by

JC, a 28 year old laborer from Lawrence, MA lost two fingertips in an industrial saw accident in May of 2012. His doctors prescribed percocette for the pain and he became addicted. To support his habit he became a low level percocette dealer.

On February 26, 2013 JC and another dealer drove to the Burger King on Route 110 in Methuen, MA. JC was driving. JC pulled alongside a Mercedes in the BK parking lot and the passenger in JC’s car exchanged drugs for money with the driver of the Mercedes. JC then pulled his vehicle alongside another vehicle in the parking lot and once again the passenger in JC’s car exchanged drugs for money with the driver of the other vehicle. All of this was being watched by undercover police in the parking lot. The Mercedes got away but the second vehicle was stopped as it exited the parking lot. The operator gave up the drugs he had purchased and told the police that he had purchased the drugs from the passenger in JC’s vehicle. JC’s vehicle with both JC and his passenger still inside was surrounded in the parking lot by the police. Both JC and the passenger were ordered out of the car. The passenger was searched and drugs packaged for sale were found on his person and under the front passenger seat. In addition a small packet of heroin was found in his pant waist. JC had no drugs (or money) on himself. Nevertheless both JC and his passenger were charged with Distribution of Drugs.

JC had a decent case to take to trial. He had not personally distributed any drug and he had no drugs or money on himself. The government’s theory of the case was that JC had “aided and abetted” his passenger in distributing drugs by driving him to the parking lot and by driving him from one customer to another in the parking lot. In such a case the law requires the state to prove two things: (1) That JC participated in some way in the crime, in this case by helping the passenger by driving and (2) That JC shared the intent required to commit the crime, in this case the intent to deal drugs. A person who is found guilty of aiding and abetting in a crime is considered guilty of the underlying crime (distributing drugs) and is punished the same as the person who actually distributes the drugs. If convicted JC did not face any mandatory sentence but he did face a three year loss of his driver’s license and the potential of a jail sentence. (Drug convictions in Massachusetts carry a mandatory loss of license – 3 years in the case of distribution class B with the right to a hardship license after 18 months.)

Continue reading

by

GC, a twenty year old man from Andover, has accumulated 11 surchargeable over the last four years. Under Massachusetts Law if a person accumulates 12 surchargeable events over a five year period they are classified as an habitual traffic offender and they lose their license for four years with the right to apply for a hardship license after 1 year.

GC let his license expire (he “forgot” to renew it on the renewal date). After a snowstorm on January 29, 2013 GC removed the snow from the front windshield but only in front of the driver’s seat. The rest of the front windshield and the other windows and the roof remained encased in snow. A police officer pulled GC over and gave him a ticked for unlicensed operation (a criminal offense) and impeded operation (a civil violation). Both violations are surchargeable and if GC were found guilty/responsible of either violation he would lose his license for 4 years.

GC retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin ran GC’s driver record from the RMV and his criminal record (from the Mass.Department of Criminal Justice Information Services). The driver record showed that in fact GC’s license was not suspended or revoked but had expired; however, the driver record also showed that GC was in non renewal status because he owed excise tax. GC received a summons to appear in Lawrence District Court for an arraignment on April 25, 2013. Attorney Lewin met with the Assistant DA before court and explained the situation. The DA said she would agree to dismiss the unlicensed operation charge on the payment of $300 court costs (the criminal offense) but the DA wanted a responsible finding on the civil violation. The problem with a responsible finding on the civil violation is that it would have given GC 12 surchargeable offenses and he would lose his license for 4 years.

Continue reading

by

On December 4, 2012 PS (a 35 year old electrician) was at home in Reading. An on-again off-again girl friend called him and asked him to come over for a visit. PS does not drive (and that is another story – he has a license but chooses not to drive) so the girlfriend (also age 35) drove over to PS’s house, picked him up, and drove him over to her house in Wakefield. Since their last visit he had broken off the relationship with her and had begun seeing another woman; nevertheless, he went over to her house that night hoping he might get lucky. The girlfriend wanted to talk about their relationship and wanted to know if he had “been cheating on her”. Words got exchanged between them.

According to the police report PS punched her and knocked her to the ground. Another woman who lived upstairs came down when she heard the argument/fight and according to the police report PS punched her in the face. The neighbor called 911 and the police responded. PS got arrested and charged with Assault and Battery on both women. The girlfriend got charged with assault and battery on PS (PS had scratches on his neck which fortunately the police had photographed) and assault and battery on a police officer and disorderly conduct. The neighbor didn’t get charged with anything. PS denied assaulting either woman.

PS retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin obtained the criminal record of the girlfriend; the neighbor had no record. Attorney Lewin went over all the facts of the case closely with PS and thoroughly prepared PS for both direct examination and cross examination. PS’s case was set down for trial on April 25, 2013 in Malden Court. On April 24, 2013 Attorney Lewin spoke with the girlfriend’s lawyer and it became clear that the girlfriend was going to exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify. On April 25, 2013 PS and Attorney Lewin appeared in Malden Court and answered ready for trial. Attorney Lewin informed the Judge that the girlfriend was going to exercise her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. The neighbor – who was also named as a victim – failed to appear. When the case was called the DA told the judge they could not go forward. Attorney Lewin asked the Judge to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The Judge granted the motion and both counts of Assault and Battery against PS were dismissed.

by

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 was a busy day for Attorney Robert Lewin. At 9:00 AM Attorney Lewin appeared in Malden District Court representing DB, a 50 year old man charged with Assault and Battery on his wife. As happens in many cases of alleged domestic assault and battery, by the time of the pre-trial hearing in this case Mrs. B decided she did not want to testify against her husband. Mrs. B spoke with Attorney Lewin and Attorney Lewin prepared a “marital affidavit” in which Mrs. B swore that if called as a witness against her husband she would exercise her “marital privilege” and refuse to testify. In Massachusetts husbands and wives have a privilege not to testify against each other in a criminal trial.

The DA’s Office was unwilling to dismiss the case at the pre-trial hearing and a trial date of April 17, 2013 was set. On April 17, 2013 Attorney Lewin, DB and Mrs. B appeared in Malden Court. The case was called and Attorney Lewin answered that the Defense was ready for trial. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that Mrs. B was present in the courtroom and was prepared to exercise her marital privilege. The Judge called Mrs. B forward and made inquiry of her as to whether she wished to testify or not and whether or not anyone had forced or coerced her into exercising her marital privilege. Mrs. B said she did not want to testify and no one had forced or coerced her into exercising her marital privilege. The Judge then accepted her exercise of her marital privilege. The DA said they could not go forward; Attorney Lewin moved to dismiss the case and the Judge ordered the case dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Attorney Lewin then left Malden Court and drove over to Cambridge District Court (now located in Medford just off Wellington Circle). HK, a 34 year old Egyptian national, was accused of Assault & Battery, Assault and Battery with a dangerous weapon (a headboard of a bed), Intimidation of a Witness, and Threat to Commit a Crime. According to the police reports HK and his 25 year old girl friend had gotten into a heated argument; it was alleged that HK got on top of his girlfriend and pushed her head into the headboard of a bed, took her cellphone, and threatened to kill her. According to the police report as she called 911 he fled the apartment. He was apprehended outside the apartment in his car. The girlfriend decided she did not want to see HK prosecuted; however, because they were not married she did not have a “marital privilege” and the government could force her to testify. In the police report there was an indication that the girlfriend had “pushed” HK; there was also a claim that the girlfriend had kicked HK.

Continue reading

by

In 1991, at the age of 18, AR set fire in a school building. He was charged with Arson and two counts of possession of an explosive device. He was indicted by the Middlesex County Grand Jury and in February 1993 he appeared in Middlesex Superior Court and was given three 10 year sentences to MCI Concord; the sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. While he was on Probation he was subsequently arrested for two counts of operating on a suspended license, one count of possession of a class D substance, and five counts of larceny. All those new cases happened in 1995 and they were all in Framingham District Court. Fearing that his probation in Superior Court would be revoked and that he would be sent to State Prison for his three 10 year sentences, AR went on the run. Warrants for AR’s arrest were issued from both Middlesex Superior Court and Framingham District Court. Years went by; he moved to Vermont; he married; he had two children; and he accumulated an Assault charge in Vermont and two DUI convictions in Vermont. The last DUI conviction was in April 0f 2012. In April of 2012 AR vowed to get his life on track. He got into alcohol abuse treatment. He joined AA. Vermont told AR that he could not get his driving privileges reinstated unless and until he faced the music in Massachusetts. AR contacted Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin went to Framingham District Court and Middlesex Superior Court and obtained copies of all the papers in AR’s cases. It turned out that not only did he have three ten year suspended sentences in the Superior Court but he also had a suspended sentence in Framingham District Court. But 18 years had passed and although he had not been trouble free he was now in treatment for his alcoholism and was doing well. A letter was obtained from his Probation Officer in Vermont; a letter was obtained from his Alcohol Counselor in Vermont; a letter was obtained from his present employer and his previous employer; attendance slips from AA were obtained; and a letter was obtained from his wife that attested to AR’s commitment to sobriety. Attorney Lewin had lengthy conversations with the Probation Officer in Framingham District Court and the Probation Officer in Superior Court. On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 AR and Attorney Lewin (and many members from AR’s family) walked into Framingham District Court. After a hearing all the warrants in Framingham District Court (6) were ordered cancelled, AR paid $2,148.16 in court fees and restitution, all of his cases were ordered closed. After 18 years he walked out of Framingham District Court. On Thursday, March 21, 2013 AR and Attorney Lewin walked into Middlesex Superior Court. His cases were sent up to a Judge in a criminal session. The Judge was given all the police reports about the explosive devices and the setting fire in the school from 1991. The Judge saw that AR had been given three 10 year suspended sentences with probation. The Judge also read all the letters that had been furnished by Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin made a simple but direct plea to the Judge. AR’s offenses had occurred 21 years ago; although he had not been trouble free during the 21 years he now seemed to be grounded. He had been alcohol free (and had passed every random drug and alcohol test he had been given in Vermont) since his last arrest for DUI in Vermont. He was now married and had two children and was working hard to support his family. Attorney Lewin closed his statement to the Judge by asking the Judge to terminate AR’s Probation and discharge him from any further responsibility in these cases. Before Attorney Lewin could sit down the Judge said one word “Done”. After 20 years of living in fear that he would be forced to serve the three ten year sentences AR walked out of the Superior Court in Woburn completely free. When AR and his family walked out of the Courthouse AR and his family burst into tears of relief and joy. He had been so convinced that he was going to have to serve the ten years he could not believe he was free.From the very outset Attorney Lewin had encouraged AR to think positively and to go about the business of getting letters that would help. As Attorney Lewin turned to leave, AR’s father, age 71, came over to Attorney Lewin and and gave Attorney Lewin a firm handshake and a hug and said “It was great to watch a pro in action.” That made Attorney Lewin’s day. Hard work, smart work, and perseverance paid off.

by

KB, a 34 year old army wife living in KY, went to renew her driver’s license in KY but was denied because her right to drive was suspended in Massachusetts because she had defaulted in a criminal case in Peabody District Court back in 2008. On Monday, March 18, 2013 KB wired a retainer to Attorney Robert Lewin. On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 Attorney Lewin appeared in Peabody District Court for KB. The default was removed, the warrant was cancelled, Attorney Lewin paid $200 in court costs from funds that KB had wired, and the case was dismissed. The following day KB paid a small reinstatement fee to the Registry of Motor Vehicles online and her driving privileges were reinstated. KB had been fretting over this case for five years. In one day it was resolved and she never had to leave her home in Kentucky. Attorney Robert Lewin has been practicing criminal defense law since 1975 (38 years) and has a remarkable record of success in clearing old warrants.

by

On January 8, 2013 PD, an 18 year old male, met CC on line. CC identified herself as a 17 year old female. The chatted online, they exchanged photos, they talked on the phone. One week later they agreed to meet and on January 15 PD drove to Lynn and picked her up and they drove around for a short time. They talked and both had a genuinely good time. PD brought her back home; there was no sex of any kind. They continued chatting and talking. CC told PD that she loved him. They agreed to get together again and on January 19, 2013 CC drove to Lynn again, picked up CC, and they went for a drive. She directed PD to a secluded parking lot. They kissed and talked; there was some fondling but then CC jumped out of the car. Eventually she got back in the car and PD drove her home. It turns out that CC was 14 years old and had sneaked out of the house unbeknownst to her mother. Several days later the police showed up at PD’s door and arrested him for Aggravated Rape, Rape of Child with Force, Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person 14 or older, Assault with a deadly weapon, and Threat to Commit a Crime. On January 22, 2013 PD was brought to Lynn District Court and arraigned and bail was set at $5,000.00. It took his family several days to raise the bail and PD was released. PD was bewildered as he had done nothing wrong. PD and his family contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin took a very detailed statement of the facts from PD. His story had a ring of truth to it. The details were consistent with innocence. Attorney Lewin got the police reports and the girl’s statements and reviewed them in detail with PD. Again the details all pointed towards PD’s innocence. Attorney Lewin went up the chain of command in the DA’s Office and ultimately spoke with the head of the sexual abuse unit. Attorney Lewin sent a letter to the District Attorney asking the District Attorney to critically investigate the young girl’s statements. On February 28, 2013 (37 days after his arraignment) PD and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lynn District Court and the District Attorney filed a Nolle Prosequi to all the charges against PD. A Nolle Prosequi is a termination of the prosecution of a criminal case by the District Attorney. On February 28, 2013 PD walked out of Lynn District Court a free man. This happened in part because Attorney Lewin got on the case immediately, promptly prepared the case, and advocated zealously for the charges to be dropped.

by

On February 3, 2013, JC, a 45 year old married woman, got into a heated argument with her husband. She had been drinking and eventually he ended up with a large bloody laceration to the back of his head. Some nick nacks got broken and a door got smashed. This was not one of her better nights. A call was made to the local police by JC’s daughter and JC got arrested and charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a felony) and Assault & Battery (a misdemeanor). The next morning JC appeared in Lowell District Court and was arraigned and released. Her case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to March 6, 2013. JC contacted Lewin & Lewin. JC does not drive so Attorney Robert Lewin made a house call to meet with JC and her Husband. Attorney Lewin explained the marital privilege to JC and her Husband and explained that if the Husband exercised his privilege not to testify against JC that it was possible the case would be dismissed. Every Husband and every Wife in Massachusetts has a privilege not to testify against their spouse at a criminal trial. This is called the marital privilege. JC retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin prepared and the Husband signed a marital privilege affidavit. Attorney Lewin contacted the District Attorney’s Office and sent them a copy of the Affidavit signed by the Husband. On March 6, 2013 JC and her Husband and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin gave the original marital affidavit to the Judge and explained the case to the Judge. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that the Husband was present in the Courtroom and wanted to exercise his marital privilege not to testify against his wife. The Judge asked the Husband if he wanted to refuse to testify against his wife and the Husband said yes. Attorney Lewin asked that the case be dismissed; the District Attorney objected stating that there was an independent witness (JC’s daughter) and that the Commonwealth could proceed with the case against JC without the Husband’s testimony. Attorney Lewin had previously interviewed the daughter and knew that she would testify that she was upstairs in her bedroom when the fight occurred and that she did not see any of the goings on between her mother and father. She heard loud shouting and that is what led her to call the police; but she did not see anything. The District Attorney asked that the case be continued for trial so that they could bring the daughter in. Attorney Lewin objected strenuously and told the Judge that the daughter had not seen anything and that her testimony would not help the Commonwealth prove the case against JC. Attorney Lewin suggested that the District Attorney call the daughter on the phone and speak to her (something they should have done earlier) so that the case could get resolved that day. The Judge agreed that that was a good idea. The District Attorney called the daughter and she confirmed that she had not seen anything, that she had been in her bedroom. The case was called again and the District Attorney filed a nolle prosequi. A nolle prosequi is a termination of the prosecution of a criminal case by the Commonwealth. JC and her husband walked out of the courtroom arm and arm and very happy. The case had been thoroughly prepared; the husband and the daughter had been interviewed at the start by Attorney Lewin and he knew what each of them was going to say.

by

SD, a computer engineer, and his wife, also a computer engineer, immigrated to the US from India. They are both permanent resident aliens. Tensions developed in the marriage and one night Mrs. D called 911 and the police responded. She told the police that SD had struck her and thrown things at her. The police arrested SD and he was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. These are both deportable offenses. SD contacted and interviewed a number of lawyers and after much negotiation SD retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin spoke with Mrs. D and he explained the marital privilege to Mrs. D. Fortunately for SD his wife decided that she would not testify against him. Attorney Lewin prepared a marital affidavit for Mrs. D in which she exercised her marital privilege. Attorney Lewin then contacted the Assistant DA handling the case and gave him a copy of the affidavit. On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 SD and his wife and Attorney Robert Lewin appeared in Malden District Court for a pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin put the Assistant DA in contact with Mrs. D and she confirmed that she did not want to testify against her husband. The case was called and Attorney Lewin explained the situation to the Judge. The Judge questioned Mrs. D to make certain that her exercise of her marital privilege was done freely and voluntarily. Attorney Lewin then asked the Judge to dismiss the case; the Assistant DA did not oppose and the Judge ordered the criminal charges dismissed. The threat of deportation is now completely removed. SD and Mrs. D have some work to do if their marriage is going to be salvaged, but the criminal case is gone.

by

DP, a resident of Washington DC, went to get his driver’s license renewed and was told he could not get it renewed because his right to operate in MA was under suspension because of an outstanding court warrant. It seems that in 2010 DP had gotten into a scrape at South Station in Boston and got arrested. He failed to go to court and returned to Washington. A warrant for his arrest was issued by the Boston Municipal Court. The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles received a notice form the Court and suspended DP’s right to operate a motor vehicle. That suspension was entered into the NDR (National Driver Register) and when DP went to renew his license in Washington he was refused. DP contacted a Boston Attorney at a large firm whom he knew and the Attorney referred DP to Lewin and Lewin. DP retained Attorney Robert Lewin. The day after being hired Attorney Lewin immediately went over to the Boston Municipal Court and obtained copies of all the papers and police reports in DP’s case. Attorney Lewin also went to the District Attorney’s Office and spoke with the DA Supervisor. After some discussion the DA’s Office agreed to dismiss the charges. Several days later DP flew up to Boston from Washington and on Thursday, February 21, 2013 DP and Attorney Lewin appeared in the Boston Municipal Court. The Judge removed the default, cancelled the warrant, assessed $200 in court costs which DP paid immediately, and ordered the two criminal charges dismissed. The cancellation of the warrant was entered into the warrant management system. DP went to the RMV, paid a reinstatement fee, and got the suspension of his right to operate lifted. He then flew back to Washington and got his license renewed. He is a happy camper!

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