Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogBy late February 2012, CJ had waited until the last days to renew his California driver’s license before it expired. When he went to renew his license, however, the California DMV told him that his license could not be renewed because his right to operate in Massachusetts had been suspended due to an outstanding Massachusetts warrant. CJ was dumfounded, as he had moved out of Massachusetts in 1983 and had not been in any trouble since. More importantly, CJ drives as part of his job and could not continue working if he did not have a valid license. Getting to the bottom of this issue and getting his license renewed quickly was critical. CJ called the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (the “RMV”) to find out what was going on. He was informed by the RMV that his right to operate had been suspended because of a Massachusetts warrant issued in connection with a 1982 criminal case in the Malden District Court. CJ recalled having a case in that court which was continued without a finding in 1983. He believed, however, that the case was over and did not understand why there was a warrant. CJ called Lewin & Lewin on Thursday afternoon March 1, 2012. Attorney Joshua Lewin went to the Malden court and obtained the paperwork from the case. He discovered a warrant had issued because CJ had not complied with all of the terms of his probation and was in default because he did not appear in court at the end of the continuance without a finding and had not paid moneys owing to the court. Attorney Lewin filed a motion with the Court and got the case brought before a Judge on Monday morning, March 5, 2012. Attorney Lewin persuasively argued to the Judge that the warrant should be recalled and the case dismissed and that CJ should not be made to return to Massachusetts to deal with the issue. The Judge agreed with Attorney Lewin’s arguments, cancelled the warrant and dismissed the case. Attorney Lewin then appeared at the Massachusetts RMV and arranged for CJ’s right to operate to be reinstated. The Massachusetts RMV lifted the suspension of CJ’s right to operate on Tuesday, March 6, 2012 and entered that information into the National Driver Register. California received that information and CJ was able to renew his California driver’s license. CJ never had to leave California and within four business days of contacting Lewin & Lewin was back on the road. The attorneys at Lewin & Lewin frequently deal with license suspensions due to outstanding warrants and we represent out-of-state clients whose have license suspensions due to Massachusetts court warrants.
Man Caught Disseminating Child Pornography Avoids A Minimum of Ten Years in State Prison and Gets Probation
On October 13, 2010, JB was performing his duties as an active duty member of the Massachusetts National Guard when he received a phone call from his parents. A team of State Police officers were at their house with a search warrant for computers in the house. The State Troopers were in the process of tearing apart JB’s bedroom and were going through his laptop computer. About a month earlier, the State Police had performed an online investigation into the possession and dissemination of child pornography through online computer file sharing networks, such as “Limewire”. During that investigation, they identified a computer at JB’s house as sharing files containing child pornography. The State Police obtained a search warrant and, in the course of searching his computer in the home, found the file sharing program “Limewire” on his computer and located dozens of files containing child pornography. JB was instructed to return home at once. JB drove home in a complete panic. When he arrived at his house, the State Police sat him down and began questioning him about the child pornography they had just found. JB was subsequently charged in the Woburn District Court with possession of Child Pornography and Possession with the intent to disseminate child pornography. After several months, a Middlesex County Grand Jury returned indictments against JB and the case was moved to the Middlesex Superior Court. JB faced two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of possession with the intent to disseminate child pornography. The third indictment carried a minimum sentence of ten years in state prison. In total, JB faced thirty years in prison. JB hired Lewin & Lewin to defend him in the case. Attorney Joshua Lewin plea bargained with the Assistant District Attorney handling the case. They could not come to an agreement on a recommended sentence if JB pleaded guilty. Attorney Lewin requested a conference with the Judge to discuss a potential plea deal. After a lengthy conference, Attorney Lewin convinced the Judge to sentence JB to a term of probation without any prison time. With probation on the table, on February 15, 2012 JB decided to plead guilty and was sentenced to four years of probation. Sometimes in a criminal case, it is in the client’s best interests to plead guilty. The attorneys at Lewin & Lewin advise clients through that process and are very successful in getting clients the best possible deal. In this case, JB faced thirty years in state prison yet got off with just four years of probation.
BOYFRIEND ACCUSED OF BLODDYING GIRLFRIEND: CASE DISMISSED
DK and LL had been in a relationship for several years and lived together at DK’s house. The relationship was good, except that LL had a big problem with DK’s ex-wife. On a beautiful spring day, the pair decided to take DK’s motorcycle for a nice day-long ride. They had a wonderful day together and returned home. That’s when trouble began. DK’s ex-wife called and began arguing with DK. LL was not happy with the manner in which DK handled the telephone, got angry with DK and began drinking. Within a matter of minutes, LL’s demeanor changed significantly, she became angry, intoxicated, and was yelling and screaming at DK. The pair separated–DK stayed downstairs and LL went upstairs. Eventually, DK went upstairs to go to bed. LL was not in the bedroom and DK crawled into bed and turned out the lights. Soon thereafter, LL approached and began yelling at DK and poking him in the back. She left the room and returned again shortly thereafter. As DK heard her walking towards him and then felt her hand touch his back again, he reached out with his arm to stop her. The next thing he heard was a loud crash. LL had fallen backwards and hit her head on a sharp marble fireplace next to the bed. There was blood all over the bed and the floor. LL ran into the bathroom, locked the door and called 911. The police quickly arrived at the house and arrested DK and charged him in the Malden District Court with domestic assault and battery. DK hired Attorney Joshua Lewin of the Law Firm of Lewin and Lewin to defend him against the charges. LL did not want DK to be prosecuted, but the Assistant District Attorney refused to drop the case and insisted that the case be prosecuted. DK and LL entered into an “Accord and Satisfaction”, which is a private civil agreement to settle the dispute without criminal charges. Such an agreement, however, requires that a Judge agree to dismiss the charges. In this case, there were photos of the crime scene showing substantial amounts of blood and a copy of the 911 call had been determined to be admissible in evidence. The Assistant District Attorney objected to the case being dismissed and the Judge indicated that his practice was to not dismiss these types of cases if the Assistant District Attorney objected. On January 24, 2012, the morning of trial, with all witnesses present in court, Attorney Lewin argued persuasively to the Judge that he should dismiss the case even though the Assistant District Attorney objected. There were lengthy arguments. Ultimately, Attorney Lewin persuaded the Judge to deviate from his practice and to dismiss the charges. The case was dismissed and DK walked out of Court without any penalties. There are many strategies for winning a domestic assault and battery case, including through the use of an ‘accord and satisfaction.’ The lawyers at Lewin and Lewin have a long track record of using these strategies to successfully defend their clients in assault and battery cases.
Man Caught Drinking 40oz. Beer While Driving Found Not Guilty of OUI
On December 31, 2010, New Years Eve, after having a lobster dinner at home with his wife, GS decided to have a celebratory drink. His wife, however, did not like when GS drank at home. With drinking at home out of the question, GS decided to take a 40 oz. bottle of beer and to go for a ride. GS proceeded to drive around the towns of Reading and Stoneham, drinking his beer out of a red plastic cup. About forty-five minutes later, GS was pulled over by a Reading police officer. After approaching GS’s vehicle, the officer smelled the odor of alcohol, detected a slur in GS’s speech, observed GS’s eyes to be bloodshot and glassy, and noticed GS fumbling through papers while trying to locate his license and registration. The officer also noticed a plastic cup in the center console half-full with beer, as well as a 40oz. glass bottle of Busch beer on the floor. GS was ordered out his vehicle. He agreed to perform “field sobriety tests” – including trying to stand on one leg for thirty seconds and walking a straight line heel to toe. GS failed both tests miserably. He could not complete the one-legged stand for more than two seconds before falling to the side. He did not complete more than two steps of the heel-to-toe test before losing his balance. The officer arrested GS and brought him to the Reading police station, where he was video and audio recorded for nearly forty-five minutes. The Reading Police administered the breathalyzer test and GS’s blood alcohol reading was .06. GS was charged in the Woburn District Court with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol (also commonly known as “Drunk Driving” or “DWI”) and two civil motor vehicle infractions. GS retained Attorney Joshua Lewin of the Law Firm of Lewin and Lewin to represent him. On January 19, 2012 the case went to trial and GS decided to have the case heard by a Judge alone and not a Jury. Two Reading Police officers testified against GS and the forty-five minute audio/video of GS was played for the Judge. Attorney Lewin aggressively cross-examined both officers and GS testified in his own defense. After closing arguments, the Judge returned a verdict of “Not Guilty” on the criminal charge of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol (“OUI”). GS did not incur any criminal penalties as a result and did not lose his license even for one day. The lawyers at Lewin & Lewin vigorously represent clients in OUI cases and have an enviable record of not guilty verdicts in the cases that go to trial.
Public Urination — Indecent Exposure Charges Dismissed At Arraignment
After a Friday evening bar-hopping and watching a boxing match at the Lowell Auditorium, JB was headed home. Although intoxicated, he did the responsible thing and gave his car keys to a friend. As he looked and waited for a cab, however, the drinking caught up to him and he had an urge to urinate. It was nearly 2:00 a.m. and the bars and restaurants were no longer allowing patrons to enter. JB found a dark alleyway and walked into it. He found a secluded doorway which he thought was out of sight and proceeded to relieve himself. He finished his business and began to walk down the alley when a police officer appeared seemingly out of nowhere. The police officer indicated that others had seen him urinate. The officer placed JB under arrest for indecent exposure. JB was charged in the Lowell District Court with indecent exposure. On Saturday, JB contacted Lewin & Lewin and met with the attorneys on Sunday. Attorney Joshua Lewin prepared a defense of the case for JB’s arraignment which was scheduled for Monday morning. Attorney Lewin appeared with JB in court on Monday morning January 30, 2012 and was successful in getting the case dismissed at the arraignment. Attorney Lewin got the case dismissed less than 72 hours after the crime allegedly occurred. JB walked out of the courthouse very thankful and “relieved.”
“Not Guilty” Verdict in BMC of Malicious Destruction of Property
JA went out in Boston on a “party bus” with a large group of friends on a Friday night. There was a lot of drinking on the bus and the party made its way to a club in downtown Boston. JA was drinking heavily and ‘blacked out’ at about midnight. He woke up in a jail cell at the Boston Police station the next morning. He had no idea what happened or why he had been arrested. The last thing he recalled was being at the night club. He was informed that he was being charged with malicious destruction of property in excess of $250 (a felony). In the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) on Monday morning, JA heard the Assistant District Attorney read the facts of the case from a police report: a citizen in the South End of Boston had called 911 at about 4:00 a.m. to report a young man yelling, screaming and kicking in the front door of a brownstone apartment building next door. The police responded to the scene and found the front door of the apartment building bashed in and broken. JA was lying asleep on the floor just inside the door, with broken wood from the door strewn about around him. The police officers woke up JA and arrested him. JA appeared to the officers to be heavily intoxicated. After his arraignment, JA hired Lewin & Lewin to defend his case. The Assistant District Attorney offered JA probation if he would plead guilty but JA wanted his day in Court. Attorney Joshua Lewin prepared the case in great detail and represented JA at his trial. Attorney Lewin knew that the government would have a difficult time proving that JA acted “maliciously”–a difficult standard under the law. The police officer and the property manager testified for the government at trial and were cross-examined vigorously by Attorney Lewin. When the government rested its case, Attorney Lewin presented a memorandum of law and argued to the Judge that the government had failed to prove that JA acted “maliciously” and that the Judge was required under the law to find him “not guilty.” The Judge read the memorandum, listened to Attorney Lewin’s arguments, and immediately rendered a verdict of “not guilty.” The Assistant District Attorney and the police officer were stunned. JA was ecstatic and could not believe it–he had just won a seemingly unwinnable case. Attorney Lewin knew that the case was won because of his diligent preparation and sound strategy. The lawyers at Lewin & Lewin dig deep into every case and look for every possible way to win every case. JA was the beneficiary of Attorney Lewin’s thorough preparation for trial.
Uninsured Motorist Gets Break
MM, age 50, of Wakefield, failed to pay his auto insurance premiums and his insurance company sent him a notice of insurance policy cancellation. The insurance company in turn notified the Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Registry sent MM a notice that the registration to his motor vehicle was being revoked due to lack of insurance. MM ignored the notices and he ignored the fact that his vehicle was uninsured. MM had four prior convictions for operating an uninsured motor vehicle. One Saturday morning he was driving and got hit by another vehicle. The police were called to the scene of the accident and quickly discovered that MM’s vehicle was neither registered or insured. In his last case MM had received a substantial suspended sentence with probation and a fine and a loss of his driver’s license. MM was concerned that he would get a committed jail sentence for this his 5th offense. For this new case MM retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney. On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Attorney Lewin and MM appeared in Malden District Court for a pre-trial hearing. Ultimately Attorney Lewin was able to negotiate a six month continuance without a finding with $500 in court costs. As a result of this disposition MM will not lose his driver’s license and in six months time the charge against him will be dismissed. MM was thrilled with the result.
Drug Evidence Suppressed
A Judge in Woburn District Court orders drugs seized during a motor vehicle stop suppressed. MD, a 22 year old woman was on probation in Salem District Court for possession of heroin, cocaine, and class E drugs. While on probation she got pulled over by the Reading Police; a search of her pocket book yielded numerous packets of heroin and several implements for drug use. She was faced with two cases: (1) the new drug possession case brought by the Reading Police in Woburn District Court and (2) a probation revocation proceeding brought by her probation officer in Salem District Court. MD retained Attorney Robert Lewin to handle both cases. The facts leading to the stop of MD’s car were as follows. A Reading Police Officer was on patrol in an area of Reading where there had been reports of suspicious activity at a house on a particular street. The Officer testified that he had received reports of numerous cars coming and going at a house on a named street. One night at about 10:00 PM the officer observed a black sedan exiting the street. He followed the sedan. The driver (MD) drove slowly and appeared to the officer to be driving “too carefully” so as to avoid being stopped. The officer ran the license plate and was able to determine that the owner of the car was a young woman with an open drug case in Salem District Court. He testified that he observed the woman who was driving stuffing what appeared to be a plastic bag into her purse on the front seat of the car. Based on those facts he pulled her over and searched her purse and discovered heroin. Before an officer can lawfully stop of motor vehicle the officer must have “a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that (the operator) has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime”. “A mere hunch is NOT enough” to justify a stop of a motor vehicle. Attorney Lewin filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence discovered by the officer following the stop of the motor vehicle. The Judge in Woburn District Court conducted a full evidentiary hearing at which the Officer and MD testified. After the hearing the Judge wrote a decision in which he ruled that the officer had a hunch, but not a reasonable suspicion. On February 8, 2012 the Judge allowed Attorney Lewin’s Motion to Suppress the drugs. The case is next scheduled for February 29, 2012 at which time the District Attorney’s Office must decide whether to appeal the Judge’s decision or allow the case to be dismissed. In the meantime MD and Attorney Lewin went over to Salem District Court to address the probation revocation proceeding. Attorney Lewin got MD into a drug treatment program (and she is doing well) and the notice of probation surrender in Salem District Court was withdrawn.
Drug Charges Denied
AK, a 22 year old woman, was driving home from a bar when she lost control of her car and her car smashed into a fire hydrant on the side of the road in Dorchester. The Boston Police responded to the scene and assisted her. No field sobriety tests were administered to her. The State Police also responded to the scene. It was determined that her car would have to be towed from the scene and the State police conducted a routine inventory search of the car before it was towed. In the car the State Trooper found a prescription bottle in the name of someone other than AK. The prescription bottle was dated 2003 and the bottle contained 19 Ritalin pills and 1 Vyvanse pill. The State Trooper cited AK for 2 counts of Possession of a Class E Controlled Substance. AK contacted Attorney Robert Lewin; Attorney Lewin instructed AK to immediately (i.e., that day) go to Dorchester District Court and request a clerk-magistrate hearing. The purpose of requesting a hearing is to try to prevent a criminal complaint from issuing against AK. AK requested a hearing and a hearing was set up. In preparation for the hearing it was learned that the pills belonged to AK’s boss who had been in AK’s car in the several days before the accident. AK’s boss’s car was in the shop getting repaired and AK had been driving her boss around. The boss used that particular prescription bottle to carry a supply of her prescription medication. The bottle had apparently fallen out of the boss’s purse and when AK found it on the floor of the car AK put the bottle in her own purse to return it to her boss the following day. In preparation for the hearing Attorney Lewin with the help of AK and her boss brought the following evidence to Dorchester District Court for the hearing: (1) A work order and bill from the repair shop to prove that the boss’s car was in the shop; (2) A letter from the boss’s doctor stating that the Doctor had prescribed the medications that were found; (3) The boss’s written prescriptions from the pharmacy to show that the pills had been obtained pursuant to a valid prescription. Attorney Lewin met with AK and her boss and fully prepared them to testify at the hearing. On February 9, 2012 Attorney Lewin, AK, and her boss appeared at Dorchester District Court. At the hearing the Clerk-Magistrate DENIED the application of the State Police for a criminal complaint against AK. This was a significant win for AK. She is a student at a prestigious college in Boston and could not afford to have a criminal record for a drug case. By getting a clerk-magistrate hearing we were able to avoid having a criminal complaint issue against AK and she has NO criminal record.
DRUG DEALING CHARGE REDUCED
On December 22, 2011 EO drove from his home in Woburn to the parking lot of the Chateau restaurant off Route 93 in Andover. He waited. Shortly after his arrival a vehicle with New Hampshire plates pulled in. A woman exited the vehicle with NH plates and she got into EO’s vehicle. All this was happening under the watchful eye of an undercover State Trooper who was sitting in an unmarked car in the same parking lot. It appeared to the officer as if an exchange of some type was taking place in EO’s car. After a while the woman got out of EO’s car and headed back to her car. The undercover trooper went over to EO’s car and told EO to stay put. The trooper then went over to the woman’s car; according to the trooper she admitted selling 90 percocette pills to EO. The trooper arrested her. The trooper then went over to EO and asked EO if EO had anything the trooper should know about. EO handed the trooper a plastic bag with the 90 percocette pills. EO said the pills were for his own use; the Trooper said tell it to the judge and arrested EO and charged him with Possession of Class B with intent to distribute. This is a felony and a conviction carries a three year loss of license. EO retained Attorney Robert Lewin. EO insisted the pills were for his own use and that he was not a dealer. The history that EO presented is very common. EO had been employed by the public works department of a small town north of Boston. In 2005 he fell down a 30 foot manhole fracturing his leg. He had surgery on his leg and a rod was implanted with screws. When he was discharged from the hospital he was given a prescription for percocette – a highly addictive pain medication. In 2010 he developed an infection around the surgical location and a second operation was conducted. For the pain he was again prescribed percocette. He became addicted to the percocette and bought them in bulk from a drug dealer (the woman). Attorney Lewin obtained the following pieces of evidence and presented them to the Assistant District Attorney in an effort to get the DA’s Office to reduce the charge from Possession with Intent To Distribute to Simple Possession: (1) A color photo taken in 2005 of the open manhole into which the EO had fallen; (2) the fire department report from the day of the accident of the rescue of EO from the manhole; (3) the ambulance report showing that EO had been brought to the hospital; (4) the surgical report from Mass. General Hospital detailing the implant of the rod and screws into EO’s leg; (5) an x-ray showing the rod and screws in EO’s leg; (6) the discharge summary from the hospital showing the prescription for percocette; (7) the hospital reports from 2010 showing the second surgery and the re-prescribing of percocette. Attorney Lewin presented all this evidence to the Assistant DA. The Assistant DA was convinced that EO was not a drug dealer and that these pills were for EO’s personal use in controlling his pain. The DA dropped the “intent to distribute” charge. On February 8, 2012 EO and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court and the Judge took the reduced charge of simple possession and continued it without a finding for one year. If EO stays out of trouble for the one year the case will be dismissed and then the record can be sealed. As a result there is no conviction and no loss of license and in one year EO’s record will be wiped clean.