by

On March 2, 2020 five grown men (ages 62, 53, 47, 43, and 27) all of whom knew one another got into a brawl in Haverhill, MA. During the brawl the 27 year old pulled out a knife and stabbed the 53 year old. No one died, but the 53 year old had a serious injury to his leg that required a period of hospitalization followed by a period of rehabilitation. The 47 and the 43 year old were brothers and they were accused of holding down to the ground and kicking the 62 year old and the 27 year old. Charges were brought against all five men. All five men sought out and retained lawyers.

The 47 year old (SO) consulted with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover, MA. SO was charged with Assault & Battery on a Person 60 years or Older (a felony) and with Assault & Battery. SO was a fireman in a local fire department and a felony conviction could cost him his job. In his very first appointment with Attorney Lewin, Attorney Lewin told SM that it was in the interest of all five men to have all the cases go away. Attorney Lewin explained that this would require all five of the men to refuse to testify against the others. This meant that those of the five men who were real victims would have to be willing to let go of the charges against the person(s) who had struck them. Attorney Lewin told SO that he would “quarterback” getting all the lawyers to get their clients to agree. SO very much wanted the charges against himself to be dropped and he was more than willing to drop the charges against the men who had assaulted him.

Attorney Lewin spoke with the four other lawyers. Everyone was on board – except the 53 year old who had been stabbed. He wanted the 27 year old prosecuted and convicted. But, as usual, there was a wrinkle. The 53 year old was himself on probation for an assault and he had other pending cases; therefore, this new case which included a charge against the 53 year old presented a problem for the 53 year old.

Continue reading

by

On November 7, 2019 KM, an 18 year old female from Andover, was released rom a Mental Hospital after being treated as an in-patient for schizophrenia. On the next day, KM drove to Tewksbury picked up her 13 year old female cousin, telling the cousin that the cousin’s Mother had asked KM to pick her up from the school bus. KM brought the cousin to KM’s parents’ apartment in Andover. KM’s parents were out of the country. KM suffers from mental illness and refused to bring her cousin back home to Tewksbury. KM locked herself and the cousin in KM’s bedroom and took KM’s phone away. KM texted to her cousin’s mother that KM was going to have the cousin sleep over. The Mother texted KM back that the cousin was not to sleep over. The mother attempted to text and call her daughter, but KM had taken her cousin’s phone away.

The cousin’s mother left work and headed to KM’s parents’ apartment in Andover. KM also called the police. The mother and the police met at the apartment at about the same time. They banged on the door but there was no response. The Mother was frantic and explained to the police the KM’s schizophrenia caused KM to be delusional and she feared that KM had harmed her daughter. The police banged and pushed on the door of the apartment but it was locked with the deadbolt. The police then called for “breaching tools”. Just before breaking the door down the police heard screaming and screeching from within the apartment. They heard the cousin yelling “Let me go, Let me go, I want to get out, help me.” The police then broke the door down. The cousin came running out of the apartment in tears. The police entered the apartment. KM was sitting on a couch as if nothing had happened. The police cuffed KM. The police took a detailed statement from the cousin who told them how KM had taken her phone and refused to let her call her parents and refused to take her home. The cousin told the police that KM was convulsing and talking nonsense. The police brought KM to the hospital where she was involuntarily committed as a mentally ill person who was dangerous. The police filed criminal charges against KM of Kidnapping (a felony) and witness intimidation (a felony).

KM’s parents sought out a lawyer and met with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. KM’s parents retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin immediately got KM into treatment with a psychiatrist and a mental health counselor.  Attorney Lewin recognized the need to ultimately convince a Judge that KM was not dangerous and did not need to be locked up. Attorney Lewin also recognized that some time was needed to let everyone’s emotions calm down (especially the cousin and her mother).

Continue reading

by

In March of 2019, JF, a 47 year old single father of two disabled children living in AZ contacted Attorney Robert Lewin of Andover, MA. JF had eight warrants outstanding – all in Malden District Court. The warrants dated back to 2008 and 2009. As a result of the warrants JF’s right to drive had been suspended by the Massachusetts RMV. That suspension had been entered into the National Driver Register and as a result JF had not been able to renew his AZ license since 2010. JF asked Attorney Lewin to look into the warrants and advise him. Attorney Lewin went to Malden Court and was able to get all the papers from the eight cases. In four of the cases, JF had plead guilty back in 2008 and had 3 suspended sentences hanging over his head: there was a 1 year suspended sentence, a 6 month suspended sentence, and a 3 month suspended sentence. All of the cases were convictions for violating an abuse prevention order. In addition, JF had 4 additional cases – all for violation of an abuse prevention order – on which he had never been arraigned.  [JF’s former wife had obtained an abuse prevention order against JF and JF violated the order 8 times.].

JF was in trouble. He had left the state in violation of his probation; he had failed to report to probation; he did not enroll in or complete the batterers program as ordered; and he continued to violate the abuse prevention order after being placed on probation. His probation officer was still working as a probation officer in 2019; she remembered the case, and she wanted his probation to be revoked and the 1 year suspended sentence to be put into effect. She wanted him to do a year in jail.

The District Attorney’s Office wanted a piece of his skin as well; on the cases on which he had not yet been arraigned they wanted him to do an additional 9 months.

Continue reading

by

On February 27, 2020 NH, a 34 year old maintenance technician, was working on a job site in North Andover. He got a call to report back in to the company headquarters in Haverhill. He got in his company van and headed up Route 125N to Industrial Way. As he proceeded up Industrial Way toward the entrance ramp to I-495 North he observed a black jeep behind him to his left. The road ahead was narrowed by cones from two lanes to one lane. The Jeep passed him on the left and then had to cut back sharply in front of NH to avoid striking the cones. NH had to slam on his brakes to avoid colliding with the Jeep which had pulled directly in front of NH. The Jeep then proceeded ahead and as the Jeep approached the split where the ramp to I-495N bears to the right it appeared as if the Jeep was going to proceed straight on Industrial Way. Suddenly and without signaling the Jeep pulled to the right onto the I-495 ramp again cutting in front of NH. Once again NH had to slam on his brakes to avoid striking the Jeep. The Jeep continued down the ramp onto I-495N travelling at about 20 mph. Once on I-495 NH then pulled to the left, passed the Jeep, and then after signaling pulled back to the right and exited I-495 at exit 50 to head to his company headquarters. Several hours later NH got a call from the State Police. The police asked NH if he had been involved in an incident with another vehicle. NH described to the State Trooper exactly what had happened with the Jeep. Some time later NH received a citation in the mail for Operating to Endanger the Lives and Safety of the Public. This is a criminal offense that carries up to 2 years in jail plus a mandatory loss of license.

The driver of the Jeep called the State Police and then went to the State Police Barracks and filed a report. She claimed that after she passed by NH on Industrial Way and pulled in front of him that NH was tailgating her dangerously as they proceeded down the ramp onto I-495N. She then claimed that NH “whipped around [her] on the second lane, pulled next to [her], and then moved into [her] lane in an obvious attempt to ram [her] into the cement barrier.” The police viewed this as a road rage incident.

NH was smart. He immediately took the citation and brought it to Haverhill District Court to request a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. NH then contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin of Andover. Attorney Lewin immediately obtained a copy of the police report and sat down with NH and reviewed the report in detail. Attorney Lewin found NH to be a very credible witness. Subsequently, the case was set down for a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on September 22, 2020. Normally, most criminal lawyers will not have their clients testify at a Clerk-Magistrate hearing. The reason for this is that in the event the Clerk-Magistrate issues a criminal complaint and the case subsequently goes to trial the Defense wants to have a clean slate – that is, the Defense does not want the government to have the benefit of the accused’s (recorded) testimony from the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. In NH’s case, however, NH had already given a complete written statement to the State Police. It was a very detailed statement. As a result there was no downside to having NH testify at the hearing.

Continue reading

by

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at about 2:30 in the afternoon, BW, a 27 year old Registered Nurse, was driving on the Mass. Turnpike on her way to Connecticut. The State Police received numerous calls from motorists on the Turnpike that her vehicle was weaving on the roadway. A State Trooper pulled in behind her vehicle and observed it go from the left hand lane into the median of the highway kicking up debris. The Trooper put on his emergency lights and BW pulled to the right and, after signalling with her right blinker, pulled across the highway and off to the right into the breakdown lane and stopped. The Trooper pulled in behind her and approached her vehicle. The Trooper made observations of BW and then had her exit her vehicle and perform certain roadside assessments which according to the Trooper she failed. The assessments included a one legged stand, a nine-step heel to toe walk, a balance test, and a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. According to the officer she failed all the tests. In BW’s open purse the officer observed a prescription bottle of gabapentin, a prescription medication for nerve pain. The officer charged BW with operating under the influence of drugs, specifically gabapentin. The officer also charged BW with Negligent Operation.

BW consulted with many lawyers. On February 16, 2020 BW had a two hour initial consultation with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. The OUI Drug statute in Massachusetts is a very detailed and specific statute. It defines in very specific terms the types of drugs that trigger the application of the law. Gabapentin, which is a depressant substance (it depresses electrical activity in the central nervous system and is used to treat seizures and nerve pain) at first glance would appear to be a drug that triggers the OUI Drug law. BW and Attorney Lewin discussed the law in detail. BW retained Attorney Lewin. For BW it was important that she win; if she were to be charged and/or convicted her Nursing License could be in jeopardy.

Attorney Lewin thoroughly researched the law and the science. The Massachusetts OUI Drug law makes it unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on a public way while under the influence of a narcotic drug or a stimulant or depressant substance as defined in the law.  The law sets out a very technical definition of depressant substance. Attorney Lewin thoroughly researched the science and the law and was able to establish that gabapentin – although it was a depressant substance – did not meet all the requirements of the law; specifically the law required that the substance be “designated by regulation of the U.S. Attorney General as having a potential for abuse”.  Attorney Lewin did a thorough research of the Federal Regulations and it turns out that the US Attorney General has NOT so designated gabapentin. Attorney Lewin informed BW of his findings and told her that she was going to win her case.

Continue reading

by

On July 9, 2019 KM, a 45 year old Manager at a large Defense Contractor was arrested at his home in Andover by the police and charged with Witness Intimidation and Malicious Destruction of Property (a cell phone). KM and his wife had had an argument over KM’s texting with another woman. The argument got heated and when KM’s wife went to call 911 KM took her phone and smashed it preventing her from calling the police. KM and his wife have two young children who were asleep at the time the argument started but were awakened by the smashing of the phone. Ultimately KM’s wife went to a second phone and called 911. The police responded to the house and arrested KM. In addition the police reported the incident to DCF (the Department of Children and Families). DCF did an investigation and determined that KM had neglected his two children.

KM interviewed several attorneys. KM had an initial free consult with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. The consult was almost two hours. KM then retained Attorney Lewin and Attorney Lewin went to work on both cases (the criminal case and the DCF case). On October 30, 2019 the criminal case was dismissed in Lawrence District Court.

The finding of “neglect” by DCF could have dramatic consequences for KM; he could be prevented from participating in school events for his two children and his security clearance at work could be affected. Attorney Lewin appealed the finding of neglect. A “Fair Hearing” was scheduled for December 19, 2019.  Attorney Lewin prepared KM and his wife to testify at the hearing. Attorney Lewin prepared a thorough and detailed Memorandum for the Fair Hearing Officer detailing why the decision was wrong and needed to be overturned. On December 19, 2019 KM, his wife, and Attorney Lewin appeared at the DCF Office in Lawrence for the hearing. KM and his wife both testified. Attorney Lewin argued that “one loud argument between a husband and wife that woke the children up should not lead to one of the parents being branded a perpetrator of neglect”.

Continue reading

by

On October 24, 2019, IW, a 47 year old disabled married man from the Dominican Republic, was living in Lawrence with his wife and their 1 1/2 year old daughter. Previously his wife had taken out an abuse prevention order against him. The order was in effect on October 24, 2019 and the order ordered IW not to abuse his wife. The night before October 24, 2019 IW drank a great deal. On the morning of the 24th IW’s wife went to work leaving IW at home with their 1 1/2  year old baby. When IW awoke he was still drunk and he called his wife and told her she better come home from work to take care of the baby. In addition IW told his wife that he was going to throw all her clothes out in the street and that he wanted her out of the house. IW’s wife returned home from work and IW and his wife got into a heated argument. His wife then told IW that she was going to call the police and she did. She told the police that when she told IW she was going to call the police he told her “call the cops and you will see what happens”. After she called the police IW left the apartment. As he was leaving the building the police arrived and detained IW. The police talked to IW and he admitted that he was drunk. The police spoke with his wife and then the police arrested IW and charged him with violating the no abuse order and with witness intimidation (threatening her if she called the police).

On October 24, 2019 IW was brought to Lawrence District Court. He was appointed a lawyer and given a date to return to court. When IW could not reach his court appointed lawyer and when the court appointed lawyer did not return IW’s calls, IW contacted Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. Attorney Lewin and IW met and IW subsequently retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin reviewed the police reports with IW and told IW that the Commonwealth would have a very difficult time proving either one of the charges against IW. Attorney Lewin told IW that the evidence was not there to prove either of the charges and that he absolutely should take the case to trial. Attorney Lewin explained to IW that the Commonwealth would not dismiss the case prior to the trial date. Clients have a difficult time accepting the fact that the District Attorney’s Office will NOT dismiss a domestic abuse case prior to the trial date.

On December 12, 2019 IW and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court for IW’s pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin approached the Assistant District Attorney about dismissing the case but the Assistant DA said they will not dismiss a domestic abuse case prior to trial. The case was continued for a jury trial to February 3, 2020.

Continue reading

by

On July 24, 2019 SB, a 74 year old retired administrator from North Andover, was driving from Peabody Center westerly on Route 114 toward Danvers. As he traveled westerly he approached the section of Rt. 114 where the North Shore Mall is on the left and Kappy’s Liquors is on the right. He was in the third lane from the right. According to SB he applied his brakes and the car did not slow. He then turned his steering wheel to the right to pull into the parking lot of Kappy’s. There was a motocycle in the lane immediately to SB’s right. When SB made that sudden turn he collided with the motor cycle. The cyclist was thrown off the motorcycle and was severely injured. He had a fractured leg and a possible head injury. SB continued into the parking lot of Kappy’s and the police were called by another motorist. SB waited at the side of Rt. 114 and the police arrived shortly thereafter. Three witnesses at the scene all told the police that “the motorcyclist was travelling straight ahead, and the other vehicle involved turned in front of him resulting in the crash”. The motorcyclist told the police that he was travelling straight ahead when SB’s vehicle suddenly turned directly in front of him causing the crash. The police cited SB for reckless operation.

SB spoke to at least 4 criminal lawyers. SB met with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. They had an initial free consultation that lasted 2 hours. Attorney Lewin explained to SB that reckless operation carried a potential jail sentence of 2 years and a mandatory loss of license. Attorney Lewin downloaded SB’s driver history from the Registry of Motor Vehicles and it was terrible. SB had a prior conviction for Reckless Operation, 4 surchargeable at fault accidents, and 12 other moving violations. Attorney Lewin could sense immediately that SB was going to be a difficult client. SB thought he had all the answers and he thought he knew exactly how the defense should proceed. He was dead wrong and Attorney Lewin told him so. SB retained Attorney Lewin.

Attorney Lewin explained to SB why it was so important to try to kill the case at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. SB brought the citation to the Peabody District Court and requested a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin then went over to Peabody District Court and obtained copies of all the police reports. More importantly, Attorney Lewin met with the Police Prosecutor from the Peabody Police Department. The purpose of the meeting was to advocate on SB’s behalf to get the case resolved at the Clerk-Magistrate hearing without a criminal complaint being issued against SB – a very tall order given the facts of the case, SB’s driver record, and the severe injuries sustained.

Continue reading

by

On December 21, 2019 two men (JG and JM) who shared an apartment in Newburyport went out for a few drinks. They returned back to the apartment. It is at this point that the two versions of what happened differ wildly. The police reports contain the following: According to JG, who owned the lease on the apartment, JG asked the roommate JM to leave the apartment. When JM refused to leave an argument broke out and JM punched JG and pushed him to the floor knocking over a Christmas tree. According to JM, when they returned from the bar JM tried to go to sleep but JG began arguing with JM and JG pushed and scratched JM at which point JM pushed JG away.  Both men told the police that the other man was the aggressor. Both men told the police that the other man hit first. And both men told the police they acted in self-defense. JG had visible injuries and he had been the one that called the police. JG requested medical attention and was brought to the hospital. The police arrested JM at the scene and the police told JG that he would receive a notice to go to court.

On December 23, 2020 JM was arraigned in Newburyport District Court and his case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to January 27, 2020. JM was appointed a lawyer. JG received a Notice of a Criminal Complaint Application that had been filed by the police. The Notice informed JG that the police had filed an application against JG at the Court wherein the police were asking the Clerk-Magistrate of the Court to issue a criminal complaint against JG for Assault & Battery. The Notice further informed JG that a hearing would be held at the Court by a Clerk-Magistrate on January 31, 2020. JG met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin of Andover. Attorney Lewin explained to JG that you never want to be in criminal court – especially in Newburyport District Court, the toughest District Court in Essex County. Attorney Lewin explained to JG that the only people who “win” in Criminal Court are the lawyers because the lawyers get paid to be there. Attorney Lewin explained to JG that if JM refused to testify against JG then it was very likely the case against JG would go away and JG would not be charged. Likewise, Attorney Lewin explained that if JG refused to testify against JM the case against JM would likely go away. JG told Attorney Lewin that he did not want to be charged and he had no problem with the case against JM being dismissed.

Attorney Lewin called the lawyer that had been appointed to represent JM and proposed that both men refuse to testify against the other in their respective cases. The public defender agreed with Attorney Lewin’s suggestion. Attorney Lewin called the police prosecutor. The police prosecutor represents the police department at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. The prosecutor said that if JM had no interest in going forward with the case against JG then the police would not press the matter forward at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin told the public defender for JM to speak with the Assistant DA and to tell the DA that Attorney Lewin represented JG and that JG was not going to testify against JM.

Continue reading

by

On November 15, 2019 KA, a 21 year old Senior at Salem State, put his college enrollment and graduation at risk by breaking into a campus building and stealing a case of beverages from the school cafeteria. At 2:30 in the morning he and another student entered the building and were in the process of stealing the bottles of beverages when the campus police came upon the two students. KA and the other student ran. KA got away; the other student did not. The other student identified KA for the campus police as the other intruder.

The police applied for a criminal complaint against KA for breaking and entering and larceny; the application was set up for a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate at Salem District Court. The hearing was scheduled for Friday, January 17, 2020. Three days before the hearing, KA and his mother consulted with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin immediately took control of the case. Attorney Lewin obtained and reviewed the police reports with KA. Attorney Lewin then reached out to the officer in charge of the case and the police prosecutor and advocated for the case to be diverted out of the criminal justice system. The Essex County DA’s Office runs a diversion program the principal benefit of which is to completely avoid criminal prosecution. Attorney Lewin then went over to Salem District Court and met with the head of the diversion program and advocated for the program to accept KA. The program director agreed that KA was a suitable candidate for the program.

On January 27, 2020 KA, his Mother, and Attorney Lewin appeared at Salem District Curt for the hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate. At the commencement of the hearing Attorney Lewin pointed out to the Clerk-Magistrate that Attorney Lewin had already spoken to the program director and that the program director felt that KA was a suitable candidate for the program. The police prosecutor told the Clerk-Magistrate that the police did not object to KA’s case being diverted. The Clerk-Magistrate agreed and said that she was referring the case to the Diversion Program.

Continue reading
Contact Information
18 Kathleen Dr
Andover, MA 01810
Phone: 978-258-3520
Fax: 978-258-4565
E-mail Us
Map & Directions

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Lewin & Lewin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design