Drunk Driving Convictions and Potential Deportation

A driving under the influence conviction in Massachusetts is a serious thing because it can mean that you will have to pay a fine and face jail time, but you will also establish a permanent criminal record, add points to your driver’s license, and face loss of your driving privileges for some amount of time. Yet another possible consequence of an aggravated drunk driving conviction is deportation from the United States

Those criminal defendants who are convicted of a felony level DUI in Massachusetts who do not hold US citizenship may face being deported out of the country as a consequence to their illegal activities. Permanent residents, those who are in the United States on asylum, visa holders, as well as illegal immigrants, can all be stripped of their immigration benefits in the United States if they are convicted of a DUI in Massachusetts. Once an individual is deported from the United States, he or she is often blacklisted for a period of years during which he or she is prevented from reentering the country.

Someone who has the family, friends, and a job established in Massachusetts could find his or her life completely upended after being convicted of a criminal offense, such as a DUI. If deported, he or she will be sent back to his or her native country regardless of the life he or she established in the United States. Deportation after a criminal conviction in Massachusetts can be challenging, life-changing, and utterly disruptive.

Deportation as a Consequence of Pleading Guilty

Even if you plead guilty to the offense, or plead a continuance without a finding of guilt, you can face the same serious consequence of deportation. So, making a deal or pleading guilty is not going to help you avoid being deported. Your best chance of avoiding being deported is to fight your DUI charges. If you can get the court to dismiss your charges or to drop your case, then you cannot be convicted and you can avoid deportation.

Anyone who is at risk of being deported because of involvement in a drunk driving accident in which someone was injured needs to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. If you have been charged with a felony level DUI, then you could potentially face deportation as one of the more serious consequences for your actions. You will need to fight the charges so that you are not convicted.

Contacting a Massachusetts DUI Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are at risk of being deported, or if you are convicted of a felony level DUI, it is important that you get into touch with a seasoned criminal defense lawyer immediately.

The post An Aggravated Drunk Driving Conviction Can Mean Deportation appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Disorderly Conduct

False fire alarms are not only made by intoxicated adults. There are plenty of incidents in which a sober individual pulls a fire alarm without cause. False fire alarm charges are common amongst school-aged children and young adults, as well. Anyone who is facing charges for pulling a false fire alarm, disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace needs to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

A False Fire Alarm is a Crime in Massachusetts

A false fire alarm is a serious matter. It is not a joke and no one will view it as an innocent prank. Pulling a fire alarm in a public place under false pretenses is highly disruptive and is a crime in Massachusetts. If you are identified as the culprit, you can face a number of criminal charges including pulling a fire alarm, disorderly conduct, and disturbing the peace. Other circumstances might warrant additional charges to be placed on you, such as public intoxication if you are drunk in public when you pull the fire alarm, or underaged drinking if you are intoxicated and under the age of 21 when you are caught pulling the fire alarm.

While many of the charges mentioned above are misdemeanor level offenses, if you are convicted, you will have a criminal record, you will have to pay a fine, and you may even have to face some jail time. A criminal conviction for a minor offense like falsely pulling a fire alarm or disorderly conduct can have a significant impact on your life, so you need to fight the charges that are pending against you with everything that you have got.

Contact an Experienced Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct Lawyer

You need to protect yourself and fight your disorderly conduct charges.

The post Pulling a Fire Alarm Can Result in Disorderly Conduct Charges appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

The Crime of Mayhem

It is not uncommon when a fight breaks out at a bar or some other public place for the fight participants to do whatever it takes to win. The fighters might punch one another, slap each other, kick, or hurl objects at the other, and sometimes one of the fighters might even bite the other if the fight gets up close and personal. When a fight involves biting, or some other form of harm that is capable of producing long-term disfigurement or scarring, the individual who caused the injury is often charged with the crime of mayhem, on top of being charged with other criminal offenses, such as assault and battery.

The charge of mayhem is often misapplied to criminal defendants, but it is a serious offense nonetheless. The consequences associated with a mayhem conviction are steep, which makes a strong criminal defense critically important. If you have been charged with mayhem in Massachusetts, or any other crime involving physical harm to another, you need to get into touch with an experienced criminal defense lawyer as soon as you are able to do so.

What is Mayhem Under Massachusetts Law?

In Massachusetts, a crime of mayhem involves the malicious maiming or disfiguring of another.

Examples of mayhem provided by the state statute include cutting out someone’s tongue, destroying someone’s eye, cutting off parts of someone’s ear, nose, or lip, or disabling a limb (for example by amputation). These examples are particularly gruesome, and leave the victim seriously scarred, deformed, crippled or disfigured.

In order to be convicted of mayhem, it must be proven that the person who is responsible for maiming or disfiguring the victim did so with malicious intent, i.e., that they meant to cause the disfiguring injury. The intent element is usually the most difficult element of the crime for state prosecutors to prove, and many mayhem criminal defenses hinge on whether the prosecution can prove the requisite malicious intent of the criminal defendant.

Oftentimes, like in the bar fight example given above, the two parties involved in the fight are caught up in the heat of the moment. The person charged with mayhem often intends to hurt the other person involved in the fight, but oftentimes lacks the malicious intent to disfigure or maim that person. Additionally, it is often the case that the person charged with mayhem was just trying to defend him or herself and got too close, or accidentally injured the victim in a way that could constitute maiming, disfigurement, or serious scarring.

If You Have Been Charged With Mayhem, Call a Criminal Defense Attorney Immediately

When criminal defendants are charged with mayhem, is it often by mistake or without real grounds to support a conviction. However, you will need a strong criminal defense attorney to fight your mayhem charges in court.

The post Charged With The Crime of Mayhem? Get a Lawyer appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

OUI Marijuana

On September 19, 2017 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, SJC – 11967. This dealt with the admissibility of field sobriety tests as they relate to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of, or OUI marijuana. The Court held that in these cases, the term “field sobriety tests” cannot be used in court, rather the tests can be called “roadside assessments”. The Supreme Judicial Court further held that the officer cannot conclude that the driver passed or failed the test. Finally, the Court in Gerhardt crafted a jury instruction addressing the value of the roadside assessments that strongly assists the defense in these cases.

The Facts in Gerhardt

On February 13, 2013, shortly after midnight the defendant was pulled over operating without rear lights on. The officer initiating the stop saw smoke in the car and smelled burnt marijuana. The defendant produced his license. He was unable to produce a car registration. The defendant admitted to smoking about a gram of marijuana. He was asked to perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn test, the one-legged stand test, an alphabet test and a counting test. The defendant passed all but the one-legged stand test and the walk and turn test. He was arrested and charged with OUI marijuana. The defendant’s attorney challenged the admissibility of the field sobriety tests and the trial judge reported the case to the Appeals Court. The SJC took the case on an application for direct appellate review.

New Law for OUI Marijuana Cases in Massachusetts

Here are some of the more salient points in the Gerhardt decision. 1) There is no current scientific agreement as to whether the field sobriety tests administered for suspected alcohol impairment are “indicative of marijuana intoxication”, 2) officers testifying in OUI marijuana cases cannot conclude that the performance of the tests resulted in the defendant passing or failing the test, 3) the roadside assessments do have some probative value, 4) police officers may not, absent being qualified as an expert, render the opinion that a defendant was under the influence of marijuana.

Defendant Friendly Jury Instruction for Roadside Assessments in OUI Marijuana Cases

There is a consensus among Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys that the instruction laid out by the SJC is defense friendly. The instruction counsels that “roadside assessments are not scientific tests of impairment by marijuana use”. People may have difficulty with these assessments for many reasons not related to marijuana use. It is for the jury to determine how much weight, if any to give the tasks. The roadside assessments alone are not enough to convict for OUI marijuana in Massachusetts.

Hiring a Massachusetts OUI Marijuana Defense Attorney

Our office has been in the business of defending the accused for nearly thirty years. There is no case that cannot be successfully defended. With the legalization of marijuana there are more and more OUI marijuana charges in Massachusetts. Don’t wait. Call us now at 617-263-6800 or send us an email and let us help you with your criminal case.

The post OUI Marijuana and Field Sobriety Tests, Commonwealth v. Gerhardt appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Threatening to Commit a Crime

Most people do not realize that threatening to commit a crime in Massachusetts is actually a crime itself. Someone who makes a threat against someone or property can be charged with a crime under M.G.L. Chapter 275, Section 2. While a threat to commit a crime is clearly not as serious as actually committing the crime itself, it is still a criminal matter and charges for making a threat to commit a crime should be taken and defended against seriously. The gravity of the charge is fact specific. The more serious the threat the more ardent the prosecution.

Defending Against Charges of Threatening to Commit a Crime

There is a line between what is considered to be free speech under the law and what is considered to constitute a threat made against a person or property. It is well established that free speech is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but when words – either spoken or written – are of a threatening nature, the person making the threat has often gone too far.

Defending charges of making a threat can be a tough legal challenge, but there may be a free speech defense available to you. Criminal defense strategies depend on the specific circumstances of your case, and you should discuss your legal options with an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible. Your words might not rise to the level of a threat or may have been taken out of context in a way that can be misconstrued as a threat. The language of the Massachusetts statute for threatening to commit a crime is broad and ambiguous, and something what was said or written might be enough to entice a police officer to make an arrest, but might not be sufficient for a judge or jury to convict.

Massachusetts Case Law on The Crime of Threats

Words alone, including words that express a threat do not satisfy the elements of G.L. c. 275 Section 2. Rather, the words must be communicated to the intended victim. The can be done directly or indirectly. In other words, if someone uses threatening words to a third person without the intent of these words being passed on to the victim the charge of threatening to commit a crime cannot stand. This proposition was well articulated in the case of Commonwealth v. Furst decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2002.

Contact a Massachusetts Threat Crimes Attorney

The post The Crime of Threatening to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Criminal Charge Stacking

Sometimes when law enforcement officers makes an arrest, they charge as many crimes as they can at once. Police have the right to use their discretion when asserting criminal charges, and they sometimes err on the side of caution and assert more charges than is actually fair. This processes is known as criminal charge stacking and it affects many criminal defendants in Massachusetts. You may have heard of police making numerous charges in an attempt to see what charges stick after being scrutinized by the court, that is exactly what charge stacking is.

Sometimes charges will be asserted against a criminal defendant that are not substantiated by the facts surrounding the alleged crime or arrest. By asserting so many charges, the police are making it clear that the criminal defendant did something wrong and in violation of the law in the police officer’s opinion.

Why is Charge Stacking Bad for Criminal Defendants?

Charge stacking is troubling for criminal defendants because it means that they have to fight through charges that do not necessarily fit the facts surrounding their alleged crime. The more charges a defendant is up against the harder it will be to fight them all and walk away without being convicted. If a conviction is obtained on multiple charges, it can mean that the jail time sentenced for each crime conviction can be tacked onto one another, resulting in a lengthy and amplified sentence. Charge stacking makes low level criminals look like serious offenders when that simply is not the case. A first-time offender can become a multiple offender if convicted of more than one of the stacked charges pending against him or her.

Charge stacking is daunting to a criminal defendant. It can be expensive to fight a lot of charges at once, and some defendants are pressured into taking plea bargains because the cost of hiring a lawyer to fight all the charges. Do not let prosecutors scare you with stacked charges. A skilled criminal defense lawyer will be able to determine which charges need to be dropped immediately and will take steps to get those charges dismissed quickly so that more time can be spent focusing on the charges that you are facing.

Common examples of criminal charges that are often stacked together include:

• A basic drug charge, like possession or distribution, in conjunction with a conspiracy charge and/or a possession of drug paraphernalia charge.
• Weapons possession, in conjunction with a money laundering charge or a drug charge.
• A charge for a criminal offense, such as a robbery, in conjunction with a convicted felon gun possession charge.

Talk to an Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

If you have been charged with multiple crimes, you are going to need the help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

The post What is Criminal Charge Stacking? appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Sex For a Fee Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, soliciting a prostitute or the act of prostitution is a crime under G.L. c. 272 Section 53A. The statute has a variety of subsections that make a conviction for this crime punishable by up to ten years in some circumstances. Until recently first time offenders were offered pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 Section 87 for one year with the condition they take a short class on the dangers of engaging in this activity. In the last few months, in many counties this has changed. Prosecutors are now making sex for a fee cases more difficult to defend.

Why Have District Attorneys Changed Their Policy?

I have asked this question several times over the last few months. I have not received a logical consistent response. The standard answer is that the prosecution wants to protect women whom they believe are being victimized by prostitution. In other words, the prostitutes are being protected and the customers punished. When I ask how a particular prostituted is being victimized I never get a sound answer. Rather, I am given a general response replete with buzz words and “public policy” rhetoric. Remember, sex for a fee can be charged against the customer, the prostitute or both. One class of violators (Johns) situated similarly to the other class of offenders (prostitutes) should not be given disparate treatment. When pressed on the reason for the different treatment no rational answer is given.

Pretrial Probation Cannot be Imposed Without the Agreement of the District Attorney

As I have mentioned several times in prior posts, pretrial probation requires the agreement of the district attorney. Judges cannot dispose of a case in this manner in the absence of such an agreement. Even if the judge believes that the prosecutor is being unreasonable or unfair his hands are tied. While some judges have exceeded their authority and allowed 276 Section 87 probation over an objection an appeal by the prosecution will surely result in the disposition being reversed and vacated.

The Dangers of Continuances Without a Finding (CWOF) with Sex For a Fee Cases

Some clients have asked me “can I just get a CWOF for this charge”. For people with no prior and no significant criminal history a continuance without a finding is typically imposed by a judge with or without the agreement of the district attorney. I have never seen a judge not enter a CWOF in these circumstances. The problem is that a CWOF is not always a good result. While successful completion of probation on a CWOF results in a dismissal of the charges there are some organizations and employers that will see that you were charged with this crime. Also, a CWOF is the same as a guilty in the eyes of the federal government. For non-citizens this could result in deportation for someone who resolves his case in this manner.

How to Defend These Cases

Since favorable deals are not being offered as freely many of my clients are opting to take these cases to trial. These cases are often very triable. A typical arrest involves someone responding to an internet solicitation on a website such as craigslist.com or backpage.com. The advertisement rarely mentions sex. It offers massage or massage related services. Responses to the listing come through texts or emails. Rarely is the work “sex” or specific sexual services mentioned in writing. There are innocuous reasons someone might respond to the solicitation. That is often a successful defense to these cases. The accused was innocently responding to the listing.

Hire a Massachusetts Sex For a Fee Defense Attorney Now

Attorney Stephen Neyman has an incomparable record defending the accused in Massachusetts. Our phones are answered 24/7. Call us now at 617-263-6800 or email us if you have been arrested or charged with a crime. We can help you.

The post Prosecutors Are Now Making Sex For a Fee Cases More Difficult to Defend appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Massachusetts Drug Cases

The Annie Dookhan saga continues in the High Court of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered state prosecutors to review the 24,000 Massachusetts drug cases that had been handled – or rather, potentially mishandled – by Annie Dookhan between 2003 and 2011.  Some 20,000 criminal defendants who were convicted of drug charges could potentially have their convictions dismissed, or cases retried, as a result of the state’s debacle concerning Ms. Dookhan’s misconduct while working in a Boston-area drug analytics lab.

Background on Ms. Dookhan

Ms. Dookhan was formerly employed as a drug chemist at a Massachusetts state lab that ran drug samples in criminal prosecution cases. In 2012, an investigation was launched into Ms. Dookhan’s handling of a number of her cases, and it was discovered that she had mishandled many drug samples while she worked as an analyst. Among other things, Ms. Dookhan:

• Falsified a number of her reports,
• Failed to run sample tests,
• Knowingly turned negative results into positive results, and
• Reported analytical machines were broken or malfunctioning when they were not.

Since Ms. Dookhan was able to mishandle cases for so long undetected, there is no way for prosecutors to know which cases were affected by Ms. Dookhan’s misconduct. Any conviction that was obtained based on evidence that was potential contaminated by Ms. Dookhan’s mishandling placed the conviction in jeopardy. Innocent people may have been convicted.

Court Orders for State Prosecutors

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was not inclined to dismiss all of the criminal convictions that were based on drug evidence that was handled by Ms. Dookhan, but the Court was convinced that the affected cases should be reviewed. The Court developed a new protocol that the state prosecutors will use when reviewing the questionable drug conviction cases that are linked to lab work conducted by Ms. Dookhan. The prosecutors have been ordered to review the cases, and to identify which cases have sufficient evidence to maintain the conviction and which cases should be retired.

The Court is taking the matter seriously, and has required that prosecutors generate the list of all potential retrials related to Ms. Dookhan within ninety days. Criminal defendants in cases that are eligible for retrial will be notified as soon as possible. Notifications will include a letter explaining the defendant’s rights, and information about how to obtain legal counsel. In total, the review process will take not more than 120 days. If there are too many cases that need to be retried, and too few available lawyers, then the court will further consider if the cases should simply be dismissed.

Contact a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Attorney

Anyone whose drug conviction was based evidence that could have been tampered with by Ms. Dookhan deserves their fair shot in court.

The post Massachusetts Drug Cases Still Being Reviewed By Prosecutors Because of Dookhan Misconduct appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Domestic Assault and Battery and Deportation

Any experienced criminal defense attorney will tell you that if you charged with domestic assault and battery and you are not a citizen you are at risk of being deported. That risk has increased exponentially over the past several months. This is likely the result of the current political climate in this country. Government agencies such as ICE and Homeland Security are now taking an active look at these cases before disposition. In many instances they are monitoring domestic assault and battery cases involving non-citizens shortly after arrest or arraignment. This post examines one such case and what is needed to prevent deportation.

Government Agencies are Monitoring Pending Cases

Last year we were retained on a domestic assault and battery case involving a graduate student from an Asian country. It was alleged that an off duty police officer observed the man shove his then girlfriend against a brick wall in a parking lot adjacent to a local bar. The woman has steadfastly maintained that this is not the case. Rather, she was highly intoxicated, staggering and falling and that the defendant was trying to hold her up. This story has been corroborated by friends of both parties who were present at the time of the incident. Last fall, during the pendency of this case, Homeland Security agents paid a visit to the defendant’s home. They have been calling him and going to the courthouse checking on the status of the case. They have indicated an intention to detain the man and commence deportation proceedings if he is convicted. For immigration purposes a continuance without a finding is tantamount to a conviction. Thus, in order to avoid the risk of deportation our client needs pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 Section 87 or an acquittal. The judge cannot impose pretrial probation without the district attorney’s consent. Since they will not agree to that in this case we are going to have to go to trial.

There is an Effort to Deport People Convicted of Committing Certain Crimes

The question that keeps coming up is “why is Homeland Security interested in this case?”. No one really knows. The defendant suspects that since he has family working in Middle Eastern countries with passports from those countries he and his family have been targeted by authorities for removal from this country. In nearly thirty years of practice this marks the first time I have seen a governmental agency monitoring a domestic assault and battery case with someone lawfully in Massachusetts. It is deeply concerning that there is an agency salivating at the opportunity to arrest someone and commence deportation proceedings before a Massachusetts criminal case has been resolved. This is a form of racial profiling and it is a dangerous practice. This type of conduct needs to be stopped. Criminal defense attorneys are charged with the duty of fighting against this form of injustice. This is what my office does. We fight for our clients.

Domestic Assault and Battery Defense Attorney Massachusetts

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is committed to defending the accused. Our results are unmatched. We get results. Call us now at 617-263-6800 or send us an email. We can successfully defend you and protect your rights.

The post Domestic Assault and Battery in Massachusetts Involving Non-Citizens and the Risk of Being Deported appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.

Massachusetts Marijuana Laws

Marijuana has been legalized in Massachusetts for just a few months and legislators are already trying to prune back some of the provisions concerning the cultivation of marijuana, among other changes that could curb how people use and grow marijuana in the future. Being one of the first states to adopt legalization of marijuana statewide, the Commonwealth is struggling to get comfortable with the idea that marijuana is legal, that small amounts can be possessed without fear of prosecution, and that Massachusetts residents can grow cannabis in their homes if they so choose. Massachusetts marijuana laws however are evolving. 

Cutting Back Home-Grow Operations

Growing marijuana at home was legalized by the passage of House Bill 1.561 by a vote of the Massachusetts public. The new law allows for Massachusetts residents to grow marijuana plants in their home for personal consumption – six plants per adult, with a 12 plant maximum per household.

Realistically, 12 plants is a lot. Marijuana plants that are well cared for can produce several marijuana cigarettes worth of of consumable leaves per day. The average marijuana plant grown by the average person will produce anywhere from one ounce to two ounces of consumable foliage. An experienced grower with a green thumb could coax a plant to produce up to five ounces of consumable foliage from a single plant. This reality has prompted legislators and government officials to question whether six plants per adult and 12 plants per household is simply too much home-grown marijuana.

Early Stage Discussions

Discussions concerning reducing the number of marijuana plants that Massachusetts residents can legally have in their homes are at the early stages. It is not clear if the number of plants a Massachusetts resident can have will be reduced or by how much. Law enforcement has not reported any particular problem with home-grow operations under the new law so far, and the limits imposed on home-grow operations under the Massachusetts law are lower than they are for other states where marijuana is legal, such as Colorado.

Not Everything Related to Marijuana is Legal Under the New Law

It is important to remember that not everything associated with marijuana is now legal under the new law. There are still many activities involving marijuana that are against the law and if you are caught by law enforcement engaging in those activities, you will be arrested and charged with the appropriate drug offense. If you are arrested and charged with a marijuana-related drug offense, or any other drug-related offense, you will need to get into touch with an experienced drug crimes criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Contact a Massachusetts Drug Crimes Attorney

If you have been charged with a marijuana-related offense, or any other drug offense in Massachusetts, it is important to get into touch with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

The post Pruning Back Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization Legislation Already appeared first on Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog.