by

On April 23, 2014, BN, a 20 year old male from Tewksbury, was driving on his way to work. He was on Livingston Street in Tewksbury. A car was parked on the right side of the road with its hazard lights on. That car was half way in the travel lane and half way over the fog line. BN approached the stopped vehicle, slowed, put his left directional signal on, proceeded over the center line of the road, passed the stopped vehicle, and then went back into his lane of travel. An unmarked car pulled up behind BN and began to blink its lights. The unmarked car got right on BN’s tail. BN continued on. The unmarked car then pulled alongside BN and the operator held up a police badge. BN pulled over. An off-duty Tewksbury Police Officer came out of the unmarked car and approached BN. The off-duty police officer called for a cruiser and an on-duty police officer responded to the scene. BN was ordered out of his car; he was patted down by the police; the police searched his car. The police found nothing. The police then gave BN a citation for speeding and two marked lane violations.

BN requested a hearing and mailed in the citation. BN went to the first hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate without a lawyer and lost. BN appealed.

BN retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover for the appeal hearing in front of the Judge. BN met with Attorney Lewin and fully prepared for the hearing. BN and Attorney Lewin went over the facts of the case in great detail. Attorney Lewin thoroughly prepared BN to testify. Attorney Lewin had BN practice his testimony as if they were in Court.

Continue reading

by

On March 12, 2015 FD stole from a store in Lynnfield. The reader is directed to the posting below dated April 29, 2015. Attorney Lewin represented FD at her Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing in Peabody District Court in that case and got the Clerk-Magistrate to continue the hearing for six months with no complaint to issue as long as FD stayed out of trouble. Unfortunately for FD on June 26, 2015 she went into the Shoe Market in Lynnfield and got caught stealing a $126.00 pair of shoes. FD received notices from the Peabody District Court that on July 22, 2015 a hearing would be held in Peabody District Court (1) to decide if a criminal complaint for the new shoplifting case would be issued against her and (2) to decide what action would be taken on the old, still open, case. FD once again retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. FD was at risk of having two criminal complaints for either shoplifting or larceny being issued against her. Attorney Lewin and FD and FD’s husband put together a strategy and plan of action to try to maximize the chances of not having criminal complaints be issued. FD enrolled in a Shoplifting Prevention Program; FD – who clearly is having psychological problems – enrolled in a treatment program with a licensed psychologist; FD’s husband went to the Shoe Market and apologized to the owner of the store and paid the store owner the $126.00 for the pair of shoes FD had stolen.

On July 22, 2015 FD, her husband, and Attorney Robert Lewin appeared in Peabody District Court for the hearing. Attorney Lewin presented the Clerk-Magistrate with a report from the psychologist and with proof that FD was enrolled in the Shoplifting Prevention Program. Attorney Lewin made an impassioned argument to the Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaints against FD. The Clerk-Magistrate agreed and continued the hearing for one year. If FD can stay out of trouble then on July 22, 2016 both applications for criminal complaint against FD will be dismissed and she does not have to return o court.

As a result of this disposition it is important to note the following:

Continue reading

by

On November 20, 2014, ET, a 21 year old male, was being watched by the Lawrence Police. Following a drug transaction in ET’s car he got pulled over for speeding. Following the stop the police seized cocaine and percocette pills from ET. The police arrested ET and the next day he appeared in Court for an arraignment. ET’s case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to January 22, 2015. ET was/is a drug dependent person and was/is in need of drug treatment.

ET and his parents visited Attorney Robert Lewin in North Andover and retained Attorney Lewin to represent ET in this case. ET’s parents got ET into treatment immediately. Prior to the pre-trial hearing Attorney Lewin went over to the DA’s Office at Lawrence District Court and met with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case. Attorney Lewin was able to negotiate a general continuance of the case with a dismissal. On January 22, 2015, Attorney Lewin and ET appeared in Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin explained that ET was drug dependent, but that he was getting extensive treatment and therapy. Attorney Lewin advocated for the case to be continued generally and dismissed. The Judge adopted Attorney Lewin’s request and continued the case generally to April 29, 2015. When a case is continued generally there is no admission of guilt or wrongdoing. There is NO guilty plea; there is NO admission to sufficient facts. It is NOT a plea bargain. Between January 22 and April 29, 2015 ET remained in out-patient counseling and ET furnished Attorney Lewin with reports from his drug counselor and with signed attendance sheets from NA meetings.

On April 29, 2015 ET and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin furnished the DA and the Judge with copies of the reports from the drug counselor and with the NA Attendance sheets. The Judge expressed her approval of ET’s efforts and ordered all the charges against ET dismissed. Because these drug charges were dismissed ET is eligible to have his record sealed immediately. ET left the court house a very happy client.

by

On March 12, 2015 FD, a 54 year old woman from Middleton went shopping at Whole Foods in Lynnfield. Instead of using a shopping cart FD used her pockets and pocket book. She filled up her pockets with packages of food and headed out the door. Unfortunately for FD she was being watched by a loss prevention officer (LPO). The LPO stopped FD just after she went out the door of the store. She was brought back to the security office and the Lynnfield Police were called in. The merchandise ($124.00 worth of food) was fully recovered. The store gave FD a No Trespass Order and the police told her she would be summonsed to court. FD retained Attorney Robert Lewin.

Attorney Lewin reached out to the Lynnfield Police and quickly negotiated a resolution of the case that would NOT involve FD being charged with any criminal offense. The case was set up for a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing at Peabody District Court. On April 29, 2015 FD and Attorney Lewin appeared at Peabody District Court for the hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate. The Clerk-Magistrate adopted Attorney Lewin’s request that a complaint NOT be issued against FD; the Clerk-Magistrate continued the hearing for four months and ordered that as long as FD stayed out of trouble then on the four month date she would not have to come to the court and the application for criminal complaint against her would be dismissed.

As a result of this disposition it is important to note the following:

Continue reading

by

DT, a 68 year old woman from North Reading was charged in Woburn District Court by the North Reading Police with obstruction of justice. The case arose from the following facts. A man in his mid thirties was found in the parking lot of an apartment complex in North Reading obviously suffering from a drug overdose. He was foaming at the mouth and had to be rushed to a local hospital for treatment. The police discovered the man’s cell phone in the parking lot and seized it and took it to the station to search for clues as to what drugs he was on and where he had obtained the drugs. Within one hour DT, who lives in the same apartment complex with her son who is heroin dependent, called the police station saying that she had lost her phone in the parking lot and was wondering if anyone had turned in a cell phone. DT’s son was known to the police as a drug user and the police felt that DT’s mother was trying to get the phone the police had seized to prevent the police from finding evidence in the phone against her son. DT went to the police station and said she was there to pick up her phone. The police asked her whose phone she was looking for and she then said the phone belonged to her son but she had referred to it as her phone because she paid for it. The police asked her for the phone number and she gave it to the police. The police dialed the number and it went to DT’s son’s voice mail. The police accused her of lying and misleading them. The police charged her with Obstruction of Justice. DT hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin met with DT and her son and got a detailed timeline of exactly what happened.
In fact DT’s son had lost his phone the day before. DT’s call to the police (which was recorded) where she inquired about “her” phone being lost was a legitimate call. There was no evidence that she or her son knew anything about the man with the drug overdose in the parking lot. Working with DT and her son, Attorney Lewin interviewed an independent civilian witness who was prepared to testify that DT’s son had lost his phone the day before. The Government’s case was a terrible case and Attorney Lewin went to the DA and asked the DA to dismiss the case. The North Reading Police had it in for DT because her son was a drug addict. They refused to dismiss the case. The case was set down for trial. On April 14, 2015 DT, her son, the independent witness, and Attorney Lewin appeared in Court and answered ready for trial. The DA came to Attorney Lewin and offered “pre-trial probation”; Attorney Lewin refused and said to the DA the case for her innocence is overwhelming. The case proceeded to trial. Three police officers testified. Attorney Lewin’s cross examination of the police was sharp and went to the heart of the case – that DT had absolutely no intention of misleading the police. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case it was obvious that DT was innocent. Attorney Lewin rested without calling a witness. The Judge (this was a jury-waived trial) immediately found DT NOT guilty. DT had been terrified about going to trial; she did not want to go to trial and even considered pleading guilty just to avoid a trial. Attorney Lewin told her not to plead guilty to something she did not do. DT, her son, and Attorney Lewin left the court together; DT felt like she had been given her life back.

by

On February 17, 2015, DR, an 18 year old senior at a local high school was in the back seat of a car with several friends. The boys were drinking. The car was parked in an area that was closed and the police approached the car and observed DR kicking what appeared to be a bottle of whiskey under the front seat. DR was ordered out of the car, admitted to the police the bottle was his, and was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol. He was not arrested; the police applied for a criminal complaint against DR and a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate at Lawrence District Court was scheduled. DR had been accepted to a number of colleges and was still waiting to hear from other schools and was concerned that this case would get onto his criminal record and could affect his ability to go to college. DR’s parents retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the police prosecutor from North Andover and explained the situation to him and advocated for the case to be diverted out of the criminal court system and to be sent to the “juvenile” diversion program. Even though DR was not a juvenile, the Essex County Juvenile Diversion Program will accept young adults in certain cases. Attorney Lewin also spoke directly with the people from the Diversion Program and they agreed that DR was an appropriate candidate for the diversion program.On March 26, 2015 DR, his mother and father, and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court for the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin made a full presentation to the Clerk-Magistrate of all the good qualities and accomplishments in DR’s background and why he merited this opportunity to keep his record clean. The Police and the Clerk-Magistrate agreed and the Clerk-Magistrate diverted DR’s case out of the criminal court system and referred DR to the Diversion Program. As a result of this disposition NO criminal complaint was issued against DR and NO criminal record was created. It is as if the incident did not happen. DR and his parents left the Court very relieved.

by

On Sunday, January 25, 2015, TD, a 38 year old male mental health counselor, was arrested by the Methuen Police and charged with two counts of Assault & Battery on his wife. One of the counts alleged that TD had strangled his wife. On Monday, January 26, 2015 TD was brought to Lawrence District Court and was ordered detained (held without bail). A full detention hearing was scheduled for Friday, January 30, 2015. TD’s family contacted Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin obtained the papers in TD’s case from the Court and then went to the jail in Middleton to meet with TD. TD’s family retained Attorney Lewin and Attorney Lewin prepared a presentation for the Judge for the detention hearing. Attorney Lewin also met with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case.
Ever since the Jared Remy case (he killed his girlfriend while out on release in a domestic abuse case) the Courts have gotten much stricter in these cases. Pre-trial detention used to be very rare in these cases, now it is commonplace.
On January 30, 2015 TD was brought to court and a detention hearing was held. An agreement was reached between Attorney Lewin and the DA’s Office that TD could be released but that until the case was finished he could not go home and had to wear a GPS device. TD was released and went to live with a friend in Haverhill. The case was continued to February 13, 2015. On that date Attorney Lewin petitioned the Court to allow TD to go back home and to remove the GPS device. After a full contested hearing the Judge granted Attorney Lewin’s request and ordered that TD could go back home and that the GPS device could be removed. The case was set down for jury trial on March 30, 2015. Attorney Lewin met with TD’s wife and she signed a marital affidavit stating that she would not testify against her husband. On March 30, 2015 TD and his wife and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court. The case was called for trial. Attorney Lewin answered that the Defense was ready for trial. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that TD”s wife was present in court and wished to exercise her marital privilege. The Judge had a discussion with TD’s wife and the Judge accepted her exercise of her marital privilege. The DA said the state could not go forward. Attorney Lewin then moved that the case be dismissed. The judge then ordered the case dismissed. This was significant for TD as a conviction or an admission of guilt of any type that he had strangled his wife would have cost him his job and potentially would have landed him in jail. TD (and his wife) left the Court arm in arm and happy that this ordeal was behind them.

by

On March 25, 2015, following a two day jury trial in Roxbury Municipal Court, HN, a 70 year old immigrant to the United States was found NOT guilty of three sex offenses in Roxbury Municipal Court. Attorney Robert Lewin represented HN and tried the case to a Suffolk County Jury. After the two day trial it took the jury only 40 minutes to find HN NOT guilty of Indecent Assault & Battery on a child under 14, NOT guilty of Lewd, Wanton and Lascivious Acts, and NOT guilty of Enticement of a Child Under 16 for a Sexual Act.
The case began almost one year ago on May 14, 2014. HN, then age 69, was retired and lived in the Dorchester section of Boston with his wife and one high school age son. They lived on the first floor of a two family house. HN’s landlord, the landlord’s wife, and their three children lived on the second floor. For the two years prior HN drove his son and the landlord’s youngest daughter (then age 13) to school every morning and he brought them home from school every day. On May 14, 2014 HN drove to the school to pick up his son and his landlord’s 13 year old daughter (Jane, a pseudonym). Jane got into the car. Jane testified that she got into the front seat and put the radio on and they were waiting for HN’s son to arrive so they could drive home. Jane testified that HN began to touch himself and began to masturbate; Jane further testified that HN reached across the front seat and began to rub Jane’s thigh. Jane testified that she the got out of the car. The next day Jane reported this to her best friend. In turn the police were notified and HN was charged with Indecent Assault & Battery on a child under 14 (the rubbing of Jane’s thigh), Lewd, Wanton and Lascivious act (masturbating in the car in the presence of a child) and Child Enticement (having Jane remain in the car while he performed a sex act). HN absolutely denied the allegations. HN sought out a lawyer and was referred to Attorney Robert Lewin in North Andover. After meeting with Attorney Lewin HN retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin began his case preparation and he could see cracks in Jane’s account of what happened. It took eight months to fully prepare the defense; every defense witness met with Attorney Lewin several times and was fully prepared to testify. Attorney Lewin brought the Defense witnesses into the courtroom prior to the trial and showed the witnesses where they would sit when they testified and how to direct their testimony toward the jury. Attorney Lewin thoroughly studied the “SANE” interview of Jane. (A “SANE” interview is an interview of the complainant that is conducted by a sexual abuse nurse examiner; the interview is recorded – video and audio – and the defense is given a copy of the interview.) On March 24, 2015 all the parties appeared in Court. Attorney Lewin had written out his opening and closing statements to the jury and had written out his cross examination of every government witness. No detail was left for chance. As the trial proceeded Attorney Lewin could see the looks on the faces of the jurors. Jane’s credibility as a witness was eroding with every question on cross examination. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case the Judge directed a finding of not guilty on the Child Enticement charge. On March 25, 2015 at 2:05 PM the jury went out to deliberate. At 2:45 PM the jury came in with NOT guilty verdicts on the remaining two charges. HN and his family were greatly relieved. Had he been found guilty he would have had to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years and he would have been subject to GPS tracking with a bracelet and he was looking at JAIL. HN, his wife and son gave Attorney Lewin a big group hug when they got outside the Courthouse. HN went home a FREE MAN. Attorney Lewin went home to his Sicilian wife who made him a big pasta dinner! It was a good day.

by

DL, a 25 year old Electrical Engineer from India, came to the US several years under a work visa program for skilled engineers. On November 28, 2014 DL went shopping at Kohl’s in Chelmsford. He filled his shopping basket with a number of items and then went to the register to pay. He paid for all the items except a pair of shoes that he had “stashed” at the bottom of the shopping basket. All of this was observed on closed circuit television by a loss prevention officer. DL proceeded out of the store and was immediately stopped by the loss prevention officer. He was brought back to the store; the shoes were removed from the basket; and the Chelmsford Police were called to the store. DL saw his whole future going by him; a criminal record of any kind could cause his visa to be revoked and he could be sent back to India. DL was released from the store and was told that he would receive a notice from the court. DL contacted Attorney Robert Lewin of North Andover.

Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the Chelmsford Police and obtained a copy of the police report. For persons who are not citizens it is critical to try to get these cases resolved without a criminal complaint being issued. The police assured Attorney Lewin that this case was being set up for a Clerk’s Hearing; this is critical as the Clerk’s Hearing is the chance to resolve the case without the client being charged (i.e. without a criminal complaint being issued). DL subsequently received a Notice of Complaint Hearing

Attorney Lewin advocated on behalf of the client with the police. On March 20, 2015 Attorney Lewin and DL appeared at Lowell District Court for the hearing. Attorney Lewin explained to the Clerk-Magistrate the significance to DL of a criminal complaint not being issued. Attorney Lewin presented the Clerk with all the positive achievements that DL had made in his life. The police were on board with not having a complaint issue against DL. At the conclusion of the hearing the Clerk-Magistrate said that she would NOT issue a criminal complaint against DL; the hearing was continued for three months and as long as DL stays out of trouble the application for criminal complaint will be dismissed at the end of the three months and no one will have to return to court. As a result of this disposition it is important to note the following:

Continue reading

by

NL, a 77 year old retired school teacher, and TN, her 75 year old husband, went shopping at a boutique store in Beverly recently. NL gathered up about $200.00 worth of merchandise that she wanted. Then she saw a purse that she just had to have. She took the purse and put it inside a shopping bag that she had. Subsequently she gave the shopping bag (with the purse inside) to her husband and directed him to go out of the store and to the car with the shopping bag; meanwhile she went to the register to pay for her other items. The loss prevention officers saw it all and brought both NL and her husband into the office. The Beverly police were called and responded to the store. The police told NL and TN that they had to stay out of the store and that they would receive a summons. The summons came. NL and her husband contacted Attorney Robert Lewin in North Andover. Because of their age and disabilities Attorney Lewin made a house call – he only does this with aged and infirm clients who do not have a way to get to his office. NL and TN were all nervous about having to appear in Court. Attorney Lewin told them not to worry, that he would get them a very favorable disposition. The case was scheduled for arraignment in Salem District Court on Wednesday, March 11, 2015. The day before the scheduled arraignment Attorney Lewin went over to the DA’s Office and explained the case to the DA. Attorney Lewin asked the DA to dismiss the case. The DA agreed. On March 11, 2015 NL, her husband, and Attorney Lewin appeared in Salem District Court. The case was called and Attorney Lewin explained to the Judge that the DA had agreed to dismiss the case. The Judge ordered the case dismissed. NL and TN were very relieved. The case got resolved both favorably and quickly due in part to Attorney Lewin going over to the DA’s Office and speaking directly with an Assistant DA before the Court date.

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