Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogCarlos F, a thirty year old laborer, was arrested in Malden, Massachusetts in 2004 with a small amount of cocaine in his sock. He was living in Massachusetts at the time and went to Malden District Court where he was charged with possession of cocaine. Before his case was finished Carlos left Massachusetts for greener pastures in Virginia. As a result of his leaving, Carlos was defaulted in Malden Court and the Court issued a warrant for his arrest. As a result of the warrant the Msssachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspended Carlos’s license. Meanwhile Carlos had obtained a Virginia license and lived and worked in Virginia from 2004 to 2011. In late 2010 Carlos received a notice from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles that his Virginia license was being suspended because he was under suspension in Massachusetts. Carlos wrote letters to the Masssachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and he wrote to the Malden District Court trying to resolve the case without coming to Massachusetts; his letters fell on deaf ears. In early March 2011 Carlos retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the District Attorney’s Office to see if they would be willing to dismiss the case without Carlos coming to Massachusetts. At first the DA was adamant that they wanted Carlos to come to Court to face the cocaine charge. The arresting officer was still on the force; the drugs were still in the evidence locker; the state could easily prove its case. Attorney Lewin suggested to the DA that the state could use money – given the difficult economic times. Atorney Lewin suggested dismissing the case upon the payment of $500 in Court costs. The DA bit the bait and when the horse trading finished an agreement was reached to dismiss the cocaine charge on the payment of $1,500 in Court costs. Carlos needs three months to make payment and the DA agreed to a payment schedule of $500 per month. We still needed to get the presiding Judge in Malden Court to adopt this agreement. Judge Johnson is not an easy Judge in this type of case; he does not like people who “take off” and then when their driving privileges get suspended in some other state come back here lookling for relief. He often requires the people to come back to Massachusetts to “face the music”. On Monday morning, March 7, 2011 Attorney Lewin went into Malden Court and presented a written Motion seeking relief. After a hearing in which the DA joined in a request to dismiss the case upon the payment of $1,500 over three months the Judge granted Attorney Lewin’s request. The Judge excused Carlos’s appearance, the Judge removed the default, the Judge cancelled the warrant (the cancellation of the warrant is the first step in getting the driving privileges reinstated), and the Judge ordered the case dismissed upon the payment of $1,500 in three months. Attorney Lewin left court and called Carlos in Virginia and gave him the good news. Attorney Lewin told Carlos that Attorney Lewin was going to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to try to get his driving privileges reinstated. The next day Attorney Lewin went to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and had a hearing with a hearing officer to get Carlos’s driving privileges in Massachusetts cleared. It turned out that Carlos had two Massachusetts Licenses. This took a little doing to unravel but by the end of the day on Tuesday, March 8 Carlos’s driving privileges in Massachusetts were reinstated. Attorney Lewin called Carlos with the news; Carlos then went to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and got his Virginia license reinstated.
PROBATION VIOLATION NO JAIL
In 2008 JT plead guilty in Westborough District Court to two counts of larceny over $250 and one count of receiving stolen property. He was placed on Probation for 2 years, ordered to pay restitution and court costs, and ordered to have a substance abuse evaluation and treatment and remain drug and alcohol free. JT paid off the restitution and the court costs but then left the state without permission. He failed to follow through with the substance abuse evaluation. The probation department had a warrant issued for his arrest and he was subsequently picked up and brought to Westborough District Court. Attorney Lewin was retained. In November 2010. JT and Attorney Lewin appeared in Westborough District Court for a probation revocation hearing. Attorney Lewin had JT enroll in a substance abuse program. Attorney Lewin and JT met with JT’s probation officer and worked out a plan as an alternative to jail. The plan was presented to the Judge who extended JT’s probation for six month with the condition that he remian in treatment and not violate the criminal law. All JT had to do was remain clean for the six months and his probation would be terminated. JT was even given permission to relocated to Maine and his Probation supervision was transferred to Maine. Within a month JT was arrested in Maine and chraged with DUI and thereafter with Driving After Suspension Of His License. Maine notified Massachusetts and JT was once again served with a notice of revocation of probation. Attorney Lewin was once again retained and began negotiating with Probation. Ultimately Probation said they would recommend a 60 day committment to the House of Correction and then terminate his probation. On February 14, 2011 Attorney Lewin and JT appeared in Westborough District Court. The Judge found that on the basis of the subsequent arrests in Maine (for the DUI and the Operating After Suspension) that JT had violated probation. The Probation Officer recommended a committment to the house of correction for 60 days. Attorney Lewin reviewed for the Judge the entire history of the case including the fact that the restitution had been paid early on in the probation, that JT was an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the USAF, and that as a result of his arrests in Maine that JT was getting substance abuse treatment in Maine. Attorney Lewin pointed out that JT was employed full time in Maine as a machinist and was supporting his daughter and granddaughter (who also lived in Maine). Attorney Lewin suggested that rather than the State spending the money to house and feed JT for 60 days it would make more sense if JT paid a substantial sum to the Commonwealth to atone for his violations of probation. The Judge, after due consideration, agreed and ordered JT to pay $1,000 in court costs. JT’s family went immediately from the Courthouse to the nearest Bank of America, withdrew $1,000.00, returned to the Courthouse, and paid the $1,000.00 to probation. The Judge ordered the Probation terminated and JT was discharged from probation and from any further responsibility to the Court. The three cases in Westborough were closed and JT returned to Maine very happy. He had gone to Court in the morning prepared for the worst and left a happy man.
30 YEAR OLD WARRANT CLEARED
IS, a 47 year old businessman living in NY, went to obtain a high security clearance. He was told that he had warrants outstanding in an old criminal motor vehicle case in Cambridge District Court. The warrant dated back 30 years! IS emailed Attorney Lewin an inquiry. Attorney Lewin responded that he felt he could clear the warrant immediately. On February 7, 2011 IS sent Attorney Lewin a retainer by wire transfer at 9:00 AM. Within two hours, Attorney Lewin prepared a Motion to Cancel the Warrants and Dismiss the cases. Attorney Lewin went to Cambridge District Court, had the Clerk-Magistrate pull the papers on the cases, spoke with the District Attorney, and had the cases sent into the Courtroom. The Judge granted Attorney Lewin’s Motion and ordered the warrants cancelled and ordered the cases dismissed. Attorney Lewin walked out of Cambridge District Court slightly before 11:00 AM and called IS in New York. IS could not believe it was done so quickly. On February 9, 2011 IS got his high security clearance.
DOMESTIC ASSAULT NOT GUILTY IN MALDEN COURT
JR dated a girl for 2 years. They got engaged and then he discovered she was cheating on him. They broke up. Within several weeks she started calling him on the phone. He would not take her calls. One Saturday night JR was out with friends and went to a night club. He left the night club and when he got out to his car there was a voice message from the girl. She said she missed him terribly and wanted him to come over. He drove to her apartment. She let him in. They talked and then ended up in the sack and made love. After the love they began to argue. He got upset and threw some things in her apartment. She told him to leave and he left. She then called the Everett Police and said that JR had assaulted her with a box cutter. The police went and arrested JR. He was arraigned in Malden Court and charged with Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (the box cutter). A review of the police reports showed that JR had never touched her (in any assaultive way). Attorney Lewin filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Assault and Battery. Assault and Battery requires proof of a battery; a battery is an unconsented to and intentional touching. There was no proof of such a touching and the Motion to Dismiss the Assault and Battery charge was granted. The DA’s Office offered to continue the Assault with a Dangerous Weapon charge without a finding. JR refused the offer and took the case to trial. At trial the girl testified that JR waved the box cutter at her and threatened her with it. JR testified that he had only picked up the box cutter and threw it into a closet and that he never threatened her with it. Attorney Lewin was able to impeach the credibility of the girl by shlowing that she had made a number of inconsistent statements to the police. On February 9, 2011 JR was found not guilty of the charge in Malden District Court following a jury-waived trial. Attorney Lewin and JR had met three times in the week and a half before the trial; JR was fully prepared to testify (and he did) and he was fully prepared to handle every question he was asked by the Assistant District Attorney on cross-examination. During their trial preparation sessions Attorney Lewin played the role of the District Attorney and grilled JR with questions. JR was ready and handled the DA’s questions with ease.
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A CHILD: THE STATE AND THE DEFENSE BOTH BLINK
SN, a 60 year old man from Methuen, was arrested and charged with Indecent Assault & Battery on a Child Under 14. The child was his 12 year old niece who complained that he had sexually assaulted her when she was 7 or 8 years old. SN vehemently denied the charge. Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under 14 is a felony punishable by up to ten years in the State Prison. A conviction requires Sex Offender Registration for up to life and GPS Monitoring with an electronic bracelet. In pre-trial discovery Attorney Lewin was able to discover a police report wherein it was reported that the child had told her sister that she may have been dreaming. During her SAIN Interview the child denied ever saying to her sister that she may have been dreaming. The sister, who lived in New Hampshire, refused to be interviewed by the defense. Attorney Lewin filed proceedings in Lawrence District Court to force the sister to appear in Lawrence District Court for the trial. Papers were sent to Salem District Court in Salem, NH and a hearing was set for a judge in NH to order the sister to appear in Massachusetts for the trial. The sister then agreed to appear at the trial. On Januray 31, 2011 all the parties appeared in Lawrence District Court and the case was called for trial. Both sides answered ready for trial. The Assistant District Attorney approached Attorney Lewin and offered to reduce the charge to simple Assault and Battery. Simple Assault and Battery is a misdemeanor that does not involve sex offender registration and does not involve GPS Monitoring. The DA offered straight probation on a plea to simple assault and battery. As he was required to do, Attorney Lewin conveyed the offer of the DA to SN. SN, who for weeks had had visions of going to state prison and of having to register as a convicted sex offender and of wearing an ELMO (Electronic Monitoring Device), took the DA’s offer immediately. He tendered what is called an Alford Plea. An Alford Plea is when you plead guilty but do not admit to having committed the crime. The Court accepted the Alford Plea to simple assault and battery and placed SN on straight probation. SN walked out of the Courthouse and went home. The DA blinked first when she offered the reduced plea to Assault and Battery with a sentence of Probation. Some Defendants would have read the offer as a signal that the State’s case was falling apart and would have refused the offer and gone to trial. SN saw that, but decided not to take the risk of going to trial. He blinked and took the plea. These are not easy decisions. We always tell clients “Don’t plead guilty to a crime you did not commit.” Sometimes, however, clients feel compelled to plead when an offer is made that is too good to turn down. That appears to be what SN thought in this case. It is hard to say that he was wrong. A felony conviction – which was certainly possible – meant jail time, sex offender registration, and GPS monitoring. With the plea to a misdemeanor he locked in Probation with no registration and no GPS. What would you have done? Would you have blinked?
College Senior Keeps A Clean Record
On Friday night January 21, 2011 BG, a senior at a local college, went to his school’s hockey game at a rink in Malden. After consuming a few beers he became somewhat rude at the game and was asked to leave. Once outside one thing led to another and BG found himself under arrest for disorderly conduct. BG contacted his father – who happened to be a lawyer – and the father understood the ramifications of his son’s having a criminal record, even for a minor misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct. Attorney Lewin was contacted on Saturday, January 22, 2011. On Sunday Attorney Lewin contacted the Malden Police and began to negotiate a dismissal of the case,prior to the arraignment. The arraignment was scheduled for Monday, January 24, 2011. On Monday morning Attorney Lewin and BG appeared at court; at first the DA was reluctant to dismiss the case prior to arraignment. Eventually Attorney Lewin was able to convince the DA to agree to the dismissal prior to arraignment and the Judge went along with it. The significance of the case being dismissed prior to arraignment is that no entry will be made on BG’s CORI (criminal record). The case will not show up. It is rare for a DA or a Judge to go along with this; however, there is absolutely no harm in asking for the case to be dismissed prior to the arraignment as the worst the DA or the Judge can say is no. Had the case been dismissed after arraignment then the charge would show up on BG’s record and he would then have to explain to every prospective employer who checks his record what the disorderly charge was all about. Now he will be free of that entry on his record; his record is clean.
GPS GOES CRAZY
A convicted rapist is on probation and is required to wear a GPS tracking device. As part of the GPS law he is prohibited from going to certain places; these places are called exclusion zones. On January 3, 2011 he was at home when his probation officer called him and told him that he had violated an exclsuion zone and the police were coming to arrest him. He exlaimed to his probation officer that he had not left the house and had not been anywhere near the exclusion zone (the home of the victim who lives across and down the street). Attorney Lewin called the Probation Officer and insisted that they check the accuracy of the GPS device. It turned out that the GPS device was giving off what are called “floating points”; these are points on the tracking maps that are not accurate. They are false tracking points. In this case the tracking points showed the offender literally walking across a pond. In addition the tracking points showed the offender moving a distance of 100 yards in 2 seconds. On Friday, January 7, 2011 after a full court hearing, the Probation Department admitted that the offender had not violated his GPS restrictions and the probation violation was dropped. The accuracy of the GPS tracking system can and must be called into question in these cases.
OLD MASSACHUSETTS WARRANT CANCELLED
In 1988 CC was arrested in Lowell, MA on drug charges. While CC’s drug case was pending in Court, CC was arrested for being a fugitive from justice on a Warrant for Rape out of Texas. CC was returned to Texas to face the Rape charge and was told that his drug case in MA would be closed. CC was convicted in Texas of the rape and was sentenced to 16 years in Prison to be followed by 50 years of probation with an electronic monitoring bracelet. CC served his 16 years in prison and was released in 2006. He has been on probation in Texas since 2006 and is doing incredibly well. Upon his release from prison he got a job as a janitor and in four years he has become a plant manager. He has absolutely no probation violations. In early November 2010 CC went to renew his Texas Driver’s License but was told he had an outstanding warrant in Massachusetts that was causing his right to operate in Massachusetts to be suspended which in turn was causing his reight to drive in Texas to be placed in nonrenewal status. CC was told he would have to go to MA to get the warrant cleared up. Only problem is that CC cannot leave the State of Texas because he is on Probation for a sex offense. Without the license CC cannot get back and forth to work. On Friday, November 12, 2010 CC retained Attorney Joshua Lewin of Lewin & Lewin. Attorney Lewin went to Lowell District Court that same day and filed the appropriate papers to have CC’s 1988 drug case put on the Court list for Tuesday, November 16, 2010. The drug case was in default warrant status. On November 16, 2010 Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court; the DA’s Office at first did not want to let go of this 22 year old drug case. After some argument and persuasion the DA agreed to dismiss the case. The Judge ordered the case dismissed and the warrant recalled. Attorney Lewin left the District Court and went to the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) with a copy of the Notice of Warrant Cancellation. Attorney Lewin had a hearing at the RMV and the restriction against CC’s driving privileges was lifted. The next day CC went to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and was able to renew his Texas license.
CAR GETS A TAN; DRIVER GETS A PASS
On June 1, 2010, AR was driving her SUV in Chelmsford. She attempted to pull into a parking space at a shopping plaza when suddenly her SUV jumped a curb, crashed through the plate glass window of a tanning salon, and ended up wholly inside the tanning salon. Fortunately for AR no one was hurt or even touched by her car and the flying debris.The police arrived on scene. AR was cited for Reckless Operation. The police reported the accident to the RMV and the RMV immediately suspended her license for “immediate threat”. Under Massachusetts Law when the Registry determines that someone poses an immediate threat to the safety of the public because of their operation of a motor vehicle the RMV can suspend the operator’s license until the operator can satisfy the RMV that they no longer pose a threat. AR retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin went to the accident scene and photographed the scene. An examination of the car took place but no defects could be found in the car that would explain the sudden acceleration of the car. Attorney Lewin pressed the argument with the District Attorney that what happened was an accident and not the result of any negligence on the part of AR. On Friday, October 29, 2010 AR and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. After some discussion an agreement was reached for a general continuance of the case for three months. That means that the case will simply sit on the court books for three months and then be dismissed. There was no plea bargain; there was no admission of guilt or wrongdoing; AR’s plea of not guilty remains in full force and effect and on January 28, 2011 the criminal charge will be dismissed. AR is now in a position where she can go to the RMV and seek reinstatement of her license.
DON’T PLEAD GUILTY IF YOU DIDN’T DO THE CRIME
KL was married with one child. His wife had many issues including expecting KL to be at her beck and call whenever she wished. The marriage was floundering and KL moved out; she called KL often and demanded that he drop whatever he was doing and come take their child so she could “go out”. When he did not respond promptly enough she called the police and accused KL of assaulting her. The police came and arrested KL and charged him with Assault and Battery on his wife. He was arraigned in Woburn District Court and his case was continued. While that case was pending she called the police a second time and again accused KL of assaulting her. KL was arrested again and brought to Woburn District Court; the DA’s Office sought to have KL’s bail on the first case revoked and have him locked up while the cases were pending. (Right now – October 2010 – it can take 5 months to get a trial date in Woburn District Court.) KL was released on a cash bail which his father put up. KL retained Attorney Lewin. KL insisted he was innocent. As the time for trial drew near KL’s family became concerned about whether or not he should go to trial or perhaps “work out a plea deal”; Attornney Lewin insisted that Kyle not plead guilty but rather go to trial. Attorney Lewin made it clear to KL and his family (and to KL’s wife) that the evidence and the truth were on KL’s side and that KL would never plead guilty. On October 26, 2010 KL’s cases were called for trial in Woburn District Court. Attorney Lewin stood up and in a loud clear voice answered that KL was ready for trial on both cases. KL’s wife refused to testify; both charges were dismissed. Never plead guilty to a crime you did not commit.