Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Dangerousness Hearing Set in Taunton, Massachusetts Sex Case involving former Teacher

July 21, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

The path has been cleared by the Massachusetts Supreme Court for a dangerousness hearing in the case of a teacher accused of sex with three, 14-year-old female students.

Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers understand that the issue in this case was the question of whether lack of evidence regarding the presence of physical force – or threat of physical force – precluded the necessity of a dangerousness hearing.

Ultimately, Massachusetts Supreme Court justices ruled that the crimes of which the teacher is accused inherently would have required at least some level of physical force on the defendant’s part in order to be carried out – i.e., penetration. This was regardless of the fact that there does not appear to be evidence of any other physical force in connection with the alleged crimes.

To help you better understand, we need to first explore what a dangerousness hearing is and why they are requested. Dangerousness hearings, as spelled out in M.G.L. Chapter 276 Section 58A, are court hearings held after arrest but prior to trial for a person accused of certain felony crimes involving force or threat of force.

The idea is to determine whether the state should hold you – for a period of up to 90 days – based on the belief that you may be a threat to society. It’s separate from a bond hearing.

For example, in this case, the 33-year-old defendant had been released on bond, following his arrest on five counts of enticing a child under the age of 16, two counts of disseminating obscene matter to a minor, four counts of aggravated statutory rape and one count of reckless child endangerment. Upon his release, he was fitted with a monitoring device, and he continues to await trial.

However, the prosecutor had sought a dangerousness hearing in an effort to get him back into law enforcement custody for at least three months.

In many cases, a client is not released before such a hearing is requested — but instead remains behind bars without bail. It’s important to note that a defendant can – and in most cases should – petition the court as to the necessity of a dangerousness hearing in the first place.

And that’s what happened here.

When prosecutors first requested the hearing, the lower judge ruled that the aggravated statutory rape charge didn’t meet the terms as spelled out in M.G.L. Chapter 276 Section 58A because there was no use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force.

However, prosecutors appealed that decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Commonwealth’s high court reversed the lower court’s ruling, stating that some force would have been necessary to consummate the crime.

What that means is that the dangerousness hearing can move forward.

What’s likely to happen? While it’s difficult to predict the outcome in any case, some of the factors that will be considered, as in any dangerousness hearing, are:

The nature and the circumstances of the alleged crime;
Whether the individual would pose a great risk to the community if released;
Whether the individual has a history of mental illness;
What type of employment record the person has;
What family ties the accused has in the community;
What sort of risk exists that the individual may threaten witnesses or otherwise interfere with the investigation if released;
Whether the accused has a history of alcohol or drug dependency;
What is the reputation of the defendant;
What is the criminal history and prior bail violations of the defendant.

Recent United States Supreme Court case, Williams v. Illinois, makes a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Decision.

July 5, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts OUI Attorney, the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court has importance consequences in defending drunk driving case involving blood and breath test evidence. The Williams v. Illinois decision is noteworthy as to how divided the court was in its reasoning finding that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated. The decision was a 5-4 decision that could impact the admissibility of blood and breath test results for individuals charged with DUI in Massachusetts.

In Williams v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision on the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause that makes the Court’s interpretation of this Constitutional provision unclear and confuses this area of law for criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and trial judges. In this 5-4 decision, 4 justices in what is referred to as the Plurality joined the decision of Justice Alito and Justice Thomas concurred separately in the judgment.

In the Williams case, the State called an expert witness who testified that a DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory, matched a profile produced by the state police lab using a sample of the defendant’s blood. The defendant contended that the expert’s testimony violated the defendant’s right of confrontation when the expert testified that the DNA profile provided by the laboratory was produced from semen found on the victim’s vaginal swab.

Massachusetts Criminal Defense: Exonerations Highlight Need for Skilled Attorney

June 5, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Those in need of a solid, Massachusetts criminal defense will want to consider the following: A recent study indicated that some 2,000 people in the U.S. have been exonerated and declared innocent in the past 23 years.

This might seem good news, and certainly those are joyous occasions.

However, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers would point out that the majority of those exonerations didn’t happen until years (an average of 11) after the conviction. That’s an incredibly long time for someone who is innocent.

The reason why this is so important to note is because while we like to believe that the criminal justice system is fair and that justice will prevail, there are flaws. What that means is that your investment in a skilled Massachusetts criminal defense attorney is critical. It ensures you have an advocate who can defend your rights at every step of the process. Just because you are innocent of all or part of the crimes of which you are accused does not mean you can trust your fate to an overworked public defender.

And while there may have been some 2,000 exonerations over the last two decades, it is believed that is a relatively small number of total innocent people who are jailed. In fact, the researchers themselves estimated that an inordinate number of false convictions are slipping through the cracks.

In taking a closer look at the study, conducted by the University of Michigan Law School and the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, about 870 of those convicted spent a combined total of more than 10,000 years in prison.

That’s 10,000 years served by innocent people.

Ninety percent of those were African Americans.

About half of the cases were murder and about a third were sexual assaults. That means we’re not talking about petty theft or larceny. We’re talking about serious crimes for which people are facing decades – or worse – behind bars.

It can be a challenge for defense attorneys to overcome some of these odds, particularly if the person has a prior criminal record. But committing one crime in the past does not automatically mean you’ve committed another, and each case has to be analyzed and decided on its own merits.

The researchers guesstimate that there are approximately 1 million felony convictions across the country every year. With court systems that are burdened by budget woes and staffing issues, there’s a huge propensity for mistakes that could cost you your freedom.

Those mistakes have a lot to do with witnesses. Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers have long known that eye witnesses can be problematic for a number of reasons. Typically, it’s not necessarily that a person is lying (though that of course does happen). In a lot of cases, people are simply mistaken. It was dark, they couldn’t see well, it happened so fast – there are a lot of reasons for misidentification. But people want to catch the “bad guy,” either because they want to be helpful or because they truly want to see justice done. They’re reticent to admit they just aren’t 100 percent sure of what – or who – they saw.

That’s why having a defense attorney with experience is going to be so incredibly important. Intense scrutiny of the evidence by a skilled attorney is your best chance for a favorable outcome.
Continue Reading ›

DUI Arrest for Former Porn Star Jenna Jameson

May 31, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Massachusetts DUI cases repeatedly prove no one is immune. Retired porn star Jenna Jameson recently became the latest high-profile person arrested for DUI.

Massachusetts DUI attorneys understand that the charge that was filed in Jameson’s case was a misdemeanor. While that may not mean much to someone with Jameson’s wealth, it can have a lasting impact for the average joe – which means investing in an experienced lawyer is so important in these cases.

In fact, it can have a lasting impact for anyone. It’s worth noting most of actress Lindsey Lohan’s legal problems stem from probation violations in the wake of a pair of DUI arrests that occurred years ago.

Framingham DUI: Five Times Over the Limit Calls Results Into Question

May 28, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

A man arrested for a Framingham DUI was reportedly five times over the legal limit, according to The Boston Herald.

Framingham DUI attorneys question why authorities had this individual in jail taking mugshots, when he probably should have been taken to a hospital. Alternatively, one would wonder if there may be something wrong with the breathalyzer test.

News reports indicate that the man, from Ashland, blew a blood alcohol level 0.41. That is more than quintuple the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

The 62-year-old was booked on charges of negligent operations, drunk driving and failure to stay in marked lanes. As it was his first arrest – ever – he was released on his own recognizance, without prosecutors requesting any bail.

Officers reportedly responded to a single car crash mid-day on a Monday. They reportedly came across the driver, who at first denied that he had been drinking. He was reportedly slurring his words and couldn’t walk in a straight line.

He then later admitted he had been drinking vodka at his home earlier in the day. He was reportedly on his way to a pub, according to police.

There are no details immediately available regarding the accident.

However, given the high level of alcohol that this man reportedly blew, it’s a wonder he could even put his key in the ignition. The toxicity levels are in fact near fatal.

And yet, according to police, he was still walking and talking and forming semi-coherent sentences.

In fact, that may be a key to this man’s defense.

According to the Ohio State University, someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.11 to 0.15 is considered drunk. They would be impaired, have trouble with motor skills and may have memory lapses.

Someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent to 0.19 percent would be considered “very drunk.” They may have difficulty walking or talking and may also have symptoms such as nausea, dizziness and blurred vision.

Someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.20 would be disoriented or confused. He or she may not be able to walk or stand. Vomiting is common.

At a blood alcohol level of 0.30 percent, a person is considered to be in a “stupor,” meaning they are likely to pass out.

Someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.35 percent is reportedly the equivalent of someone being under general anesthesia, which means his or her breathing could stop.

So then we get to the 0.40 blood alcohol level. Researchers at Ohio State University indicate that at this level, the individual is in a state similar to a coma. There is a slow down of nerve activity, the heart slows and there is a possibility of death.

And yet, this man blew over that – a 0.41 – and was operating a vehicle, walking and talking.

What all this says is that there could be some fault with the breathalyzer machine being used in Framingham DUI cases.

And if the machines returned faulty readings in one case, there could be many more that have not yet come to light.
Continue Reading ›

DUI Lawyers in Massachusetts Watching Legislative Action on Melanie’s Law Loophole

May 25, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Massachusetts DUI attorneys are paying close attention to the developments surrounding the efforts of state legislators to close a legal loophole that allows certain individuals convicted of Boston DUIs to avoid certain penalties.

It involves Melanie’s Law and those individuals who may have admitted to driving drunk, but are not actually found guilty according to the law. This is called being continued without finding. Those individuals may still have to preform community service or pay fines, but they aren’t technically found guilty of drunk driving.

Last week, in our Massachusetts DUI Lawyers’ Blog, we wrote about the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that should they be arrested again for driving drunk, those offenders who aren’t actually found guilty the first time should not be subjected to the harsher sanctions imposed by Melanie’s Law for repeat offenders.

This came after a 2010 case in which a man was arrested for his second DUI. Prosecutors attempted to have him punished under the tough penalties of Melanie’s Law. But the issue was that following his 1997 arrest for DUI, he admitted to a “sufficient facts for a finding of guilty.” The key here is that he never actually pleaded guilty, nor was he found guilty by the court.

In some cases, judges have allowed defendants to admit there is enough evidence to convict, but then the judge will continue the case without finding. Generally, this happens when judges believe the person isn’t going to re-offend. It’s a break, in other words, and one an experienced Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer can sometimes negotiate.

Those individuals are likely to agree to undergo substance abuse counseling or some other form of treatment.

So when he appealed those increased penalties, the court sided with him, saying legislators did not specifically say in the language of the law whether those in his situation should be deemed a repeat offender. It calls into question the whole meaning of the word, “convicted.”

That brings us to today. The implications of this ruling are that some penalties for certain repeat offenders could be lifted.

However, state legislators are trying to prevent this from happening. They want to introduce language into the law that would include this subset of DUI offenders, and effectively close the loophole.

They may in fact be successful in this, so what that means is that if you fall into this subset, you need to contact an experienced Attleboro DUI attorney who may be able to help you appeal your case, based on this new ruling.

According to The Boston Globe, this ruling could impact thousands of cases annually. In fact, between just 2008 and 2011, officials with the state’s Registry of Motor Vehicles say there are about 33,000 cases that were continued without a finding.

That means that the RMV doesn’t count them when considering civil penalties for repeat drunk driving offenses. This would include sanctions like the length of time your license is suspended, which increases with every subsequent offense.

In order for the law to be changed, both the House and the Senate would have to vote to approve an amendment, which would then have to be signed off on by the governor.
Continue Reading ›

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorneys Must Comb Every Possible Angle

May 21, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys have been closely watching the defense strategy in a Florida murder trial, in which a husband is accused of slaying his 33-year-old wife.

In cases requiring a Boston criminal defense, attorneys analyze all angles of a case. Some are glaring situations of self-defense. Others are more nuanced.

In the case of a Florida real estate developer accused of murder, it seems unlikely that he even committed the crime at all.

Here’s what we know about the unfolding case, as it’s been reported by ABC News:

A young mother is found dead on the bathroom floor of her south Florida home. It was November 2007. It was her husband who found her, and subsequently made a frantic phone call to 911.

Prosecutors are contending that the husband killed his wife by strangulation just moments before he made that call.

And it would seem unlikely that a seemingly healthy, 33-year-old woman would die suddenly of a medical condition.

However, the defense has been seemingly effective in creating a shadow of doubt. In their argument, the wife did in fact die of congestive heart failure. The wounds and abrasions found on her body, they said, were likely the result of her falling to the floor in the midst of a heart attack.

Additional wounds, they contended, could be explained by the aggressive treatment that followed shortly after by paramedics and those working to save her life. Chest compressions and other life-saving methods have been known to cause extensive bruising and even broken ribs and other maladies.

What’s more, while the doctor who conducted the autopsy did not render a cause of death (it was still pending at the time of the trial), the chief medical examiner – who was not even present for the autopsy – declared her death a homicide.

And a woman intended to be a key witness for the prosecution – a close friend of the deceased woman – testified instead about how deeply in love the pair were, and how happy her friend was with her husband. That ended up backing claims by defense attorneys that the couple had no major problems that would have supported a motive for murder.

A few months before her death, the woman had reportedly undergone surgery for breast augmentation. At that time, surgeons and anesthesiologists testified that they were unaware that the patient had any heart condition. However, defense attorneys rightly pointed out that sometimes patients lie on medical forms, particularly for cosmetic surgery, because they don’t want anything to stop them from getting the procedure. It’s likely too that the woman didn’t know about a possible heart condition. Just because there was no indication of it during surgery doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

This case is interesting because it illustrates how an experienced defense attorney can attack a prosecution’s theory from nearly every angle. No matter how bleak a case may look on day of arrest, things may look much different in the courtroom. Another great reason why it’s important to exercise your right to remain silent and consult with an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Having an experienced criminal defense attorney at your side as your case moves through the system is critical to obtaining the best possible outcome. What may look bleak at the outset may not be bleak at all. Another great example of why it’s best to exercise your right to remain Continue Reading ›

Massachusetts DUI Lawyers will be able to have some license suspensions vacated as a result of recent court decision

May 21, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Melanie’s Law, a piece of legislation that aims to reduce the number of repeat offenders requiring a Massachusetts drunk driving defense, may have just been significantly weakened.

Massachusetts OUI lawyers are watching closely to see what happens next.

To understand the ruling and what it could mean, you first have to understand the context. Melanie’s Law was passed in late 2005, with the goal of increasing the punishment for those charged with Operating Under the Influence (or Massachusetts OUI). The law is named for Melanie Powell, a girl who was killed by a drunk driver.

The law was the start of the state’s interlock ignition program (which officially got underway the following year). It also established a 1 year minimum mandatory imprisonment for someone found guilty of OUI while operating after a suspension for a previous OUI. That means that if your license is suspended for OUI, and you get caught driving drunk again, you would serve between 1 year and 2.5 years behind bars.

Additionally, you would pay a fine of between $2,500 and $10,000, and your license would be automatically suspended for three years for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test to determine your blood alcohol level.

So with that understanding, here’s what happened in the Supreme Judicial Court case, according to The Patriot Ledger:

Back in 1997, a man admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty. However, he did not plead guilty and he was not found guilty. He served probation, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

Fast-forward to 2010. That same man was stopped by police for suspicion of drunk driving. He refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. He was given an automatic three-year suspension.

He appealed that ruling, and the case made it all the way up to the state’s supreme court.

That court overturned his automatic suspension. The central issue in the case was what did the word “convicted” mean? It sounds fairly straightforward, but in a case where no one pleaded or was found guilty, that does not equal a conviction.

So what does this mean?

It could mean the overturning of a large number of three-year suspensions if the person involved was not actually found guilty of his or her offense. Court justices said that if lawmakers had intended to include the provision for admission to sufficient facts, it should have done that explicitly when it penned the bill.

Legislators have said that it was obviously not their intent to exclude this aspect. However, without their explicit direction, judges are left with wiggle room in their interpretation.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles in turn mistakenly gave out three-year suspensions by counting continuance cases as prior convictions under Melanie’s Law.
Continue Reading ›

New Bedford Sex Crime Prosecutions May Increase as a Result of Federal Probe

May 16, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

New Bedford sex crimes defense attorneys know that an allegation of such an offense can have major implications for the accused.

This is especially true for college students charged with a New Bedford sex crime. With an entire future ahead of him, college students must find an experienced and knowledgeable defense attorney, whether the charge is date rape, statutory rape, sexual battery or other sex offense.

In a lot of Massachusetts sex crimes that allegedly occur on campus, victims will report those allegations to university police. There is supposed to be specific protocol in place for how such cases should be handled, although there have been some high-profile instances in recent years in which top university brass have come under fire for attempting to sweep such situations under the rug. These institutions don’t want to gain a reputation as being unsafe for students.

Abington Domestic Assault and Battery Charges Against Weymouth Cop

May 11, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Abington assault and battery charges have been filed against a 37-year-old police officer who allegedly attacked his 9-year-old twin daughters.

Abington domestic violence defense lawyers know that such an allegation can have implications not only for the officer’s criminal record, but also his job and child custody arrangements.

Domestic battery cases in Massachusetts often stem from very personal matters. It’s not uncommon for one angered spouse to exaggerate or flat-out lie out of spite about what actually happened.