by

On November 30, 2017, SO, a 32 year old pipe-fitter from Methuen, MA, got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend. She began to break things in their apartment and then she attacked him. HE called 911 and asked that she be removed from the apartment. The Methuen police responded quickly to the apartment. According to the police report she told the police that SO had grabbed her by the throat and dragged her out of one room and into the kitchen where he proceeded to hold her down on the floor. When he finally let her up, the police report continues, he blocked her way in the apartment. SO told the police that she had smashed a picture frame and he denied ever grabbing her or holding her down. The police arrested SO and charged him with one count of Domestic Assault & Battery. On December 1, 2017 SO was arraigned in Lawrence District Court and his case was continued to January 19, 2018 for a pre-trial hearing.

SO met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. It was obvious to Attorney Lewin that the girlfriend had a Fifth Amendment Privilege not to testify. She had committed at least two crimes: smashing the picture frame (malicious destruction to property) and assault and battery (she had struck him). Attorney Lewin met with the girlfriend and explained the workings of the Fifth Amendment Privilege. She told Attorney Lewin that she did not want to testify and would exercise her privilege. Attorney Lewin then went and met with the Assistant District Attorney. As is their custom, the DA’s Office refused to commit to dismissing the case at the pre-trial hearing on January 19, 2018. The DA always prefers to continue a domestic assault & battery case to the trial date. Their hope is that the complainant (the girlfriend in this case) will have a change of mind and will decide to testify.

On January 19, 2018 SO, Attorney Lewin, and the girl-friend appeared in the pre-trial session at Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that the complaining witness was present in the Courtroom and that she had a valid claim of a Fifth Amendment Privilege and that she wished to exercise her Fifth Amendment Privilege. The Judge appointed a lawyer to speak with the complaining witness. The District Attorney objected. The DA pointed out that the case was not on for trial but was scheduled for pre-trial; the DA pointed out that the complaining witness could change her mind between the date of the pre-trial and the trial date. Attorney Lewin argued that the complaining witness had taken the day off from work to come to court, that the complaining witness was resolute that she did not want to testify and that she would exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege. Attorney Lewin argued that it would be a waste or everyone’s time and resources to make everyone come back to court on a later date to do what could be done on January 19. The Judge agreed with Attorney Lewin. The Judge accepted the girlfriend’s exercise of her Fifth Amendment Privilege and the Judge then asked the DA if they could go forward with the case without the testimony of the girlfriend. The DA reported they could not. The Judge then ordered the case dismissed.

Continue reading

by

On May 18, 2017, BT, a 70 year old retired social worker, drove from her home in Winchester into Harvard Square. BT spotted a parking space on the side of the street. She proceeded to pull into the space scraping the entire side of a car already parked on the street. She got out of her car as if nothing had happened and headed across the street to do some shopping. Fortunately or unfortunately – depending on your point of view – a Cambridge Police Officer witnessed the entire episode. The officer approached and asked BT to return to the scene of the accident. BT accompanied the officer and told the officer she had no idea what he was talking about. The officer told BT to look at the damage to the car. Again she repeated that she had done nothing and she had no idea what he was talking about.The officer issued BT a citation for failure to use care and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. BT received a summons to appear in Cambridge District Court (in Medford) for an arraignment. On August 16, 2017 BT appeared in Cambridge District Court and was arraigned and the Judge suggested to BT that it would be in her best interest to hire a lawyer. Her case was continued to September 22, 2017.

BT met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. It became immediately apparent to Attorney Lewin that BT was suffering from some mental illness. According to BT the FBI had been following her for 24 years and this interaction with the police in Cambridge was all set up by the FBI. Attorney Lewin obtained all of BT’s car insurance information and then met with the Assistant District Attorney in Cambridge District Court. On September 22, 2017 BT and Attorney Lewin appeared in Cambridge District Court; by agreement the charges against BT were continued generally for 3 months. On December 22, 2017 the charges against BT were dismissed.

A general continuance does not involve any admission of guilt or wrongdoing. It is NOT a plea bargain. The case is simply continued without any admission of guilt and then dismissed. BT was very happy with the result. About a week later BT called Attorney Lewin and went on at length about how the FBI was still out to get her. All Attorney Lewin could do was listen!

by

ET, a 30 year old software engineer from India, has trouble obeying the rules of he road. He ended up getting his license suspended but continued to drive. He then got arrested in Woburn and in Malden for driving after suspension of his license. There was a warrant for his arrest for the case in Woburn. Some years before ET had hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover to handle a hit and run case. Attorney Lewin was successful in killing that case in the police station before any charge was brought. ET again retained Attorney Lewin. Because of the warrant Attorney Lewin and ET went to Court right away. On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 ET and Attorney Lewin went to Woburn District Court to address the warrant. Attorney Lewin arrived at Court early and spoke with the Assistant District Attorney. Attorney Lewin explained that the license suspension was not for any serious motor vehicle violations. The District Attorney agreed to dismiss the charge. ET and Attorney Lewin walked out of Woburn Court with the warrant cancelled and the criminal case dismissed. The next day, Wednesday, January 3, 2018, ET and Attorney Lewin went to Malden District Court. Again, Attorney Lewin arrived at Court early and spoke with the Assistant District Attorney. Again Attorney Lewin explained that the license suspension was not for any serious motor vehicle violations. The District Attorney agreed to dismiss the charge. Within 24 hours ET had both charges of driving on a suspended license dismissed. On January 4, 2018 ET is scheduled to go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and get his license reinstated. It just doesn’t get much better.

by

On August 1, 2017 TX, a 35 year old technology service coordinator for a school district in California, was stopped at Logan Airport after a search of his luggage revealed 5 MDMA pills. TX had just arrived from Lisbon, Portugal and was due to catch another plane to his home state of California. TX caught break after break. The Federal Authorities said they would not prosecute the case and turned it over to the State Police. The State Trooper who arrived on the scene asked TX if he wanted to go to jail. TX answered “No”. The Trooper then asked TX if he wanted to get arrested. Again TX answered “No”. The State Trooper then told TX to “expect a summons”. On August 24, 2017 the East Boston Municipal Court issued a summons for TX to appear for an arraignment on October 26, 2017 on a charge of Possession of a Class C substance.

TX contacted Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover via phone. Attorney Lewin conducted an initial client interview/consultation with TX over the phone. The consult took about 1 1/2 hours. TX then retained Attorney Lewin.

Attorney Lewin obtained the police reports and reviewed them with TX. Attorney Lewin then contacted the Assistant District Attorney at the East Boston Municipal Court. Attorney Lewin was able to detail for the Assistant District Attorney all of the good points in TX’s background: TX’s lack of criminal record, good education, good employment, etc. Attorney Lewin and TX were concerned that having a drug charge on TX’s record would cause TX to lose his job in the school district where he worked. (Zero Tolerance Policy) Attorney Lewin understood that if the arraignment did not take place then no criminal record would be created. It is the taking place of an arraignment that creates a criminal record. Attorney Lewin suggested to the Assistant District Attorney a pre-arraignment disposition of the case.

Continue reading

by

On November 15, 2017, SS, a 33 year old entrepreneur from Maine, was driving from Maine to New York City to catch a plane to South America to attend a wedding. While on Route 495 South he got pulled over for a marked lane violation. One thing lead to another and during a search of SS’s vehicle the police found a digital scale, 3 pounds of marijuana, 10 grams of mushrooms, 15 grams of THC extract packaged and marked for distribution, and Xanax. In addition SS had $1,000 in US Currency.

SS was arrested and brought to Newburyport District Court where he was charged with the following offenses:

  • Possession of Class C with Intent to Distibute (The THC Extract)(A Felony)
Continue reading

by

MT, a woman in her mid sixties, lived in a single family house in Andover with her husband. Immediately adjacent to MT’s property lived a family in another single family house. MT had issues. MT did not like certain things that her next door neighbors did in their yard. When the neighbors would come outside MT would go out into her yard and stare at the neighbors. Then MT began shouting obscenities at the neighbors (in the presence of the neighbor’s minor children). The neighbors began to keep a diary of the incidents and finally in October of 2016 went to Lawrence District Court and both the husband and wife were granted Harassment Prevention Orders against MT. The orders were to expire on October 24, 2017. In December of 2016 MT  saw her neighbor in the yard; MT went outside into her yard and walked over to the property line and began to stare at the neighbor. The neighbor got out his camera and began to film MT. The neighbor then went into his house and called the police. The police came and arrested MT and charged her with violating the Harassment Prevention Order. MT went to court and was placed on probation for violating the order. As the one year anniversary date of the order approached MT contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin of North Andover, MA to fight the extension of the order. Attorney Lewin told MT that where she had plead guilty to violating the order and where she was on probation for violating the order that it would be an uphill fight to get the order vacated.

The law with reference to extending these Harassment Prevention Orders is that the plaintiff (the person seeking to have the order extended) has the burden of proving that there is still a need for the order – that is that there is still a reasonable fear of the plaintiff being harassed – at the time the extension is sought. The law is identical with reference to extension of Abuse Prevention Orders as well.

Attorney Lewin thoroughly prepared MT to testify in court and Attorney Lewin prepared a written legal memorandum for the judge setting out in particular that the plaintiffs (MT’s neighbors) had the burden of proving that they still had a reasonable fear of being harassed by MT. On October 24, 2017, after a full hearing at which both sides testified, the judge in Lawrence District Court ruled in MT’s favor and refused to grant an extension of the order.

Continue reading

by

On August 9, 2017 UL, a 36 year old building contractor from Andover, was at home with his wife and children. The kids were asleep and UL and his wife got into an argument. UL’s wife was sitting on a couch in the family room of their home. UL, a very large and strong man, picked up the TV controller and threw it. The controller hit a window behind where UL’s wife was sitting and caused the window to smash. UL’s wife picked up the phone and dialed 911. The police responded. UL admitted throwing the controller. According to the police report UL told the police that he threw the controller at his wife. The police arrested UL and he was brought to the station. The police charged UL with Assault by means of a dangerous weapon (a felony). He was brought to Lawrence District Court the next morning. He was arraigned and released. His case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to September 25, 2017.

UL contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover, MA. It became apparent to Attorney Lewin that UL had never intended to strike his wife with the controller. It also became apparent that he did not throw the controller at his wife nor did he ever intend to put her fear of being hit by the controller. A close look at the physical evidence showed that UL’s wife was sitting to the far left of the couch in the family room. UL was standing relatively close to his wife at the time he threw the controller. The controller broke a window to the right of the couch. It became clear that the controller was not thrown at her or towards her.

On September 25, 2017 Attorney Lewin and UL went to Lawrence District Court for the pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney about the case and showed her the physical evidence and how the physical evidence did not line up with any intent to hit his wife or to place her in fear of being hit. September 25, 2017 was a pre-trial court date, not a trial date. It is most unusual for the District Attorney’s Office to agree  to dismiss a domestic assault case at pre-trial. They almost always wait for the trial date. In this case however, the Commonwealth’s evidence showed that UL had not intended to hit his wife or put her in fear of being hit. The DA agreed to dismiss the case. The case was called and UL and Attorney Lewin went before the Judge. Attorney Lewin explained to the Judge that he and the Assistant District Attorney had conferenced the case and that based on the evidence the Commonwealth would be requesting a dismissal. The DA agreed and the Judge ordered the case dismissed.

Continue reading

by

RW, a 57 year old owner of a landscaping/irrigation business in Tennessee, received a notice from the Tennessee Department of Motor Vehicles that his Tennessee License was being suspended because Massachusetts had suspended his right to operate a motor vehicle due to an outstanding warrant in a Massachusetts Court. RW needed a license to run his business and to do all the things that we all do with a license. Unfortunately for RW the warrant was a probation violation warrant. Thirty years earlier, in 1987, RW had been found guilty of Larceny Over $250.00 in Cambridge District Court. He was given a 1 year suspended sentence and placed on probation for 2 years and ordered to pay restitution. Now, 30 years later, he was at risk of having that 1 year suspended sentence put into effect. On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 RW called Attorney Robert Lewin in North Andover, MA and explained the situation. Attorney Lewin told RW that he would call him back. Attorney Lewin called the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office and was able to get the details on the case including the bank to whom the restitution was owing. The bank was no longer in business. Attorney Lewin called the probation office at the Court. It turns out that RW’s probation officer from 30 years earlier still worked in the probation department! He was now the Chief Probation Officer. Attorney Lewin explained RW’s situation to the Chief Probation Officer and explained that the bank was no longer in existence. As promised, Attorney Lewin called RW back (that same Tuesday) and explained the situatuion to RW and explained that he felt he could get the warrant canceled and the case resolved without RW coming to Massachusetts. The next day, Wednesday, October 11, 2017, RW hired Attorney Lewin. The following day, less than 24 hours after being retained, Attorney Lewin went to Cambridge District Court and had the case sent into the Courtroom. Attorney Lewin explained to the Judge that the bank was no longer in existence and that the probation office was not looking for any additional sanction. Attorney Lewin explained that RW had left Massachusetts and moved to Tennessee shortly after being placed on probation. Attorney Lewin asked the Judge (a) to waive (excuse) RW’s appearance in court, (b) to allow Attorney Lewin to appear in RW’s absence, (c) to order the warrant canceled, (d) to terminate RW’s probation, and (e) to discharge RW from any further responsibility to the Court. The Judge granted the request and the case was closed.

Attorney Lewin left the courthouse at 9:35 AM and called RW. RW could not believe the news. Attorney Lewin explained to RW that it would take 24 hours for the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to remove the suspension of RW’s right to drive and an additional 24 hours for that to get entered into the National Driver Registry. Two days later RW walked into the Tennessee Department of Motor Vehicles and got his Tennessee License reinstated.

After 42 years of criminal defense practice and 4 years before that as an Assistant District Attorney, Attorney Lewin knew just whom to call and what to say to get the quick and most favorable result possible.

by

Introduction to this case summary and a personal note from Attorney Robert Lewin: Attorney Robert Lewin became a lawyer in 1971. Forty years earlier in 1931 Attorney Robert Lewin’s father, Henry Lewin, became a lawyer. Henry Lewin practiced law until his death in 1987. One of the many lessons that father imparted to son was that a case well prepared was ninety percent won. Attorney Robert Lewin has made it his mission to ALWAYS be prepared when he walks into the courtroom. In addition, Attorney Robert Lewin always makes sure that the client is fully prepared for what lies ahead with their case. The case of DL which follows is an example of a case being won before trial by thorough preparation and by a lawyer and a client working closely together to get a desired result.

DL, a 37 year old male acupuncturist from Methuen, was in a relationship with a 41 year old male accountant from Waltham. The relationship turned stormy and a torrent of emails and texts were exchanged between the two men. The accountant, who had a flair for embellishment, went to Waltham District Court and applied for an Abuse Prevention Order against DL. The Judge in Waltham, based on the affidavit written by the accountant, granted the accountant an ex parte order. An ex parte order is an order that is granted without any notice being given to the other side. The order was faxed to the Methuen Police. The police then served the order on DL. Later in the day that the order was served on DL, DL went to the Methuen Police Department to show them messages that had been sent by the accountant to DL. DL left the police station with his phone in his pocket. Several hours later the Methuen Police went to DL’s home and arrested him for three counts of violating the Abuse Prevention Order.

According to the police report from the Waltham Police shortly after DL was served with the Abuse Prevention Order a call was sent from DL’s iPhone to his ex-boyfriend’s phone. Also according to the police report there was a text allegedly sent by DL to the ex-boyfriend from a phone number that the ex-boyfriend claimed that DL used. Lastly according to the police report there was a telephone call allegedly from from DL’s phone to the ex-boyfriend’s phone.

Continue reading

by

This case goes under the heading of “Some guys just don’t know when to quit.” KQ, a 32 year old security guard, and his former girl friend (BG), a 30 year old nurse, had one child – a six month old daughter. In the late fall of 2016 their relationship came to an end. KQ was licensed in MA to carry a firearm and he lawfully possessed a gun. On December 17, 2016, KQ, unhappy with the breakup of their relationship, sent an angry text message to BG. In the text message he wrote: “If anything happens to my daughter, you and your partner will get shot.”. BG ignored the text. On February 21, 2017 KQ – still angry over the breakup of the relationship – went to BG’s house in Lawrence. BG tells him to leave and slaps him across the face. KQ goes to the Lawrence Police Department and makes a complaint against BG for an assault and battery! The police go to BG’s house and speak with her. She admits that she slapped him but then she shows the police the text message that he sent her back in December in which he threatened to shoot her. The police charge them both. They charge him with threat to kill and they charge her with assault and battery. KQ consults with and hires Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover.

Attorney Lewin and KQ had a lengthy discussion about KQ’s actions. It took a while but KQ finally acknowledged how stupid he was to put the threat in writing in a text message and how even more stupid he was to go to the police after BG slapped him across the face.

In any event both KQ and BG were arraigned in Lawrence District Court. BG retained an attorney whom Attorney Lewin knows well. Attorney Lewin called BG’s attorney and proposed that both KQ and BG would exercise their Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against one another. This would make prosecution of either case very difficult for the state. BG’s attorney agreed.

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 – 2025, Lewin & Lewin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design