-year-old Framingham man (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), who is poised to have a Massachusetts Dangerousness Hearing tomorrow. He faces charges of Massachusetts rape and kidnapping of the 15-year-old girl, hereinafter, the “Girl”.

While there may be many ways to attack the Commonwealth’s case in this matter, I would not be overly hopeful if I were the Defendant’s family for tomorrow’s hearing. Particularly if defense counsel plans to simply argue that his client is innocent and so not a danger.

Of course, based on how we are told the system operates, one would think that the argument is viable. After all, the Defendant has not only been convicted of no previous crimes, but, thus far, he remains presumed innocent of the new charges.

Well, remember what I have told you for a number of years now. In reality, the Defendant may be presumed innocent, but he is assumed guilty.

No, that is not a rule of law. It is a finding of reality.

The argument that the Defendant has been convicted of no crimes, including the one at bar will not carry him very far to freedom.

Of course, the Commonwealth’s case on its surface appears strong. Alleged DNA and eyewitness testimony, as well as the alleged finding of the clothing at the Defendant’s “last known” home. As you know, however, things are not always as they seem.

FRAMINGHAM TEEN IS ARRESTED FOR MASSACHUSETTS AGGREVATED RAPE AND KIDNAPPING OF 15-YEAR-OLD GIRL (PART ONE)

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:33:13 -0500

Nathan P. Williams, a 19-year-old Framingham man (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is in a great deal of trouble. Tomorrow, he is scheduled to return to court for a Massachusetts Dangerousness Hearing. Earlier this week, he was arraigned in district court on charges that he kidnapped and raped a 15-year-old girl at knifepoint in the woods near her home on April third.

According to prosecutors, the Defendant waited around Gorman Road in Framingham until a certain school bus pulled up. The girl (hereinafter, the “Girl”) got off the bus. Then, the Defendant is said to have threatened her with the knife and forced her into a wooded, swampy area. There, according to prosecutors, he raped her.

According to the prosecution, the Girl did not know the Defendant.

“He indicated to her to come here, he wanted her to come with him,” the prosecutor argued at the bail hearing. “He walked into what was considered to be a thickly dense area. He directed her to a secluded spot ... [He] proceeded to sexually assault the child in a number of different ways.” The prosecutor also alleged that investigators found “biological matter” on evidence they collected. This material is said to have matched the Defendant’s DNA.

Incidentally, it is a marvelous occurrence that the Commonwealth has such striking evidence so soon. Normally, they claim it takes months to get such conclusive data. Perhaps it was the magic of a high-profile case. Or, perhaps even, as the song goes, “It Ain’t Necessarily So”.

But I digress.

Further search, this time of the Defendant’s last known address, is said to have revealed clothing that matched the description given both by the girl and other witnesses of what the Defendant was allegedly wearing at the time of the attack.

The Defendant’s present lawyer has announced that his client is innocent and that there may be a misidentification in the case. Perhaps heralding this disclosure is the fact that the Defendant covered his face with a gray T-shirt and ducked out of sight below the rail of the prisoner’s dock during the bail hearing.

The Defendant’s not-guilty plea was entered on his behalf to charges of aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping and he was ordered held without bail until Friday’s hearing.