Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogTK, a 66 year old retired man from Boxford, was caught stealing dinnerware from Building 16 in Haverhill. He was charged with Larceny Over $250, a felony in Massachusetts. A review of the facts indicated that TK had lost his employment as a result of the recession. TK retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin met with the Assistant District Attorney in Haverhill District Court and convinced the Assistant DA that TK was worthy of a break. On February 8, 2012 Attorney Lewin and TK appeared in Haverhill Court and by agreement TK’s case was continued for six months without a finding. The judge waived the probation supervision fee and so long as TK stays out of trouble the case will be dismissed at the end of the six months. Under the new Massachusetts Criminal Records Law, TK will be eligible to request that his record be sealed at the end of the six months.
OPEN AND GROSS LEWDNESS RECORD SEALED
The importance of getting a criminal record sealed cannot be overstated especially if you are looking for work. RL is a 44 year old man from Billerica, MA and is a driver for a major transportation company. When he got his job no criminal record background check was done. At the beginning of January 2012 RL learned that his company was now demanding criminal record checks on all employees. RL had a criminal record that went back to 1985 and culminated in 1990 with two convictions for open and gross lewdness in Somerville District Court. If his employer were to learn of those two convictions it is almost a sure bet that RL would get fired. On Thursday, January 5, 2012 RL contacted Attorney Robert Lewin for the first time and arranged to meet with Attorney Lewin on the evening of January 5, 2012. Attorney Lewin had prepared the paperwork to get RL’s record sealed and at their first meeting on January 5 RL signed the paperwork. Attorney Lewin immediately submitted the petition to seal record to the Board of Probation. On Monday, January 9, 2012 the Commissioner of Probation approved the Petition to Seal RL’s criminal record. Thereafter, RL’s employer had RL sign an authorization allowing the employer to obtain a copy of RL’s criminal record. The employer submitted the authorization and the Board of Probation reported back that RL had no record of any criminal court appearances. There are two methods of getting a record sealed: one involves a Petition to Seal submitted directly to the Commissioner of Probation; the other involves a Petition to Seal submitted directly to the court where the criminal case was heard.The type of Petition that is used is determined by how old the criminal record is and the date of the last criminal case on the record. In RL’s situation, his cases were old enough that he was entitled to have his record sealed by a Petition submitted directly to the Commissioner of Probation. This type of Petition is easy, quick, and inexpensive. The firm of Lewin & Lewin does many Petitions to Seal over the course of a year and is highly successful.
CLEARING OLD WARRANTS
MC is now age 48 and resides in Vermont. From 1992 to 2000 he lived in Massachusetts and had a string of criminal offenses that brought him into New Bedford District Court, Hingham District Court, Barnstable District Court, and Wareham District Court. His crimes included the following: Larceny By Check (4 counts), Counterfeiting a Motor Vehicle Document (Title), Larceny Over $250 (2 counts), DUI Liquor, Operating to Endanger, and Operating After Suspension of License. In 2000 he left Massachusetts and settled down in Vermont. He started a business and became quite successful. Then he got a notice from the DMV in Vermont that Vermont would not renew his license because of outstanding warrants in four Massachusetts Courts. MC retained Attorney Robert Lewin who immediately went to all four courts. Copies of all the papers from all his cases in all four courts were obtained. The DA’s Offices in all four courts were contacted as well as the probation offices in all four courts. The cases in Barnstable District Court and Hingham District Court required only the payment of money and the obtaining of certain papers. MC paid the moneys that were owing and furnished the necessary papers and the cases in Barnstable District Court and Hingham District Court were resolved by Attorney Lewin without MC having to appear in Court. The warrants in both courts were cancelled and the cases in those two courts were closed. The cases in New Bedford District Court and Wareham District Court posed additional problems for MC. Incredibly all the witnesses in the cases in those two courts were still around and were anxious to testify against MC. MC had screwed several companies out of substantial sums of money and they wanted their money back or a piece of MC’s hyde. The DA’s Offices in both courts were prepared and willing to try the cases. Lengthy negotiations went on about paying the money back and on January 26, 2012 MC and Attorney Lewin appeared in Wareham District Court (at 9:00 AM) and in New Bedford District Court at 11:00 AM. In Wareham District Court MC made a payment of $6,000 in restitution and the Larceny Charges against him were outright dismissed and the warrants were cancelled. MC and Attorney Lewin then drove to New Bedford. In New Bedford District Court MC made a payment of $7,000 in restitution. The $7,000 was one-half of the money that he owed. By agreement with the DA’s Office the warrant against MC was cancelled and the case was continued for three months to pay the remaining $7,000 in restitution. The DAs Office has agreed to dismiss the charges against MC outright on the three month date if the $7,000 balance of the restitution is paid by that date. As a result, MC has walked away from a combination of several felony and misdemeanor charges in 4 courts after having been on default (i.e. on the run) for 12 years. He did not spend a day in jail. All his warrants have been cancelled and his driving privileges have been reinstated. MC was so pleased he gave Attorney Lewin a bonus!
BILLERICA DRUG DEALER GETS CWOF
DA, a 36 year old iron-worker, made a sale of 4 perc 30s (Oxycodone) pills to two undercover police and was immediately busted. DA had a prior record consisting of 2 DUI cases, 2 assault and battery by dangerous weapon cases, and a prior possession of class D with intent to distribute case. A conviction for this new offense would have caused DA’s motor vehicle license to be revoked for 3 years with the right to apply for a hardship only after 18 months. DA wanted two things: no jail and no loss of license. A guilty finding, even coupled with probation, would have mandated the three year loss of license. DA retained Attorney Robert Lewin to represent him in Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin contacted the police and the District Attorney. DA had two children he helped to support and was temporarily laid off. DA had no interest in “rolling over” or giving up his supplier. After much negotiation Attorney Lewin was able to convince the District Attorney that DA’s case was an appropriate case to continue without a finding. On January 25, 2012 DA and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. The judge ordered the case continued without a finding for two years. In addition, the police had seized cash and a cell phone at the time of DA’s arrest. We were successful in obtaining a return of DA’s cell phone and one-half the cash. DA left the court a happy man. By getting the case continued without a finding DA did not lose his driver’s license and he did not get a conviction on his criminal record.
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY-WOBURN DISTRICT COURT
JN, a deliveryman for a home delivery service, made routine and frequent deliveries to a disabled woman at her home. One day while making a delivery she asked him to do a favor which he did. He told her he felt he deserved something for the favor. She went to give him a kiss on the cheek. He then kissed her on the lips inserting his tongue into her mouth. She retreated to her bedroom; he followed her and then proceeded to fondle her breasts (over her clothes), he lifted her shirt exposing her breasts, and he fondled her crotch area. He offered to show her his genitals but she declined. He then left. She was terrified. The matter was reported to the police. JN went to the police and confessed. He was summonsed to court and charged with two counts of indecent assault and battery on a person age 14 or over and one count of accosting and annoying a person of the opposite sex. A conviction of indecent assault and battery would have required (1) that JN register (for 20 years) as a sex offender with the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board and (2) that JN wear a GPS device for the term of probation (if probation was imposed). JN retained Attorney Robert Lewin. JN did not want to go to trial but wished to resolve the case with probation without sex offender registration and without GPS Monitoring. JN was sent to
DWI NOT GUILTY IN LOWELL DISTRICT COURT
DM, a 45 year old male nurse, and two friends went to a charity dance at the Tewksbury Country Club. After an evening of dancing and several drinks DM and his two companions left the dance hall and were followed out by an angry crowd who thought that DM and his companions had stolen items from the charity dance. DM and his companions got into DM’s car and left the parking lot of the country club and headed out onto the street. DM stopped in traffic and then found his vehicle surrounded by an angry mob. Several people in the mob began beating on DM’s vehicle, smashing the windows, and punching DM. DM sustained injuries to his cheek, forehead and neck and he sustained a fractured clavicle (shoulder bone). During the assault he attempted to escape and his car struck and the vehicle in front of his. The police and fire department arrived at the scene. DM was asked to exit his vehicle which he did. The police had him perform field sobriety tests which he was unable to do to the officer’s satisfaction. DM got arrested for DWI. He was brought to the station, booked, photographed, videoed, and bailed. After getting bailed he went to the hospital where he was examined. The injuries to his face and his shoulder were noted in the hospital reports. DM retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Investigation revealed that there was a video of the front foyer of the Country Club Function Hall. Attorney Lewin obtained that video. After sifting through hours of the video DM was seen on the video twice: once walking from the function room to the men’s room (and back) and more importantly once at the end of the dance leaving the function room, walking across the foyer to the front door. In both instances his walking was perfectly normal. He did not stagger or exhibit any signs of intoxication or impairment. Defense counsel was furnished with copies of the booking videos and the booking photos. The photos were initially furnished in black and white. Attorney Lewin insisted that color photos be produced and they were. The color photos showed the bloody injuries to DM’s cheek, forehead, and neck. Attorney Lewin interviewed the driver of the car in front of DM and he confirmed DM’s account of the mob assault on DM and DM’s car. On October 17, 2011 the case went to trial in Lowell District Court. DM elected to have a jury-waived trial (that is a trial by a judge alone without a jury). DM testified; the two people he went to the dance with testified; the driver of the car that he struck after being assaulted testified; and the medical records were produced. The Judge immediately found DM not guilty. The key to success in the case was in the full preparation for trial. DM and his witnesses were thoroughly prepared for both direct examination and cross examination. All the necessary videos and photos were obtained and studied. The medical records were obtained. No stone was left unturned. DM left the court a happy man.
SPEEDING TICKET BEATEN-LICENSE SAVED
RJ, a 54 year old man who drives for a living, was at risk of losing his license for three speeding tickets. He had gone to Haverhill (MA) District Court on his own and lost his appeal of a speeding ticket and he had paid a speeding ticket in California which was then reported to Massachusetts. He then got stopped on the Lowell Connector and was charged with going 71 mph in a 55 mph zone. The police were using a Lidar Device. If found responsible he would have lost his license. On October 5, 2011 RJ and Attorney Robert Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court for the hearing in front of the Clerk-Magistrate. RJ thought his case was hopeless. After a full hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate RJ was found NOT responsible. RJ and Attorney Lewin focused on RJ’s version of what had occurred and his testimony that he was going 53 mph. The Clerk-Magistrate found RJ’s version credible, the Lidar reading notwithstanding.
DOMESTIC ASSAULT DISMISSED IN LAWRENCE DISTRICT COURT
NF and her domestic partner of 23 years live together in Andover, MA. On September 21, 2011 the two women got into an argument; the argument turned physical; punches were thrown and a glass bowl got tossed and smashed. The partner called the police to get NF removed from the house. The police repsonded and saw the partner with a black eye and NF got arrested and charged with Domestic Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (a glass bowl). The police photographed the partner’s black eye. NF appeared in Court for an arraignment on the next morning and her case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to November 4, 2011. On Saturday morning September 24, 2011 NF and her partner met with Attorney Robert Lewin in Andover for a free initial consultation. During that initial meeting Attorney Lewin learned that NF herself had received several bruises in the fight and Attorney Lewin had photographs taken that day of NF’s bruises. Attorney Lewin prepared an Accord and Satisfaction and a Fifth Amendment Affidavit for the partner to sign. The partner did not want NF to be prosecuted and wanted the case dismissed. Massachusetts Law permits the accused and the “victim” in an assault and battery case to work out a financial settlement of the case. That financial settlemnt is called an Accord and Satisfaction. Upon the filing of an Accord and Satisfaction a judge has the discretion to order an assault and battery charge dismissed. The judge is not required to dismiss the assault and battery but the judge may order the assault and battery charge dismissed. Technically an Accord and Satisfaction does not apply in the case of a felony. Assault and Battery is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon is a felony and technically an Accord and Satisfaction is not available for the felony charge. In addition to the Accord and Satisfaction Attorney Lewin also prepared a Fifth Amendment Affidavit for NF’s partner to sign. Because the partner had exposure herself to being prosecuted for Assault and Battery against NF, the partner had an absolute right not to incriminate herself and therefor an absolute right not to testify in the case against NF. On September 28, 2011 Attorney Lewin met with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case for a pre-trial conference. Although the DA’s Office recognized that the partner had a right not to testify the DA’s Office was unwilling to dismiss the case at the pre-trial hearing. As they always do, the DA’s office was insisting that the parties appear for a pre-trial hearing and that the case then be set down for trial on a date thereafter. On Thursday, September 29, 2011(8 days after the fight) Attorney Lewin had the case brought forward and Attorney Lewin, NF and her partner (the named victim in the case) all appeared in Court. Attorney Lewin presented the written Accord and Satisfaction and the written Fifth Amendment Affidavit to the Judge. The Judge asked if the partner was present in Court and Attorney Lewin had her come forward. The Judge then determined that the partner had a valid Fifth Amendment claim. The Commonwealth conceded that they could not go forward without her testimony. Attorney Lewin moved for dismissal of the charges; the Assistant District Attorney objected and asked that the case be set down for trial. Over the objection of the Assistant District Attorney the Judge ordered the case dismissed. It took just eight days from the date of arrest (September 21, 2011) to dismissal of all the charges (September 29, 2011). Both NF and her partner were thrilled that the case got disposed of so favorably and so quickly. The results in this case are common at Lewin & Lewin. We don’t sit back and wait for things to happen; we make things happen and we do it quickly.
DRUG DEALER GETS BREAK AFTER BREAK IN
JP, a 25 year old construction worker from Woburn, occasionally deals in weed. One day he got up to go to work. He left the house and worked at his construction job until noon. He then returned home for lunch and discovered that his house had been broken into and his two safes had been stolen. JP then did what any bright drug dealer would do – he called the Woburn PD to report the break. The police responded and JP invited them into the house. The police took note of the evidence of the break but then in “plain view” also noticed baggies, scales, seeds, cuff notes, and the aroma of fresh marijhuana. The police asked JP where the weed was and he opened a drawer and produced two bags full of weed. The police report noted that JP said “I can’t believe they broke in and didn’t steal the weed!”. The police did not arrest JP but rather filed an application for criminal complaint against him at Woburn District Court for possession of class D (marijhuana) with intent to distribute. JP had a prior drug conviction. JP retained Attorney Robert Lewin. It took about 14 months for the hearing before the Assistant Clerk-Magistrate to get scheduled. On September 19, 2011 JP and Attorney Lewin appeared at Woburn District Court for the hearing. Attorney Lewin argued that this would be an appropriate case not to issue a criminal complaint but rather to resolve the case at the Clerk’s hearing with no further criminal proceedings. The police prosecutor agreed with Attorney Lewin’s suggestion and the Assistant Clerk-Magistrate ordered that the hearing would be continued for one year and if JP were in no further trouble then the application would be dismissed. As a result of this disposition JP was not charged, he did not have to go to court in front of a judge, no entry was made on his criminal record, and he did not face the mandatory 2 year loss of driver’s license. (Massachusetts Law requires a mandatory loss of driver’s license for ANY drug conviction – even if no car was involved.) As an Assistant District Attorney, Attorney Robert Lewin had been the chief prosecutor at the Woburn District Court for one year. Since leaving the District Attorney’s Office in 1975 Attorney Lewin has been appearing in Woburn Court almost every week. He is well known, well liked, and well respected by the Judges, the Clerks, the police prosecutors and the Assistant District Attorneys in that court. JP felt his situation was hopeless and was not going to attend the Clerk-Magistrate’s hearing but rather just wait for the criminal complaint to issue. Attorney Lewin told him there is always a chance to favorably resolve the case at the Clerk’s Hearing and that is precisely what happened.
HABITUAL TRAFFIC OFFENDER DODGES LOSS OF LICENSE
SN, a 23 year old Russian immigrant has a very heavy driving foot. Over the past three and a half years he has accumulated 11 “surchargeable events” on his driving record. Under Massachusetts Law any operator who accumulates 12 “surchargeable events” in a five year period becomes classified as a Habitual Traffic Offender (HTO) and loses his license for 4 years. After one year there is eligibility to apply for a hardship license. SN was driving home on Route 93 North in Methuen. According to the police officer who pulled him over, SN was going 91 mph in a posted 65 mph zone and the zone was a construction zone (the fines get doubled). The officer cited SN for speeding in a construction zone and for failure to keep right. The officer had followed SN for some distance and the speed was estimated, clocked, and lidar checked. These two infractions would put SN into the 12 surchargeable event range and he would lose his license for 4 years. SN drove for a living, which is part of the reason he accumulated so many tickets. SN retained Attorney Robert Lewin. On September 20, 2011 SN and Attorney Lewin appeared at Lawrence District Court for the hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate. At the beginning of the hearing the police prosecutor (a Massachusetts State Trooper) quite inappropriately referred to SN’s driver record and stated to the Clerk that SN had a terrible record and that SN had just not learned. The prosecutor then stated that he did not have a copy of the citation. Attorney Lewin immediately asked that SN be found not responsible and the Clerk-Magistrate agreed and entered a finding of not responsible on the two violations on the ticket. At a hearing on a civil motor vehicle infraction citation the police must have a copy of the citation or report in order to go forward. In the absence of a citation or report the motorist is entitled to a finding of not responsible. The whole hearing played out in less than a minute and SN had no clue what happened until he and Attorney Lewin got outside the hearing room and left the Court and Attorney Lewin explained his good fortune.