by

In 1986, BC was 20 years old and he had little use for authority. In that one year he was arrested for Breaking & Entering in North Andover, Larceny in North Andover, and Disturbing the Peace in Lawrence. In addition BC had a another case in Lawrence District Court on which he owed a series of fines. It all got a bit much for BC and he decided at the age of 20 to take what we lawyers call “the southern defense”; that is, he left Massachusetts and his four open criminal cases in Lawrence District Court and headed south to Florida. Things in Florida got better for BC: he married, had two children, and ultimately started his own roofing company. His children grew and ultimately left the nest; his business grew and he became financially successful. Then one day in late 2014 BC went to renew his Florida driver’s license and was told he could not renew his license because the NDR (National Driver Register) was showing a hold in Massachusetts because of four outstanding warrants in Lawrence District Court. Twenty-eight years after hitting the road his past had caught up with him. BC contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover.
Attorney Lewin immediately went over to Lawrence District Court and obtained copies of the court papers from 1986. Attorney Lewin examined the papers and realized that the officer involved in the most serious of the cases was dead. It also became apparent that police reports may not be able to be located on these cases and witnesses may not be able to be located. Attorney Lewin contacted the DA’s Office. The DA would not agree to dismiss the cases until BC came back to Massachusetts and appeared in Court. BC (and his wife) flew up from Florida and BC and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court on December 3, 2014. The Judge removed all the defaults in the four cases and cancelled the four warrants against BC. All the cases, except for the Breaking & Entering, were then ordered dismissed. The DA wanted a further opportunity to see if they could put the B & E case together. The Judge continued the B & E case to January 12, 2015 and ordered that BC was excused from appearing on that date. After leaving Court on December 3, 2014 BC and Attorney Lewin went to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles with certified copies of the Court paperwork showing that the warrants had been cancelled and the Registry then removed the suspension of BC’s right to operate a motor vehicle. That night BC and his wife flew back to Florida and within two days BC was able to renew his Florida license.On January 12, 2015 Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court and explained to the Judge that the Commonwealth could not go forward with the case; the Judge then ordered the B & E case dismissed. All four of BC’s cases were dismissed and he got his license back. BC is a very happy camper.

by

DN, a thirteen year old juvenile, and his 12 year old friend broke and entered into an unoccupied house in Merrimac, MA and set up a camp inside the house. While in the house they went through all the rooms searching and taking inventory. The owner of the house, who lived in another town, discovered the break and reported it to the police. Because of items left in the house, the police were able to track down DN and his 12 year old friend, both of whom admitted breaking into the house. DN’s parents contacted Attorney Robert Lewin of North Andover. Attorney Lewin explained the damage that a juvenile record can cause when it comes time to apply for college or private school. DN’s parents retained Attorney Lewin and Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the juvenile court session in Newburyport Juvenile Court. Attorney Lewin was very familiar with the Juvenile Diversion Program run by the Essex County District Attorney’s Office. When a Juvenile Delinquency case is referred to the Diversion Program the Juvenile must complete the terms of the program and must stay out of trouble. Once that is done the case is fully dismissed without the Juvenile ever having been arraigned in Juvenile Court. Because the Juvenile does not get arraigned there is NO entry made on the Juvenile’s CORI; that is the Juvenile has NO record. Attorney Lewin also contacted the head of the Juvenile Diversion program in Newburyport. Both the head of the Juvenile Diversion Program and the Assistant District Attorney agreed that DN’s case was an appropriate case for diversion. On December 16, 2014 Christmas came early for DN and his parents. On December 16, 2014 DN, his parents, and Attorney Lewin all appeared in the Essex County Juvenile Court held in the Newburyport District Courthouse. The owner of the property – a very obstinate and difficult woman – made the DA’s Office aware that she opposed the case being diverted out of the system. Notwithstanding her opposition, the case was diverted. DN will have NO juvenile record.

by

The problem with having a larceny (or even a shoplifting charge) on your record is that no one wants to hire a thief. Getting a job can be made difficult if you have a larceny conviction on your record. On August 30, 2014 H & W (a husband and wife in their early 30s from Salem, NH) got caught stealing 10 metal shopping carts from a large supermarket in North Andover. The facts of the case were unusual in the extreme. H worked for a retail store and was in charge of inventory. His job required him to off load merchandise from delivery trucks and distribute the merchandise throughout the retail store. The retail store did not have large carts and moving the merchandise became a huge chore. H got the idea that he would “borrow” ten shopping carts from the supermarket and use them to offload merchandise. On August 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM H and his Wife drove to the supermarket and each of them took five large shopping carts and began to push them on a half mile journey to the retail store where H worked. The journey took them up a long steep hill. Those carts get heavy. About half way up the hill they were exhausted and stopped for a breather. Along came the North Andover Police. The police made H & W turn around and push the shopping carts back to the supermarket. The police decided not to arrest H & W but told them they would be summonsed to court for an arraignment. In most criminal cases a “criminal record” is created when the arraignment is held. H & W received summonses to appear in Lawrence District Court for an arraignment to be held on November 5, 2014. H & W both wanted to avoid having a criminal record for larceny. H & W retained criminal Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the District Attorney’s Office at Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin prepared a background statement for both H & W and then sat down with an Assistant District Attorney and advocated for the DA’s Office to agree to dismiss the charges BEFORE H & W were arraigned. Neither H nor W had a criminal record and this incident was incredibly stupid. This was not the kind of incident that warranted giving H & W a criminal record for a felony charge of Larceny. In a “rare” moment of reasonableness the DA’s Office agreed not only to dismiss the charges but to dismiss them prior to arraignment so that a criminal record would not be created. On November 5, 2014 H & W and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court. The case was called and Attorney Lewin informed the Judge of the agreement that had been reached. The Judge then ordered the case against H and the case against W dismissed prior to arraignment. As a result neither H nor W has a criminal record. It is as if the incident did not happen.

by

On July 22, 2014 AA, a 35 year old banker living in Somerville, was served with an Harassment Prevention Order that had been taken out by one of his roommates. The Somerville Police served the order at about 6:00 PM and instructed AA that he was to have no verbal contact with his roommate. At about 7:00 PM that same night AA was at home and his roommate came into the apartment. The roommate claimed that AA said to him “What’s with the restraining order?” The roommate called 911; the police responded; AA denied saying anything to the roommate. The police arrested AA and charged him with violating the order. AA retained Attorney Robert Lewin.
Attorney Lewin spoke with the DA’s Office. Ever since the Jared Remy case the Middlesex County DA’s Office has taken a hard line on all “domestic abuse” cases and they refuse to dismiss them. AA had a fear of trial and was extremely reluctant to try the case. Attorney Lewin encouraged AA to take the case to trial as Attorney Lewin felt it would be extremely difficult for the Commonwealth to get a conviction given the lack of any corroboration of the roommate’s claim.On September 12, 2014, at the pre-trial hearing the DA’s Office refused to dismiss the case. The case was set down for trial on November 4, 2014. In the week before November 4, 2014 Attorney Lewin and AA and a witness met twice to prepare the case for trial. AA was fully prepared to testify and he was fully prepared for cross examination. On November 4, 2014 AA and his witness and Attorney Lewin appeared at court and answered ready for trial when the case was called. The DA’s Office had to answer that they were not ready for trial as their witness (the roommate) had failed to appear. Attorney Lewin moved to dismiss the case and the judge ordered the case dismissed for lack of prosecution. The lesson in this is don’t be afraid to go to trial when you have a good case.

by

On October 15, 2014, FD, a 14 year old Essex County High School student, in a moment of genius, sent a “prank” text to another student saying that if the student did not deliver a package to FD that FD would begin killing students at the school every ten minutes. The student receiving the text did not know whom the text was from and immediately brought the text to the attention of her teacher. The teacher immediately sent the student to the school security office. Law enforcement was immediately called in. Within minutes, the police investigation determined the phone from which the text was sent. FD was summonsed to the security office and was charged with Threat to Kill in a school. FD’s parents retained Attorney Robert Lewin. This could have been a disaster for FD; there is not a great deal of tolerance or sympathy for people who threaten to kill students in a public school. Attorney Lewin spoke immediately with the Police Officer who headed the investigation as well as the police prosecutor from the town where this happened. Attorney Lewin put together a written report of FD’s background and presented it to the police along with a written proposal that FD’s case be diverted out of the Juvenile Court system. If the case could be diverted then FD would not have to appear before a Judge and she would never be arraigned on the charge and, most importantly, NO entry would be made on her record. On Tuesday, November 4, 201 FD, her parents, and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence Juvenile Court for a hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate. Attorney Lewin was able to get the police to agree to diversion of the case. The Clerk-Magistrate listened to Attorney Lewin and agreed that notwithstanding the seriousness of what FD had done she was an appropriate candidate for diversion and the Magistrate ordered diversion. As a result FD will have no record.

by

SR is 47 years old and lives in Colorado. SR applied for a gun permit but was denied on the grounds that he had a warrant in Massachusetts that dated back to 1987. The warrant was for a misdemeanor charge of unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in Lawrence District Court. SR called the court and was told that he had to come out to Massachusetts to clear the warrant or he could try getting a local lawyer to help. SR called Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover, MA. SR retained Attorney Lewin late in the afternoon on Thursday, November 6, 2014. Attorney Lewin interviewed SR by phone on Thursday evening and on Friday, November 7, 2014, Attorney Lewin went over to Lawrence District Court and had SR’s 1987 case put on the court list for that day. Attorney Lewin spoke with an Assistant District Attorney and the Asst. DA agreed to dismiss the case. The case was called and the Judge ordered the warrant cancelled and the case dismissed. Attorney Lewin then obtained attested copies of the Notice of Warrant Cancellation and the Court Docket Sheet (showing that the case was dismissed) and sent them out to SR in Colorado so that he could now get his gun permit. Within two hours after court opened this problem was solved.

by

On September 16, 2014, GN, a 57 year old man from Wilmington, was accused of assaulting a female neighbor. The neighbor’s 11 year old son had been playing ball in the street in front of GN’s house; the boy claimed that the ball went under the bushes directly in front of GN’s house and that before the boy could retrieve the ball GN came out of the house, picked the ball up, and put it in his pocket. The boy went home and told his mother. The mother came down to GN’s house and rang the bell. GN came to the door and the neighbor demanded that he return the ball. GN denied that he had the ball and said he did not know what she was talking about. The neighbor walked away from the door and as she walked down the driveway she grabbed GN’s granddaughter’s tricycle and shouted to GN you’ll get the trike back when I get the ball back.GN bolted from the front door and according to the neighbor grabbed the tricycle and then shoved her. The neighbor called the police and the police responded. GN denied shoving the neighbor; he admitted to grabbing the tricycle. The neighbor applied for a criminal complaint against GN and GN received a notice of a complaint hearing from Woburn District Court. GN retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin immediately advised GN to apply for a criminal complaint against the neighbor for larceny (stealing the tricycle) in order to “level the playing field”. GN followed Attorney Lewin’s advice. The Clerk-Magistrate at Woburn District Court sent the neighbor a notice for a hearing against her for larceny. The two hearings were scheduled for the same time. In Massachusetts a person has a right to use reasonable, non-deadly, force to protect their property and to prevent it from being stolen. On October 24, 2019 the hearing took place. The Clerk-Magistrate heard both sides. Attorney Lewin had photos of the scene and had GN, his wife, and his daughter testify. Attorney Lewin had made a copy of the relevant law (that a person has right to use reasonable, non deadly, force to prevent their property from being stolen) for the Clerk-Magistrate. The Clerk-Magistrate found no probable cause to issue a criminal complaint against GN. GN walked out of Woburn Court having no criminal record and no criminal complaint to defend against.

by

On September 26, 2014 BQ, was driving from Western Massachusetts back to her home in Cambridge.She was transporting a substantial quantity of mushrooms (a Class C controlled substance) and marijuana (a Class D controlled substance). As she drove down Route 2 in Concord a local police officer ran her plate and determined that the car did not have a current inspection sticker. The officer pulled BQ over and approached the car. The officer immediately smelled “an overwhelming odor of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle”. The officer asked BQ where the marijuana was in the car and she said there was none. The officer told her that the car reaked of marijuana and BQ again said there was none.The officer ordered BQ out of the car and had her perform field sobriety tests – which she passed without hesitation.The officer told BQ that he would then search her car; BQ protested saying she did NOT consent to any search of the car. The officer went ahead with the search and seized large quantites of mushrooms and marijuana from the car. BQ was arrested and charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Mushrooms (Class C), Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (Class D), Possession Class C, Possession Class D, and No Inspection Sticker.
BQ retained Attorney Robert Lewin. It became immediately apparent to Attorney Lewin that the search of the car was unlawful and that ALL the evidence that the police seized (including all the drugs) would have to be suppressed. On July 9, 2014 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Cort ruled that the smell of unburnt marijuana is not enough to justify the search of a motor vehicle.
Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the District Attorney’s Office at Concord District Court. To her credit, the Assistant District Attorney agreed with Attorney Lewin and agreed that the evidence would be suppressed and that the Commonwealth would not be able to go ahead with the charges. On October 29, 2014 BQ and Attorney Lewin appeared in Concord District Court. All of the charges were DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. As a result of this disposition the cases did not go on BQ’s criminal record and she has no record. At Attorney Lewin’s request the police returned BQ’s backpack and the cash they seized from her at the time of her arrest. The drugs got destroyed! Every week, the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court are published and every week since he became a lawyer in November of 1971 Attorney Lewin has read the decisions. His ready knowledge of the law helped BQ avoid from having a felony charge on her record. BQ left the courthouse absolutely thrilled with the result in her case.

by

On July 14, 2014, JC, a 46 year old housewife from Tewksbury got drunk. When her husband got home from work she attacked him ripping his shirt off and throwing things at him. He called 911. The police responded. Photographs were taken by the police of the husband and of his torn shirt. JC was arrested. This was her second arrest for assaulting her husband. In 2013 she had been arrested and charged with domestic assault & battery by means of a dangerous weapon. In the 2013 case JC retained Attorney Robert Lewin and Attorney Lewin was successful in getting that case dismissed. Following her arrest she was brought to the Tewksbury Police Station; she was booked and held for court. JC again retained Attorney Robert Lewin. JC was arraigned and released and her case continued for a pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin met with JC’s husband and he agreed to exercise his marital privilege. In Massachusetts a spouse (husband or wife) may refuse to testify against their spouse at a criminal trial. The marital privilege only applies to testifying at a criminal trial. JC and Attorney Lewin appeared at Lowell District Court for the pre-trial hearing. JC’s husband was present at the pre-trial hearing and was prepared to exercise his marital privilege at the pre-trial hearing. The Judge ruled that the privilege could only be exercised at the trial and the case was continued to October 3, 2014 for trial.
On October 3, 2014 JC and Attorney Lewin appeared at Lowell District Court; the case was called and Attorney Lewin answered ready for trial. JC’s husband was present and was called forward. He exercised his marital privilege and the privilege was accepted by the trial judge (who happened to be the same judge who had refused to accept the privilege at the pre-trial hearing). The Assistant District Attorney stated that without the husband’s testimony the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute the case and the case was dismissed. In this case there was a recording of the 911 call made by JC’s husband to the Tewksbury Police Department. In that recording the husband tells the police that he had been attacked by his wife, that she had ripped his shirt off, and that this had happened before. Normally speaking, 911 recordings are not admissible; they are hearsay evidence. One of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is that if the 911 call contains an excited utterance or if the statements made to the police are made for the purpose of quelling an ongoing emergency situation or for the purpose of determining if a person is in need of medical care then the contents of the 911 call are admissible at trial and can be used as evidence against the accused. Attorney Lewin prepared a lengthy and detailed Motion to Exclude the contents of the 911 Recording. The District Attorney agreed with Attorney Lewin’s analysis of the law and thus the Commonwealth did not go forward with the trial. JC was very fortunate that her husband did not want to go forward and she was fortunate that Attorney Lewin was able to convince the DA that the contents of the 911 call would not be admitted at trial; for the second time she walked out of the Lowell District Courthouse a free woman.

by

On August 27, 2014, EG, a 58 year old married mother of two children went into the Whole Foods Market in Andover. She filled her shopping cart with about $150.00 worth of food; unfortunately she filled her pocketbook with about $130.00 worth of vitamins. She went through the cash register and paid for the food but did not pay for the vitamins. As she exited the store she was stopped by a loss prevention officer. She was brought back into the store; the vitamins were removed from her pocketbook. The Andover Police were requested by the store and they responded. The Andover Police did not arrest EG but they took her information and told her she would be hearing from the Lawrence District Court. EG is a dental hygienist and she was concerned with the potential effects of having a criminal record. EG retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover.

Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the Police Prosecutor from Andover and obtained a copy of the police report. In addition Attorney Lewin made sure that the case was being set up for a Hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate as opposed to a summons. When a person is accused of shoplifting and the amount in question exceeds $100 the police have two choices. They can file an application for criminal complaint at the Court and request that the Clerk-Magistrate set the application up for a hearing to determine whether or not a criminal complaint will be issued against the accused. The second choice the police have is to file the application for criminal complaint at the court and request that the Clerk-Magistrate issue the criminal complaint without a hearing and issue a summons for the accused to appear before a judge. This is a critical difference. When the application is set up for a hearing then the accused has the opportunity to “kill” the case before it goes any further. When the Clerk-Magistrate conducts a hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate has the discretion to NOT issue the criminal complaint against the accused. If the Clerk-Magistrate does NOT issue a criminal complaint then the accused does not have to go in front of a Judge and, more importantly, NO criminal record is created. There is no publicity of the charge.

On the other hand, if the Clerk-Magistrate decides to by-pass a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing and issues the complaint and a summons then the accused loses that opportunity to “kill” the case, the accused has to appear before a judge for an arraignment in open criminal court, and a CRIMINAL RECORD is created. That is why it is important to advocate with the police at the earliest possible moment to have the case set up for a hearing.

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