Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Treatment options for those facing a Massachusetts OUI charge and how to help them overcome addiction

May 6, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts OUI Lawyer, I have encountered many individuals struggling with addiction. It is important to understand this: You can always get help; it never hurts your case. You may have a drinking problem, but you can still be found not guilty of your OUI charge. Do not let your desire to win in court, prevent you from getting the help you need to move forward with your life. One of the Core Values we have at DelSignore Law is that regardless of the outcome of your case, we want to help you improve your life, move forward in a positive way and we want to give you as much information, advice and support that we can to help you achieve a better life. We send our clients the Book the Slight Edge after the case; the reasons we do this, is that while helping someone win and get their life back after an OUI or criminal charge is rewarding and what we are paid to do, it is those clients that we have helped in a meaningful way in life and beyond the courtroom that will be the true reward for me as a person and an attorney at the end of my career.

I recently read the Time Magazine Special Edition on Addiction and wanted to share the key points from the magazine.

WHAT CAUSES ADDICTION?

Psychology of Persuasion for Trial Lawyers a look at the Lecture of Dyke Huish given at NACDL

May 5, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Psychology of Persuasion Lecture by Dyke Huish was one of the best lectures I have heard for criminal defense lawyers wanting to improve their trial skills. Having extra office time, I have made it a goal to listen to all the recording of seminars that I have purchased over the years. This lecture was terrific and I wanted to share what I learned from the CD.

In this Blog, I will discuss the lecture of Dyke Huish, a criminal defense lawyer from California. He gave this speech at the National Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Meeting in Philadelphia.

He made many excellent points that are worth remembering for lawyers. I will recount them here and give my takeaways as to how I will use these ideas in my upcoming trials.

When is a Pat Frisk and Exit order justified in a Massachusetts Gun Possession charge without an FID card?

May 4, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Gun crimes in Massachusetts often involve issues of whether there was a Constitutional basis for police action. Here are some common legal issues:

Was there Reasonable suspicion to stop your car;
if there was reasonable suspicion, was there a basis to order you from the car;

Confidential Informants and Searches in Massachusetts Drug Distribution and Trafficking cases

May 1, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Those facing a Massachusetts Drug Distribution or Trafficking charge often contest the Constitutional basis of the search and seizure as part of the defense to the case. This was the case in Commonwealth v. Costa, which began as a drug distribution case out of the New Bedford District Court and was decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 10, 2020.

The Appeals Court found that a search warrant was not based on probable cause as it did not establish the relialbiity of the confidential informant. In drug distribituion and trafficking offenses, it is very common that the police will obtain a warrant to search a house based on information provided by a confidential informant. The informant will provide information that results in the police obtaining a warrant. The Costa case involved this type of investigation by the New Bedford police department where they seek to search a house based on probable cause being established as a result of a controlled drug buy.

I have handled many drug cases where the New Bedford police have used an informant to attempt to get a warrant.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court addresses the issue of reasonable suspicion when police observe a quick hand-to-hand transaction

April 19, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer, often the most promising defense in a case of drug distribution or a gun possession charge, is an attack on the Constitutional basis for the stop. In many cases, police came that a quick transaction was an illegal drug sale and use that as a basis to seize a person and search their person. When these cases make it to court, it is because the person had some illegal substance on them or illegally possessed a firearm.

That was the legal issue under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 that the Massachusetts Appeals Court had to address in the case of Commonwealth v. Kearse, decided on April 9, 2020.

What happened in the Kearse Case?

Massachusetts Possession of Child Pornography case before SJC to turn on whether Warrant is Stale

March 31, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in a case that addresses the issue of when a warrant is stale in the case of an alleged seizure of child pornography from a defendant’s computer. The case of Commonwealth v. Robert Guastucci, argued on March 5, 2020 raised this issue before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

A warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights may only issue on probable cause. The information contained in the warrant must be based on facts closely related in time to the issues raised in the warrant to justify probable cause. The Massachusetts SJC has looked to two particular factors in evaluating whether a warrant is stale:

The age of the facts;

Massachusetts SJC to decide OUI blood test on the issue of whether consent is required for a blood test in the case of Commonwealth v. Bohigan

March 27, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments in the case of Commonwealth v. Bohigian on February 10, 2020, dealing with the issue of the admissibility of a blood test in a OUI case involving Serious Bodily injury. The case arose out of the Westboro District Court.

What is Serious Bodily Injury?

Serious Bodily injury is defined as creating a substantial risk of death, involves total disability, the loss of any bodily function for a substantial period of time or involves substantial impairment of any bodily function for a substantial period of time.

Massachusetts SJC to address Flight from the police by a young black male and when a Seizure occurs under the State Constitution

March 19, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Court will address the issue of when a seizure occurred in the case of Commonwealth v. Evelyn. The Evelyn case is SJC-12808 and was argued on January 7, 2020.

This case involved a young black man running from the police while the police were investigating a shooting in the Roxbury section of Boston. This decision will have important implication for how black males are treated by the police and what it means for the police to have reasonable suspicion.

Under the United States Constitution, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the 4^thAmendment to find that if a defendant runs, there is not seizure until the defendant submits to the authority of the police. The United States Supreme Court announced this rule in the case of California v. Hodari D, 499 U.S. 621 (1991). In that case, the defendant fled and the United States Supreme Court held that he was not seized until the police physically stopped him. While running, the defendant threw cocaine from his pocket. If there was no reasonable suspicion prior to the flight, the evidence would have been suppressed, but since the court held that the defendant was not seized until he was stopped, the court declined to suppress the evidence. The Massachusetts SJC does not follow this rule as State Court are free to interpret their State Constitution different from how the US Supreme Court interprets the United States Constitution.

Massachusetts SJC to address racial disparity in motor vehicle stops by the Boston police in Commonwealth v. Edward Long

March 18, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on March 3rd in the case of Commonwealth v. Edward Long, SJC-12868, that deal with the issue of disparity treatment and discriminatory enforcement of traffic laws by the Boston police. In this case, the defense lawyer presented a compelling statistical case that race played a role in the traffic stop. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Article 1 Section 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, a defendant who shows discriminatory enforcement of the laws can have the case dismissed.

What happened in the Long Case?

The Long case involved two officers on the gang unit who were essentially profiling cars, finding minor reasons to stop the car, with the hopes of discovering further evidence that would lead to an arrest. Two officers were involved in the stop of the defendant, Officer Rodriguez and Lopes. The defendant was stopped for an expired inspection sticker after the officers randomly ran his plate, according to their testimony at the motion hearing. Officer Rodriguez testified that giving traffic citation was not a primary concern of the gang unit; he testified that he gave out 5 citation out of 1000 cars that he stopped for traffic violations. He testified a lot of arrests start out as average traffic stops.

Newly Appointed U.S. Supreme Court judges hear major abortion case that could alter the Constitutional right of privacy

March 6, 2020 | by Michael DelSignore

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major abortion case. This is the first time since Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the Bench, creating a strong conservative majority, that abortion will be addressed by the Court. That case, June Medical Services v. Russo addresses whether the Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic is constitutional. The Louisiana law at issue in this case is virtually identical to the Texas law that was struck down by the Court in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016.

What could happen is anyone’s guess. The Court could

follow the June Medical Services argument to follow stare decisisand rule, as it did with Whole Women’s Health, the law unconstitutional. Or, it could