Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

OUI Drug charges in Massachusetts and new legislation targeting driving under the influence of drugs

May 9, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Massachusetts DUI/drugcharges present unique challenges to prosecutors, compared to a standard, alcohol-related DUI charge.

In a routine Attleboro DUI, police officers can test your blood alcohol level through a breath or blood test. They can note well-recognized signs of alcohol intoxication, and a lot of these cases are fairly straightforward (although there are always ways that a skilled Massachusetts DUI defense attorney can attack the credibility of those tests or the officer’s work).

Under Massachusetts General Law, Colorado Per Se Drugged Driving Bill Moving, By Phillip Smith, stopthedrugwar.org

Massachusetts DUI Roadblock arrest involving fleeing motorist

May 3, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Fleeing a Lawrence DUI roadblock has resulted in assault charges and complications for one man’s Massachusetts DUI defense team – not to mention it nearly got him killed.

Lawrence DUI defense lawyers understand that sobriety checkpoints are intimidating. While we have long challenged their legality and effectiveness, the fact is, for now they are legal and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon. However, there are solid defenses that an experienced Lawrence DUI lawyer can mount to weaken the credibility of the state’s case.

Additionally, cases involving Massachusetts DUI roadblocks are often tough for prosecutors anyway. That’s because when you’re stopped at a checkpoint, officers often have no proof that you were driving erratically. Plus, these operations rely a great deal on field sobriety tests. These are non-scientific and highly subjective measures by which law enforcement tries to prove a Lawrence DUI. Such “evidence” may not stand up in court.

Attleboro Drug Trafficking Defense to Target Search Warrant

May 2, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

A strong Attleboro drug trafficking defense will be required for a man suspected of trafficking both heroin and cocaine.

Attleboro drug trafficking attorneys have read that the suspect told arresting officers he was only selling the drugs in order to scrape together enough money to feed his family. In today’s struggling economy, it’s certainly believable. The family was receiving government assistance at the time of his arrest.

While this was the fact highlighted by the media, the man’s Attleboro criminal defense attorney has said he is likely to be taking a closer look at how officers obtained and carried out their search warrant.

Boston Sex Crimes Watch: Military Members Accused

April 27, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Allegations of sex crimes in Boston can be devastating to the family life, career and reputation of the accused.

This is particularly true when the accused is a member of the military.

Boston sex crimes attorneys have been closely watching the allegations unfolding from the U.S. Military Academy in New York and the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland. In both of these cases, the alleged victims have admitted they were intoxicated at the time the alleged crimes occurred.

Repeat Offender Requires Attleboro Reckless Driving Defense

April 22, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

A police chase prompted authorities to take drastic action in side-stepping normal procedure for license revocation for a motorcyclist eight-times convicted of driving to endanger in Attleboro.

Attleboro criminal defense attorneys know that it’s rare for police to make a direct request to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, requesting an immediate revocation. In this case, however, police have labeled the 33-year-old motorist a menace.

Prosecutors say his long record of traffic violations include eight prior convictions for driving to endanger.

Boston Sex Crimes: False Allegations Against Coach Bernie Fine

April 19, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

There is no doubt that the accusations of Boston sex crimes can ruin a person’s life.

Massachusetts defense attorneys know that the potential is there to completely tarnish a person’s reputation, future employment prospects, living arrangements and personal relationships.

Of course, we also know that a great deal of the allegations aren’t true, or are some exaggeration of the truth. We may see a lot of this in cases where multiple plaintiffs come forward in the wake of a high-profile case.

This is what’s happened in the case of Bernie Fine, an ex-assistant coach at Syracuse University. Once having four allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against him, each and every single one has failed to stand up to the credibility test – including the most recent allegation, in which the accuser flat-out admitted he lied.

Fine was fired in November, in the wake of the allegations.

It seems one can hardly turn around without word of some new sex abuse allegation being lobbed at educators and coaches around the country. The case against former Penn State Coach Jerry Sandusky is one. Then there are the host of allegations that continue to be filed against coaches and teachers in California.

Some of the reasons have to do with the very nature of the job in working closely with children on a one-on-one basis. It leaves employees in these positions susceptible to false allegations – particularly those made years after the fact – because you’re left with a he-said-she-said scenario. Plus, children and youth may not understand the full scope of consequences of their false accusations. And accusers may believe there will be some form of eventual pay-out if the coach or teacher is high-profile — and they figure the odds are better if there is more than one accuser.

A skilled defense attorney who is aggressive in getting to the bottom of these accusations may be able to confront the accuser with a greater weight of evidence favorable to the defendant. Sometimes, this results in a full recanting of the original allegation.

This is what happened in the Bernie Fine case.

A 23-year-old man from Lewiston, Maine is currently preparing to serve more than three years in a Massachusetts prison on allegations that he sexually abused a teenaged boy. The defendant in that case is one of the four who accused Fine of sexual assault.

The defendant said that when he was 13-years-old, Fine fondled him in a Pittsburgh hotel room, and that he and the assistant coach had watched pornography together. He filed a civil lawsuit in December, but his attorney withdrew it several weeks later.

He now says that not only were the allegations untrue, but he had never actually met Fine, and that he “takes pride in lying.”

Then there was the accusation that came from another prison inmate who made allegations against Fine. Those reports were never published because media outlets deemed them not credible from the start.

Two other accusers, former ball boys for the Syracuse team, said they too were molested by Fine for a number of years. However, the statute of limitations on those allegations has expired.
Continue Reading ›

South Shore Drug OUI Difficult to Prove Without Drug Recognition Expert

April 12, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

Those requiring South Shore OUI defense should be aware of recent news reported by Massachusetts state statute Chapter 90, section 24 to drive while intoxicated on any substance, proving a drug OUI, as opposed to an alcohol OUI, can be more difficult.

That’s because while measuring the alcohol in your blood involves taking a breathalyzer test, most drugs aren’t going to show up that way. Certain signs of drug impairment – like pupil size or heart rate – aren’t as easy for law enforcement to spot. What’s more, just because you have drugs in your possession doesn’t automatically prove that you took them.

In other words, you don’t need to necessarily be an expert to recognize when someone is drunk. However proving that someone is under the influence of drugs is tougher.

According to the law, in order to secure a conviction on a South Shore OUI charge, prosecutors need to show that you took drugs you were not legally authorized to take, that those drugs caused you to be impaired, that you were driving a motor vehicle and that you were on a public street. This may sound straightforward, but unless the agency has an expert to testify, proving you were impaired is not as simple as it seems.

So what many law enforcement offices do is hire or train Drug Recognition Experts (DRE’s). These are law enforcement officers who have gone through fairly intensive training to recognize whether an individual is under the influence of drugs. The testimony of these individuals can be quite compelling in court. That doesn’t mean you can’t beat the charge with the help of a skilled South Shore defense attorney, but it does make the job more challenging.

These so-called “experts” offer nothing more than their opinion about a driver’s state of intoxication — much like Massachusetts field sobriety test results, that opinion can be challenged.

The problem for many South Shore law enforcement agencies is that having a DRE is expensive.

In 1995, the state started a Drug Evaluation Classification program, which purported to give police the ability to identify the specific effects of drug intoxication. Right now, there are about 75 DRE’s in Massachusetts. Police don’t feel that’s enough.

The training takes a great deal of time. A certified DRE will have completed 80 hours of instruction in the classroom, and then conduct drug impairment examinations on at least 12 drugged individuals. Then, they must pass a five-hour written examination. Because the state hasn’t funded the courses for two years now, the cost must be absorbed by the agency, which, in addition to paying for the actual training, must cope with being short of that officer during the training period.

So while most departments think it would be ideal to have one or two employed on the force, it’s often just not feasible. Sometimes, agencies have resorted to reaching out to a DRE on a neighboring force. But there are issues with this because the effects of certain drugs don’t last long. By the time the DRE arrives, the effects may no longer be evident.
Continue Reading ›

Foxboro Larceny charge, Fraud Alleged Of Local Pastor

April 6, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

A pastor has been charged with larceny in Foxboro after authorities say he tried to run a scam on four elderly individuals aimed at conning them out of their Social Security checks.

Foxboro criminal defense attorneys understand that larceny in Massachusetts is a serious crime, particularly for someone whose job requires the public trust. An accusation alone can do great damage to your reputation, and can impact your employment future. A conviction can be worse, and under The Sun Chronicle:

Investigators say that the pastor, who heads an Adventist church, chose the alleged victims at random. Reportedly, all four of the individuals are in their 70s and 80s. They are from New Mexico, Michigan and Arkansas. They reportedly offered up their personal information to the pastor after he told them they were lottery winners.

The pastor is accused of then contacting the Social Security Administration to have the individual’s checks sent to a local Massachusetts bank account that he controlled. Bank officials contacted police after becoming concerned that four separate Social Security checks were being funneled into the same account. Police were contacted by bank administrators after the pastor showed up to ask about the deposits, as he intended to make a withdrawal.

The investigation is ongoing, and officials are trying to determine whether there are additional victims in other states. The pastor’s Foxboro defense attorney has indicated that the pastor was recently a victim of a scam, and had sent more than $3,000 to an individual in Florida.

It appears the pastor may have had additional financial difficulty, as he was given loans that topped $60,000 at six separate financial institutions two years ago. He has since filed for bankruptcy.

The pastor further told investigators that he forwarded all the money to an account in Great Britain to help with an estate there that he reportedly inherited.
Continue Reading ›

Discussion on the arrest and Police Report of Rhode Island State Senator Ruggerio

March 31, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts DUI lawyer, a frequent question surrounds the significance of statements contained in the police report. The arrest of Senator Ruggerio in Rhode Island resulted in his police report being published in the Providence Journal and provides a good opportunity to explain how I review DUI police reports.

According to the report, the officer is alerted to the car by a 911 call. If the police have the information for this witness and the witness testifies at trial, it makes for a more difficult case for the defense as the witness would probably be credited by a jury as being a neutral witness.

The officer attempted to stop Ruggerio immediately; in many Massachusetts OUI arrests, the driver will pull over immediately and there will be nothing in the report about how the car was stopped. When a police report does not mention how a driver pulled over, it is a strong point for the defense because it shows normal response in an emergency situation. One thing I look for in addition to what the officer alleges is the driving infraction that caused the stop, but how the driver responded to the emergency lights.

Massachusetts criminal attorney raises Double Jeopardy to contest mistrial in recent Supreme Judicial Court decision

March 23, 2012 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Massachusetts criminal attorney, one of the most common questions asked is what does double jeopardy mean under the Constitution. When people first hear the phrase “double jeopardy,” the first thing that comes to mind is the movie featuring Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd. In true Hollywood fashion, the highly entertaining movie substitutes criminal and constitutional law with thrilling scenes where Ashley Judd searches for the truth about her supposedly dead husband. Still, Hollywood falls short in explaining Double Jeopardy in its true legal form.

Double jeopardy is an important concept for any client to understand – particularly when your case mirrors the facts in Cruz vs. Commonwealth, decided on March 15, 2012. Cruz was indicted for trafficking cocaine in June 2007. In October of that same year, his defense counsel filed a request for discovery. Nearly three years later, on the second day of trial, his’ Massachusetts criminal attorney discovered that the Commonwealth had failed to supply the defense attorney with at least 500 pages of information obtained during the police investigation – essentially, violating the discovery order.

In such a situation, a judge can either grant a Continuance (allowing the defense attorney to review the documents), grant a Motion to Dismiss, or declare a Mistrial. Given the extensive nature of the documents withheld, a continuance did not appear to be feasible. The defendant’s criminal attorney moved for a dismissal of the case. He also objected to a mistrial because a mistrial would only prolong the already financial and emotional burden on the defendant.

The lawyer representing Cruz argued that because this case had already spent three years in discovery and motion practice, the discovery order violation was extreme. In addition, the documents were highly relevant and could have assisted the defendant’s case. Although the judge found that the Commonwealth violated the discovery order, the violation was not intentional and therefore a mistrial was declared.

The double jeopardy clause comes from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and is also found in Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. It states that no person may be twice placed in jeopardy for the same criminal offense. In
Massachusetts, once a defendant is placed in jeopardy, a judge can declare a mistrial if it is manifestly necessary. The Commonwealth has the burden to prove that manifest necessity exists. For a judge to declare a mistrial over the defendant’s objection, the judge must consider the defendant’s right to a trial. In addition, the court must give the objecting defense attorney the opportunity to be heard and the judge must consider any alternatives to a mistrial.

The high profile perjury prosecution of Roger Clemens raised the issue of Double jeopardy recently. The trial of Roger Clemens raised the issue of double jeopardy where a mistrial was caused by conducted of the prosecutor in violating a pretrial ruling of the judge. The judge has ruled that a second trial would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and the retrial is scheduled to resume; should Clemens be convicted, the Double Jeopardy issue would be raised on appeal.
Continue Reading ›