by

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

by

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.

by

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.

by

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.

by

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.

by

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.

by

KG, the owner of a large construction company on Nantucket, is a giving man. He built a beautiful home for his sister and installed a large sea-shell covered driveway for her. The home and property was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but KG did not ask for any payment in return. He had only one request: to store their brother’s 1982 vintage Chevy pickup truck in the garage. Their brother was killed when he was just 18 years old and had completely restored the pickup. KG had kept the pickup truck for more than a decade as a keepsake. The truck had tremendous emotional value to KG. KG’s sister agreed. Soon after KG completed construction of the house for his sister, KG’s niece and her husband convinced KG’s sister to sign the house over to them for “estate planning purposes”. The niece and nephew quickly moved into the house and treated it as their own. KG was very upset, as he had built the house for his sister, not them. Then, one day, KG was driving by the house when he noticed that his niece and nephew had put his brother’s car outside and left it out in the rain with the windows open. KG was enraged. He went back to his construction warehouse, got into a bulldozer and drove to the house. When he got there, he began digging the shells off the driveway. The niece and nephew came running outside, with a friend, and tried to stop him. Their friend tried to stop KG as well. Not a good idea. KG drove the bulldozer at the friend and almost ran him over. Unbeknownst to KG, the friend was an off-duty Massachusetts State Trooper. The Trooper pulled his badge and tried to get KG to stop. KG again drove the bulldozer at him. After digging up the entire driveway and leaving a huge pile of shells blocking the entrance to the house, KG drove the bulldozer back the construction yard, only to be met by police officers. KG was charged criminally and the State Trooper reported the incident to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The Registry revoked KG’s driver’s license upon determining that he posed a immediate threat to the public. The law allows the RMV to revoke a person’s license or right to operate if the RMV determines that the person poses an “immediate threat” to the lives or safety of the public. It is often used in cases where a person uses a motor vehicle to assault someone or to intentionally destroy property. We also see an “immediate threat” used by the RMV to revoke the driving privileges of elderly persons who in the eyes of the RMV are not competent or fit to drive.The revocation was permanent and meant that KG could no longer work without having to hire a full-time driver. It also meant that he could no longer take his kids to and from school or do any of his normal activities. It was disastrous. KG retained attorney Joshua Lewin to challenge his immediate threat license revocation. Attorney Lewin prepared the case and represented KG at a hearing at the RMV. Attorney Lewin presented a compelling case to a hearing officer. After the hearing, the Hearing Officer reinstated his license. KG returned to Nantucket – driving himself all the way home from Boston.

by

AO, a 22 year old entrepreneur, was on probation for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. With three months left on his two year probation, AO helped a college friend move from one apartment to another. AO used his car to help shuttle the friend’s boxes and suitcases from the old apartment to the new apartment. After the last trip, the friend took his remaining belongings from AO’s trunk, thanked AO for the help and went on his way. Or so AO thought. AO ran some errands and was heading back to his house in Watertown. When he was just 3 blocks from his home in Watertown, a State Police officer pulled him over for speeding. The State Police officer believed that he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana from within the vehicle and ordered AO to get out of the car. The State Trooper searched the car and then the trunk. There was a cardboard box mixed with some of AO’s belongings in the trunk. AO’s friend had left the box in the trunk. The State Trooper asked what was in the box and AO explained that the box was not his. The State Trooper was undeterred and opened the box. The box contained two pounds of high quality marijuana. The State Trooper filed an application for criminal complaint charging AO with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because AO was already on probation for the same thing, he faced not only two years on the new charge but also revocation of his probation and a jail sentence up to two years in the old case. In June 2011, AO was summoned to the Waltham District Court for a show cause hearing (sometimes called a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing) before a Clerk-Magistrate. The stakes were high, as AO could have been sentenced to two years in jail on each of the two cases if the Clerk-Magistrate issued a criminal complaint. AO retained Attorney Joshua Lewin. Attorney Lewin thoroughly prepared the case for the hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate and made a persuasive presentation at the hearing. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the application and did not issue a complaint. Once the new charge was dismissed probation chose not to go forward with a probation surrender. AO walked on both cases and could not have been more thankful for Attorney Lewin’s services.

by

SM, a 26 year old male bookkeeper, was charged in Malden Court with assault and battery on his girlfriend on March 1, 2011. The allegation arose from a fight that he and she allegedly had; she claimed in her affidavit for an abuse prevention order that he had pushed her up against a railing and grabbed her around the throat, choking her. She also claimed that he had banged her face into a door leaving her with swelling on her forehead for which she went to the hospital. SM had two prior domestic assault and battery charges on his record and four prior abuse prevention orders that had been taken out against him by four different women over an eight year period. The Middlesex County D.A.’s Office did not want to let go of this case. SM retained Attorney Robert Lewin. The police reports were reviewed along with the girlfriend’s affidavit; the reports and the affidavit did not add up. Ultimately the girlfriend told Attorney Lewin that SM had not assaulted her and that she had lied. Attorney Lewin put the girlfriend into contact with the Assistant D.A. The D.A.’s Office ultimately agreed to dismiss the charge against SM. On May 17, 2011 SM appeared in Malden Court. Attorney Lewin pressed for the dismissal to enter prior to SM’s arraignment. The significance of the dismissal entering prior to arraignment is that the charge does not go onto SM’s criminal record. Once the arraignment takes place a criminal record is created. As a result of this case not going onto SM’s record he will be eligible in May of 2012 to have his remaining criminal record sealed. SM and his girlfriend walked out of court arm in arm – go figure.

by

On a warm night in April 2010 CL, a 48 year old businessman, took his then girl friend (ZM) to the beach to go fishing on Martha’s Vineyard. They were both drinking and an argument broke out between them. CL struck ZM several times and then placed her in his truck and began driving. She tried to get out of the truck but he held her in. They arrived at his house (on the Vineyard) and he brought her inside. The fight continued. He punched her about the head, face, and arms and then took her head and banged it into the glass covering the fireplace. CL then ran from the house, got in his truck and drove away. When ZM came to she called a friend who came and got her and took her to the hospital. Pictures were taken of her face and arms. They were bloody and bruised. The police were called. A warrant was issued for CL’s arrest for Attempted Murder, Kidnapping, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, 3 counts of Assault and Battery, and one count of Intimidation of a Witness. CL left the Island and and contacted his busness attorneys who referred him to Attorney Robert Lewin. CL met with Attorney Lewin on a Sunday and retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin contacted the local police department on Martha’s Vineyard and then contacted the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case. At first the DA’s Office was reluctant to discuss bail and took the position they wanted CL held without bail. After some negotiations a surrender agreement was reached that if CL appeared at Court the DA would agree to a $15,000 cash bail. Attorney Lewin and CL took the ferry across to Martha’s Vineyard and appeared in Edgartown District Court. CL was arraigned and released on $15,000 cash bail. An investigator was retained to look into ZM. Subsequently, the case was presented to the Grand Jury and CL was indicted for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, three counts of Assault and Battery, and one count of Intimidation of a Witness. The Grand Jury declined to indict on the Attempted Murder charge.CL’s wish was to stay out of prison. The case proceeded through court and in February of 2011 the parrties appeared in court to set a trial date. On that February date a major break occurred in the case. When CL appeared in Court, ZM was also in court. However, she was not there to watch the proceedings. She herself was under arrest. She was in cuffs and leg irons. She had been picked up on a detainer (warrant) that had been issued by the Feds for immigration violations. The Judge in Edgartown ordered her held for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agrents to pick her up, which they did. She was brought to Boston. Unfortunately for CL, the DA’s Office does have a “special relationship” with the ICE agents where they can get a person held in ICE custody brought to the Court to testify in a criminal case. Nevertheless, Attorney Lewin saw this as an opportunity to press the DA’s Office for a probationary dispositon of the charges. The DA’s Office balked. During the year that the case had been going through the Court the DA’s Office had always wanted a State Prison sentence. Now they were asking for a 2 year sentence to the House of Correction. CL did not want to go to trial but he was unwilling to plead to jail time. The negotiations continued and finally the DA’s Office agreed to a suspended sentence with Probation. On April 21, 2011 CL and Attorney Lewin appeared in Edgartown Superior Court and CL plead to the charges and received a 2 year suspended sentence with a three year term of Probation, concurrent on all the charges. His conditions of Probation include drug and alcohol counseling and completion of a batterers program. Wins come in all shapes and sizes. CL was so relieved not to be going to prison. A suspended sentence is a sentence that is imposed, but execution of the sentence is suspended for a period of time. If the probationer stays out of trouble during the period of the probation then the probation is terminated and the case is closed and the probationer never serves a day in jail. If the probationer violates any term of the probation then the probationer can be brought back to court, the probation revoked, and the suspended sentence put into effect. CL has to keep his nose clean for the next three years. CL had a choice: he could have rolled the dice and gone to trial. If the DA had been unable to get ZM to court the case would most likely have been dismissed. If the DA was successful in getting ZM to Court then a plea on the date of trial would have yielded a State Prison sentence most likely. If the case had gone ahead to trial the evidence against CL was strong and the likelihood is that he would have been convicted and given a substantial State Priosn sentence. Once the suspended sentence with probation was put on the table CL decided to take the plea, take the probation, and be done with it. In the circumstances this was a wise decision.

Contact Information
18 Kathleen Dr
Andover, MA 01810
Phone: 978-258-3520
Fax: 978-258-4565
E-mail Us
Map & Directions

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Lewin & Lewin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design