Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Patriots Wide Receiver Edelman Charged with Sex Crime in Boston

November 5, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

New England Patriots wide receiver and special teams member Julian Edelman appeared in Boston Municipal Court recently to address charges that he groped a woman on a dance floor, the Boston Herald reports.

A Boston sex crimes lawyer has seen how allegations that appear innocent on the surface can lead to serious charges and tough penalties against a defendant.

Sex crimes in Boston not only can include the possibility of jail or prison time and probation. If convicted, a defendant could be forced to register as a sex offender. This means their photo, address, identifying marks such as tattoos and other information will be displayed on state and national websites. They must notify law enforcement where they’re moving from and where they’re moving to. If they don’t, they can be charged again.

A sex crimes conviction in Boston follows a person for life unless it is fought vigorously in the court system. Sadly, athletes and celebrities can sometimes be victimized because of their fame.

In Edelman’s case, he pleaded not guilty to a charge of indecent assault and battery. He is accused of reaching up a woman’s Halloween costume on the dance floor of a Back Bay nightclub.

A male witness said he watched the woman’s expression change on her face to “shock” after the player allegedly “grabbed her vagina,” a police report states. After the male witness threatened to “beat up” Edelman, he and the woman were kicked out of the club. Edelman was eventually removed from the club, but denied the allegations to police.

WEEI reports that Edelman said nothing during his initial court appearance. He was released on his own recognizance and ordered to stay away from the club and the alleged victim.

Edelman is a third-year player who was drafted in 2009 out of Kent State University. This season, he has three catches for 25 yards and 47 catches for 470 yards in his career. He has played mainly special teams for the Patriots this season, also returning kicks.

This appears to be a case of what will amount to a he said/she said situation, although there appears to be a witness who will testify for the state as well. It’s unclear whether the woman was flirting with Edelman before the alleged incident or if they were dancing close to each other before this allegedly happened.

Alcohol can sometimes be a factor and police must address that when they are called to a scene. If a person claiming to be a victim has been affected by alcohol and a night of drinking, investigators must consider that in deciding to file charges and it could influence a jury’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. This is common in cases of alleged domestic violence in Boston. When police arrive at a house, they sometimes assume the person considered the victim is telling the truth and the accused is lying.

But with sex crimes, the consequences are much more severe. Possible penalties are steep and the long-term impacts are great. Such charges must be fought aggressively.
Continue Reading ›

Bridgewater College Students Accused of Operating Drug Ring

November 2, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

The Enterprise News is reporting that four Bridgewater State students, two of whom are football players, are accused of operating a “drug house” operation off-campus.

Drug crimes in Bridgewater and throughout Massachusetts are serious charges as the government continues its war on drugs. Lawmakers have continually made penalties more extreme and in drug cases, police and prosecutors can often tack on many charges for a single episode.

In situations where investigators accuse people of operating a criminal enterprise out of their homes, Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys will look at fighting the legality of the search warrant. A search warrant is obtained by police officers and signed by a judge when they believe they have proof that a crime is going on inside a person’s house or business.

While detectives may be able to obtain a search warrant, take evidence from a house and file criminal charges, success in challenging a search warrant often leads to a reduction or dismissal of charges.

If detectives misled the judge who signed the warrant by providing false facts or if they didn’t quite know what they had at the time, a trial judge can nix the search warrant after the fact, which typically eliminates the evidence that was collected.

This is another reason to never make statements or admissions to police, as you never know what evidence will be in play at trial. If evidence is suppressed after motions by a defense attorney, but the defendant confessed, the prosecution could still attempt to go to trial. If there is no statement and no evidence, there is no case.

In the Bridgewater State case, Patrick McGirr, 20, of East Longmeadow, Tyler Trainor, 21, of Saugus, Eric Eldred, 21, of Methuen and Bradley Head, 21, of Ashby, were arrested. The state believes McGirr was the “ringleader” and he was held on $25,000 bail after an arraignment in Brockton District Court. Bail for the others was between $1,5000 and $2,500.

Police have alleged the group was selling drugs such as marijuana to cocaine and Perc30 out of their off-campus apartment. Police said they investigated for the last month before making the arrests.

Investigators stopped McGirr’s vehicle recently after obtaining a search warrant for it. Detectives said they found one ounce of marijuana and 10 Oxycodone pills inside a hidden compartment. Police then searched the apartment and allegedly found cocaine, Oxycodone pills, marijuana, $7,000, a heat sealer, digital scale and other evidence the police believe were related to drug dealing.

The news article doesn’t state why detectives searched the home after searching the vehicle. The Easton Journal reports that detectives had a search warrant for the apartment as well. The arrests were made by the WEB Task Force run by officers from Bridgewater, Bridgewater State University, East Bridgewater, West Bridgewater and Whitman.
Continue Reading ›

United States Supreme Court to address whether “a lost plea opportunity” can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment

October 31, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on October 31 2011 in the case of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, that raises the issue of whether an a criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts, or any other state, can provide ineffective assistance of counsel during a plea negotiation when a defendant later receives a fair trial.

In the case of Cooper, he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney told him that he could not be convicted of assault with the intent to murder, because the shots he fired were below the victim’s waist. Based on this advice, Cooper claims that he went to trial and received a sentence eight years greater than the sentence he would have received had he accepted the original plea offer and was given proper advice as to the elements of the offense. To read the brief of Defendant Cooper you can click here.

In the Frye case, the defendant claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not communicate a plea offer to him which expired; the defendant received a harsher sentence when he entered an open plea in court. Under the proposed plea offer, that was not communicated, the prosecutor offered to allow the defendant to plea to a misdemeanor with a ninety day jail sentence recommendation. The defendant ultimately received three years as part of an open plea but claimed prejudice in being deprived the opportunity to plea to the misdemeanor offense as a result of counsel ineffective assistance in not communicating the offer. You can read the filings in the Frye case by clicking here.

Boston Globe’s unfair attack on Massachusetts judges in drunk driving cases

October 30, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

Massachusetts judges were unfairly attacked as being lenient on drunk driving charges in a recent Boston Globe report released today. The special report was the first of a three part series written by Marcella Bombardieri, Jonathan Saltzman and Thomas Farragher.

The Boston Globe claims that judges are lenient on Massachusetts OUI cases during bench trials. The article states that the Boston Globe looked through court records, listened to tapes of courtroom proceedings in order to make its assessment. While the Globe claims to have uncovered a widespread problem, as a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, I believe that the report presents an unfair attack on Massachusetts judges.

To obtain case names the Globe would have had to rely on prosecutors pointing out cases that they believe they should have never lost before a particular judge. Overlooked in this fact, is that often the police report does not tell the entire story of what happened during an arrest. Police officers do not always remember exactly what happened when writing the report and sometimes exaggerate, overstate and embellish in the police report. Further, judges are not reading the police report but are hearing the officer testify live and under oath.

Accused Burglary Suspects Held on $25,000 Bail in Taunton District Court

October 30, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

Four men accused of a burglary, who first were suspected of an attempted abduction in Attelboro, are being held in jail on $25,000 bail, The Sun Chronicle reports.

Charges of burglary in Attleboro are punishable by up to 20 years in prison, which is likely why the defendants were held on such a high bail. This case also highlights the damage that can be done by the news media and makes the job more challenging for a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer.

The Sun Chronicle story, in its first paragraph mentions “attempting to abduct” and a 7 News report online repeats the same phrasing. Yet, there are no charges of abduction that these men face.

The damage has already been done in the court of public opinion. When people think of this case, they’re going to think about the fact that police believe these men were attempting to abduct a woman, when there is absolutely no proof. Working to separate fact from fiction — and fighting to keep irrelevant material out of court — will be critical to the defense.

According to the news reports, a woman was jogging near the Attelboro/Rehoboth line, when she saw a van carrying several men drive by slowly. When the van turned around and drove by her again, she panicked, letting go of her dog’s leash and running toward a nearby house. When no one was there, she hid in the woods.

Police have said she had the right to act that way. Maybe she did, but a van driving slowly, perhaps because the driver was lost, doesn’t constitute allegations of an abduction. Other than the woman being spooked by the incident, there is nothing to suggest the people in the van wanted to harm her.

Sadly, this may be what sticks with people who have read the articles or watched the TV news broadcasts. After this happened, police launched a massive hunt for the men, using a reverse 911 message to alert residents.

Ryan McCoy, 23, of Attleboro; James Gould, 27, and Benjamin Gould, 23, of Plainville and Phillip Muggle, 29, of Rehoboth were arraigned recently in Taunton District Court after police arrested them.

The Sun Chronicle reports that police found property from a Smith Street house that linked them to a burglary. They also face a charge of witness intimidation, though it doesn’t appear from the media reports that there is much evidence of that.

Because of all the excitement of a police manhunt and the media coverage, this will be a topic of conversation for a few days. Whether there is any real evidence linking them to a burglary remains to be seen. So far, they are guilty of nothing.

A burglary is fairly common, but an abduction isn’t. An experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer knows that jury selection is perhaps the most important part of a trial. If this case reaches that stage, it will be important to ensure jurors do not rely on media reports or evidence not before the court.

Without a fair jury, a defendant doesn’t have a shot.
Continue Reading ›

Drinking Responsibly on Halloween as a Massachusetts OUI charge can have severe consequences

October 29, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

Halloween is approaching, as we can tell from the crisp weather, the black and orange decorations and the costume advertisements that seem to pop up this time of year.

And while it’s primarily a holiday for children to go door-to-door and try to get as much candy as they can, let’s face it, it’s a holiday for adults, too. During the weekend there will be parties where friends get together with outrageous costumes to try to impress each other and there likely will be alcohol.

The key here is to enjoy yourself, but do it responsibly. It’s quite likely that police throughout Massachusetts will employ OUI roadblocks as a way to trap drunk drivers. This can lead to an arrest for drunk driving charges in Massachusetts this Halloween weekend.

If this happens, the first move should be to contact an experienced Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer. Getting an attorney involved as quickly as possible can only benefit you. The longer a defendant waits, the more an attorney has to play catch up to get apprised of the facts and be prepared for trial.

When officers pull drivers over, they must have what’s called probable cause. This is true in any situation. They must have a reason to pull over a vehicle. Some typical examples of reasons are if the driver was speeding, swerving, improperly changed lanes or ran a stop sign.

Probable cause is required so that officers can’t simply pull over a vehicle for no reason and try to search it. The probable cause for the stop can be challenged in a OUI case.

After the initial stop is made, the officer will use his or her training to make observations about the driver that could lead them to believe the driver is operating the vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. What they typically rely on are things like slurred speech, glassy or bloodshot eyes and the inability to have a coherent conversation.

That is the key moment that determines whether the officer is simply going to decide whether or not to give a ticket for speeding and whether he or she is going to pursue a DUI investigation.

If it’s the latter, the officer will usually ask the driver to step out of the vehicle and take field sobriety tests and/or a breath test. Refusing to take a breath test automatically results in a driver’s license suspension. However, it will also deny the state a key piece of evidence to use against you at trial.

Field sobriety testing is when an officer asks the driver to take nine steps and turn around to determine their balance, stand on one leg and follow an object from side to side.

All of these can be challenged as well, depending on whether they were conducted properly, whether video from the officer’s cruiser contradicts the observations on the police report, and whether other factors, such as the person’s physical ailments or the weather could have affected their ability to perform.

This Halloween, enjoy your time with your friends and pick out a good costume. Drink responsibly so that you don’t give the police any reason to interfere with your life. If you find yourself arrested, don’t panic, call an experienced Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer, who will defend your rights.
Continue Reading ›

Baby Lisa Case Could Lead to Kidnapping, Murder Charges

October 25, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

The Baby Lisa case has garnered national headlines as local authorities and the FBI search for the child missing in Kansas City since Oct. 4.

According to The Kansas City Star, the 11-month-old girl was reported missing from her crib that day.

CNN reports that the FBI recently obtained a search warrant for the house and began searching recently and the order bans the family of the girl from returning home.

A missing child is a a nightmare for any parent. But if recent media reports have taught us anything, it’s that authorities will look to the parents as soon as they look at outside suspects.

And after about two weeks, it appears that’s exactly what’s happened here. Obtaining a search warrant and banning the family from going into their home seems to indicate authorities are now turning their attention inward.

Charges of kidnapping in Massachusetts are among the most serious a person can face. Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers know the penalties are steep and will prepare a strong defense for a person accused of such a crime. That means challenging all evidence and seeking independent witnesses to verify the facts.

In Massachusetts, kidnapping charges can be penalized in a variety of ways, depending on the facts of the case. For instance, if the kidnapping was committed to extort money, a person convicted could be sent to prison for life. In other circumstances, the sentence could range from 2 to 10 years.

The Kansas City Star reports that police have revealed little about what they know to the public. The newspaper reports that the majority of the information coming out about the case has come from the child’s parents.

The girl’s mother has told the media that she failed a polygraph test, was drunk and may have “blacked out” the night the girl went missing and now the police are accusing her of being involved.

The parents and police differ about their cooperation level. The parents say they are helping, while the police have said they are not. It’s been more than a week since the parents and police sat down and spoke and the parents aren’t making the baby’s older siblings, who were home the night of the disappearance, available to detectives.

The case started Oct. 4 around 4 a.m. when the girl’s father got home from his overnight job and reported the girl missing. The mother said she had last seen the girl around 10:30 p.m. the night before.

A neighbor reported a man seen with a baby around 2 a.m. Within two days, the police had questioned the mother and said they were no longer cooperating. The family then scaled back interviews and appearances on national television.

CNN reports that a child resembling Baby Lisa was reported about 100 miles away, but that turned out to be a false lead. The family believes it’s possible someone could have entered the home without the family knowing since their bedroom is on the opposite side of the house and the baby’s room has a loud fan blowing.

But it appears police are spending more and more time focusing on the mother, since she was home the night it happened. She admits to being drunk, but denies involvement in her daughter’s disappearance She has admitted she fears police will arrest her.
Continue Reading ›

Police Chief Questioned For $30k in OT For OUI Operations

October 24, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

The Record in New Jersey is reporting that a police chief has come under fire for earning $30,000 in overtime in two years for DUI enforcement operations.

As the Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog recently reported, OUI roadblocks have little value in actually catching drunk drivers. In fact, police view the purpose as a way to keep drunken driving in the minds of drivers. Yet, they cost tens of thousands of dollars — provided by state and federal grants typically — to operate.

And a big chunk of that money goes to pay police officers overtime so they can stand around and watch passing cars. Police officers are just like any other worker when they are working a job. They want it to go by quickly and they want to get paid.

When officers set up operations to target OUI in Taunton or elsewhere in Massachusetts, they are looking for common traffic violations, such as speeding, swerving, improper lane change, stopping and starting or other ways to initiate a traffic stop. During a checkpoint, no such probable cause is necessary.

When a driver is stopped by officers, they should remain calm and answer the questions politely. If you believe you are being investigated for OUI, don’t make any statements and tell them you wish to speak with a Taunton OUI lawyer immediately. Everyone has a right to not say anything if they are suspected of a crime.

According to the news article, the police chief in Elmwood Park New Jersey earned about $30,000 in overtime that payroll records show was paid out for drunken-driving operations.

Between Jan. 1, 2010 and Oct. 6, the chief got $29,436 on top of his $205,000 annual salary. Officials are investigating whether the chief was entitled to get that pay and if other department heads also got overtime pay.

The newspaper reports that the chief’s contract has no provision for overtime pay, while other police officers’ contracts clearly outline when they should be paid overtime and at what rate.

The chief told city council recently that he supervised OUI posts, making sure roadblocks were in the proper place and that procedures were followed. These roadblocks are typically covered by state or federal grants. Yet, police chiefs and other officials typically are salaried and can’t earn overtime pay.

While city officials are investigating, it seems on the surface like a bad deal for taxpayers. A chief of a town of 19,000 with a small force of only 37 gets $200,000 per year. And on top of that, he’s bringing in thousands in overtime?

And his excuse is that he had to supervise OUI roadblocks, which have little value anyway?

OUI roadblocks are typically set up in an area near bars or where patrons would drink and then later drive. Officers will usually set up barriers to funnel traffic so they can stop each vehicle and question each driver.

Their goal is to see if people are intoxicated — or might (in the opinion of the officer) be intoxicated. Some people get pulled over and others just get to drive through and there typically is no reason why some drivers are put through this process and others get to go by. The decision is made by officers working the post.

In most situations, very few drivers are actually arrested. Most pass through and go on their way, yet police departments nationwide are spending millions of dollars on these operations with few results.
Continue Reading ›

Woman Allegedly Conspired to Trade Guns For Drugs in North Attleboro

October 21, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

Police have accused two women of a conspiracy during which they faked a housebreak to steal guns and trade them for heroin, The Sun Chronicle reports.

Charges of theft in Attelboro as well as drug and gun offenses can add up to jail time, possible probation and fines and fees.

But whether a shoplifting or a serious theft crime such as a burglary or robbery, it can sometimes be difficult to prove for police. Without credible eye witnesses or some type of caught-in-the-act moment, police sometimes have a hard time fingering who committed a crime.

Even if they make an arrest, Massachusetts criminal attorneys will challenge the case put together by prosecutors and work toward the best outcome possible in a client’s case. When evidence is scarce, there is plenty of reasonable doubt to show the accused isn’t the criminal. And even if it appears there is an abundance of evidence, some can be thrown out with an experienced lawyer.

In this case, 38-year-old Shannon E. Wilson called authorities to tell them that her house on 87 Smith St. had been broken into. Police quickly turned against her and began considering that there was no break-in at all.

The Sun Chronicle reports that the woman then allegedly confessed that she made up the incident so that she and longtime friend Robert Delaney of Franklin could sell her husband’s .22-caliber and .45-caliber pistols for heroin.

Both have been arrested, but there is a wrinkle in the case. Police haven’t recovered the weapons. The suspects allegedly told police that the .22-caliber gun was sold to a drug dealer in Taunton and the .45-caliber gun was taken to Providence and sold to a drug dealer there.

Both defendants are allegedly blaming each other, with neither admitting to who committed the break-in or who took them from the storage locker and completed the drug deals.

Because both have pending cases in Wrentham District Court, a judge in Attleboro District Court held them without bond.

Wilson is charged with armed robbery and larceny in Wrentham, while Delaney has a prior drug case that is pending.

In this case, both face charges of larceny of a firearm, conspiracy, conspiracy to violate narcotics laws and unlawful possession of firearms with large capacity feeding devices. In addition, Wilson faces a charge of filing a false police report and Delaney is charged with breaking and entering.

Without an eyewitness to say who broke into the house, it may be difficult for the state to prove. And the fact that police don’t have any evidence of where the weapons are or that they were actually traded for heroin casts doubt on some of the charges.

Delaney is charged with breaking and entering, but do the police really know he did that? If each defendant is blaming each other, it could be difficult for investigators and prosecutors to sort through what they have and ensure that they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt each of these charges. That’s another reason why simply remaining silent is so often to a client’s advantage.
Continue Reading ›

Detroit Pistons Player Avoiding Jail Time Shows Disparity in DUI Sentencing

October 12, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

Detroit Pistons player Ben Wallace may end up avoiding jail time in a drunken driving case because of an odd twist — he had a gun on him, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The article goes on to state that Wallace may have gone before the same judge who sentenced former NBA player Jalen Rose this summer to jail time for his first DUI, which Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog commented on at the time.

But because of the unlawfully carrying of a concealed weapon charge, a potential five-year felony in Michigan, it’s likely his case will be taken to a circuit court judge, who are less likely to sentence first-time offenders to jail time. Rose was a first time offender whom the judge used to send a “message” about the dangers of driving while intoxicated.

The sentencing for OUI in Massachusetts is based largely on a judge’s discretion. While there are guidelines for punishment, the argument of an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney, coupled with favorable facts for the defendant, can help a client avoid serious jail time.

This is an odd case because under normal circumstances, a person charged with DUI would go before judge Kim Small, who has a reputation of sentencing first-time offenders to lengthy jail time — a reputation which became more widespread this summer when she sent Rose, a former NBA basketball player, to jail for DUI.

But because Wallace also faces the gun charge, that case will likely be sent to a court that handles felony cases and not low-level misdemeanors. An analysts believe that may actually benefit him.

Provided a defendant is adequately defended, judges who handle felony cases are sometimes less likely to sentence first-offenders to jail or prison time for minor felonies. In most court systems, if the defendant faces both felonies and misdemeanors, the case is taken to the court that handles felonies. Typically, judges who preside over misdemeanor cases aren’t allowed to hear felony cases.

Because Wallace will be sent to a judge who is described as handing out “temperate and measured sentences,” it’s likely he will face probation and fines, whether he goes to trial and is convicted or enters a plea agreement. Of course, that assumes he will be convicted.

According to the news report, Wallace was in a 2007 Cadillac Escalade when he was pulled over for “driving erratically.” Investigators found a magazine of bullets for a .28-caliber semiautomatic pistol that was in a backpack and registered to his wife. Police reported that Wallace’s blood-alcohol level was 0.14 percent, nearly twice the state’s 0.08 legal limit.

In most situations, defendants aren’t allowed to pick their judge. The situation in the metro Detroit area has been heavily reported based on the high-profile cases there.
Continue Reading ›