Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Actor Charlie Sheen has been arrested and charged with menacing a deadly weapon, second-degree felony assault and criminal mischief. According to The Aspen Daily News, upon conviction, felony menacing usually carries a potential sentencing range of one to three years in prison, and second-degree assault usually carries a range of two to six years in prison. Criminal mischief in Colorado does not include a mandatory minimum prison sentence upon conviction.

Sheen's arrested was prompted by a 911 call to the police from his wife Brooke Mueller. According to reports, an argument began when Meuller informed Sheen that she wanted a divorce and custody of their twin boys. Mueller claimed that Sheen grabbed her by the upper neck and threatened her with a knife. It has been reported that Mueller had high levels of alcohol in her system at the time she made the report. As we all know, there are two sides to every story. Sheen denies his wife's allegations. This type of case is categorized as a case of "domestic violence." When police are called to a residence because of an allegation of "domestic abuse" usually one of the parties is arrested and it is usually the man.

If you have been arrested and charged with a crime of domestic violence you must have an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer on your side. In most circumstances, the police advise the complaining party of his or right to have a civil restraining order. The standard for the issuance of a restraining order is low. Although a restraining order is a civil order, criminal charges may issue if there an allegation that the restraining order has been violated.

If you have been charged in a case of "domestic violence," developing a strategy and conducting a complete investigation must take place early. Based on the facts of the case it is often important to document and/or photograph any injuries to the defendant, interview witnesses and take pictures of the scene in order to mount a successful defense.

Continue reading " Actor Charlie Sheen's Arrest Stems From Domestic Dispute " »

Apparently, disgraced Senator Anthony D. Galluccio did not take advantage of the tremendous break he was given when a Cambridge District Court Judge allowed him to serve six months in home confinement. Galluccio received an early Christmas present when he was sentenced to six months home confinement on the condition that he submit to random alcohol testing, lose his license for five years and pay a $1,000.00 fine after he admitted to operating under the influence of alcohol, commonly referred to as "DUI" in Massachusetts, and leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury. So far, Galluccio avoided serving the mandatory six month sentence in prison. However, he faces a detention hearing later on today.

According to The Boston Herald, because he failed "several" breath tests while under home confinement the probation department has issued a notice of detention which requires Galluccio to appear in court and explain why he should not be committed for violating his terms of probation. Apparently, Galluccio is blaming his toothpaste for his failed tests. The Herald reports that Galluccio stated the following after he was served with a detention notice, "[W]hile I knew that mouthwash or cold medicine would set the machine off, it did not occur to me that toothpaste would.” Despite the allegation, Galluccio maintains that he "fully committed to sobriety and continuing treatment, and remain focused on serving my constituents.”

In Massachusetts, a probation detention hearing is the first step that the probation department takes when seeking confinement for a probationer. Generally, notice of e detention hearing issues when a probation officer becomes aware that a defendant has not complied with conditions of probation. In this case, the probation department is claiming that Gallucio's failure to remain alcohol free is a violation of probation and warrants "detention" or "incarceration." During the initial hearing a judge will hear the probation officer's reasons for wanting the defendant held pending a final hearing that generally takes place within ten days if a defendant is held. At both the initial and final detention or surrender hearings the defendant is given a chance to present evidence as to why he should not be surrendered. Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, the Senator seems to have an uphill battle on his hands as the Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz, whose office prosecuted the case, said last night Galluccio should have been tossed in jail in the first place.

If you are facing a probation detention hearing or a probation surrender hearing in Massachusetts it is important that you have an expereinced Boston defense attorney on your side. In many Massachusetts District Courts defendants are not committed to jail because of the initial conviction however, as the result of a probation surrender. The consequences for not prevailing at a surrender hearing are high as a defendant may face serving the maximum sentence allowed for the underlying conviction.

The standards that the probation department must meet during surrender hearings are lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that the Commonwealth must meet at trial to sustain a conviction. If you are facing a surrender hearing it is imperative that you have a qualified Massachusetts lawyer on your side to navigate you through the process.

Continue reading " Galluccio Facing Probation Surrender In Cambridge District Court For Violating Terms Of Probation On Drunk Driving Conviction " »

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that a fifteen year old high school student has been charged with distributing marijuana in a school zone. According to reports, the juvenile is believed to be the person that sold marijuana to another student at the school. The principal recovered nine ten dollar bags of marijuana and twelve dollars on the juvenile. The juvenile is scheduled to appear in Lawrence Juvenile Court.

Although all of the facts in this case are not known, a defendant charged with distribution of marijuana or intent to distribute marijuana in a school zone faces a mandatory sentence of two years in jail. The fact that in Massachusetts possession of under an ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized has given many teenagers a false sense of security. Although straight possession of marijuana under an ounce is not considered a criminal offense, the possession of under an ounce of marijuana with the intent to distribute and/or the distribution of under an ounce of marijuana is a criminal offense with stiff penalties. Simply passing a joint or a small amount of marijuana to a friend is considered "distribution" in Massachusetts. There is no requirement that money pass from a "seller" to a "buyer" in order for the "seller" i.e., distributor, to be charged with distribution.

In this case, the juvenile was questioned and told the authorities that he sold the contraband in Lowell Massachusetts. Depending on the circumstances, filing a motion to suppress this statement may be appropriate. In Massachusetts, the police (or anyone acting under the color of the state) cannot interrogate or question a suspect who is in custody unless he or she has been advised of the "Miranda Rights." The "Miranda Rights" basically inform a suspect that he or she does not have to speak to the police, that he or she may contact an attorney, that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in court and that if he or she cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him or her. In the event that the statement is suppressed, the Commonwealth's case against the juvenile for possession with intent to distribute is significantly weakened if not destroyed.

The types of factors that a finder of fact examines to determine whether a controlled substance was simply "possessed" or "possessed with intent to distribute" are the following: Whether a scale was found: Whether a large sum of money was found; Whether any cuttting implements were found such as a mirror: Whether plastic baggies were found and whether there were any admissible incriminating statements made by the defendant. The presence of any drug paraphernalia is a factor that is carefully scrutinized.

If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance or distribution of a controlled substance you must have an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney on your side.

Continue reading " Lawrence High School Student Charged With Distribution of Marijuana In A School Zone " »

Apparently, everyone did not get the memo that said that this is the season for giving, not stealing. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that hundreds of toys that were earmarked for the "needy", food and gift cards and computers were among items stolen from an Essex Street building in Lawrence Massachusetts last week. The building was the office location for a computer company, a recording studio and a school for chaplains. The stolen items included eighteen gold plated badges that were to be awarded to students at an upcoming Chaplaincy graduation.

If stealing were not enough to dampen the holiday season, the culprits left water faucets running causing overflow and additional damage to the building. Tenants who went to the recording studio during the early morning hours noticed dripping water from the ceiling. Investigation revealed that the building had been broken into and ransacked.

When the perpetrators are caught they may face a number of charges including breaking and entering a building in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, malicious destruction of property over $250.00 and larceny over $250.00. If a person is convicted for breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony he or she faces the possibility of serving twenty years in state prison or two and one half years in jail.

In order to prove breaking and entering the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke and entered into a building in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony. In Massachusetts the breaking and entering are considered two distinct acts. Areas that are often litigated in these types of cases are whether the defendant actually broke into the building and/or whether he or she actually entered the premises. For example, the opening of a window or door, which was partly open, further than it was before in a manner in which was intended to be used is not considered a breaking. However, going through and open window that is not intended for use as an entrance is considered a breaking.

Although the facts of this case are not all known, in the event that anyone is arrested a viable defense may be that the individual was misidentified. As in many cases when a defendant is not arrested at the scene, an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer must examine the circumstances under which a witness identified the defendant. The lighting, the opportunity for a witness to observe the defendant and whether the identifying witness was familiar with the defendant are a few area that must be explored.

Continue reading " Grinches Break And Enter A Lawrence Non-Profit Food Bank " »

The plaintiff alleged in the application for a restraining order that she was afraid to be left alone in the residence that she shared with the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that she was afraid that the defendant was "unable to control" her temper. A temporary 209 A restraining order issued based on the plaintiff's claim that the defendant verbally and emotionally abused the plaintiff. Following a hearing in which Attorney McCarthy extensively cross examined the plaintiff, the District Court judge vacated the order holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that she was in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm.

If you have been served with a temporary restraining order in Massachusetts it is important that you know all of your rights. Although a restraining order is a civil order an alleged violation can result in the issuance of a criminal complaint. Thus, it is not always in one's best interest to agree to the continuance of the order. M.G.L. Chapter 209A states that a person "suffering from abuse" by a "family or household member" may seek protection from such abuse by application to the court for an order requiring the defendant (among other measures) to refrain from abusing or contacting the victim. "Abuse" is defined by the statute as acts "(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm; (b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm; or (c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress." G.L.c. 209A, § 1, as amended through St. 1996, c. 450, 232. See Commonwealth v. Gordon, 407 Mass. 340, 344-345 (1990); Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637 638-639 (1998). In deciding whether to issue such a c. 209A order, a judge must consider carefully whether serious physical harm is imminent. Smith v. Joyce, 421 Mass. 520, 523 n. 1 (1995). "Generalized apprehension, nervousness, feeling aggravated or hassled, i.e., psychological distress from vexing but nonphysical intercourse, when there is no threat of imminent serious physical harm, does not rise to the level of fear of imminent serious physical harm." Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 639 (1998), citing Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dept., 425 Mass. 1020 (1997). The Court also reads the Legislature's language in § 1 ("attempting," "placing," and "causing") as revealing an intent to limit the definition of abuse to the present tense. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992) ("Congress' use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes"). Language in § 3 also suggests that c. 209A was designed to allow persons presently "suffering" from abuse to seek relief. Therefore, the Court concluded that G.L.c. 209A, § 1(b), focuses on preventing imminent serious physical harm, not merely responding to past abuse. Dollan v. Dollan, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 905 (2002). If you oppose the continuance of the restraining order having an experienced Massachusetts domestic violence lawyer on your side who knows the legal standards is important.

Continue reading " Attorney McCarthy Successfully Vacates 209A Restraining Order In Lawrence District Court " »

A stop for what police believed would be a routine drunk driving arrest resulted in a Lawrence man, Silver Dubon, being arrested on outstanding warrants for threats, assault and battery and attempted murder. Dubon was initially pulled over on route 110 in Lawrence and charged with speeding, failure to use care in stopping, a marked lanes violation, driving without a license and operating under the influence of alcohol. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, after the police determined the identity of the driver, he faced additional charges. Reports indicate that the outstanding warrants relate to a case of alleged domestic violence dating back to 2008. Although all of the facts of the case are not known at this time, the Tribune reports that over one year ago Dubon allegedly had an argument with his wife that escalated into a physical fight.

In Massachusetts operating under the influence of alcohol and assault and battery are considered misdemeanor offenses. Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and attempted murder are felonies. A charge is a misdemeanor when the most that a defendant could be sentenced to is a committed sentence in jail or in the house of correction. If the potential penalty for a crime is committed time in state prison then the offense is considered a felony.

If you have been charged with a crime you should have an experienced Boston defense attorney on your side. If you are facing charges in Peabody, Lowell or Lawrence having a local defense lawyer on your side can make a big difference in the outcome of your case. In cases where a defendant is charged with "domestic violence" a 209 A civil restraining order is often sought by the complaining witness. Although the order itself is civil, a criminal charge may issue if there is an allegation of a violation of the order. Thus, preventing the issuance of the order by having an attorney present your side of the case is crucial.

Continue reading " Lawrence Massachusetts Man Arrested For Drunk Driving Faces Old Charges On Outstanding Warrants " »