Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogGP, an 18 year old from Wilmington, was being picked on and bullied by a fellow who at one time had been his best friend. The bullying reached the point where GP couldn’t take it any more. GP attacked the bully, knocked him down, and allegedly kicked him with a shod foot. GP emphatically denied kicking the boy. A boy who was present videoed the entire episode on his cell phone. The police applied for a criminal complaint against GP for Assault and Battery by Dangerous Weapon, a shod foot, and a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate was scheduled at Woburn District Court. The crime is a felony in Massachusetts. GP retained Attorney Joshua Lewin. Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the Wilmington Police and then drove to the Wilmington Police Station and obtained a copy of the video. The video was not of the best quality but a careful review ov the video confirmed what GP had been saying that he did NOT kick the bully. With the video in hand Attorney Lewin approached the Police Prosecutor and an agreement was reached that no complaint would issue against GP. On October 26, 2010, GP and Attorney Joshua Lewin appeared at Woburn District Court for the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing and no criminal complaint was issued against GP. As a result of the case being prepared without delay prior to the Clerk-Magistrate’s hearing GP was not charged, he did not have to appear in front of a judge, and NO CRIMINAL RECORD was created.
SCHOOL ZONE CHARGES DISMISSED IN DRUG CASE
TM had a favorite restaurant in North Woburn. He would go there often. One day he was approached by an undercover cop in the restaurant; they conversed and TM sold the undercover cop a small quantity of weed. Several days went by and the undercover cop contacted TM again and arranged a second sale which took place in the restaurant parking lot several days later. Several days after that a third sale took place in the parking lot. Unknown to TM all this activity was photographed by other police. Immediately after the third sale TM was arrested in the parking lot. A search of TM’s car revealed a larger quantity of marijhuana and Class C Pills and Class E Pills. In addition there was a pre-school within 1,000 feet of the restaurant parking lot where all the sales had taken place. TM was brought to court charged with three counts of distribution of marijhuana, three counts of a school zone violation (each carrying a 2 year mandatory minimum sentence which cannot be suspended), 1 count of possession of marijhuana with intent to distribute, 1 count of Possession of Class C, and 1 count of Possession of Class E. Attorney Lewin was retained and immediately began working on the school zone issue. The school zone statute is a very technical statute. It covers both public and private pre-schools. The statute, however, requires that the pre-school be accredited. The statute does not set forth who it is that does the accrediting, how long the accreditation lasts, etc. Attorney Lewin attacked this aspect of the case and filed Motions requiring the government to disclose all their evidence on this “accreditation” issue. The government stalled for three months. Finally Attorney Lewin motioned the Court to dismiss the school zone charges. The DA then approached Attorney Lewin about “working the case out”.At the end of the day on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 TM walked out of Woburn Court: the three school zone charges were all dismissed; all the remaining charges were continued without a finding for 18 months. If TM stays out of trouble all the charges will be dismissed at the end of the 18 months. Because no guilty findings were entered, TM will not lose his license.
ANOTHER ALLEGED DOMESTIC ASSAULT DISMISSED
EB, age 36, was arrested and accused of domestic assault and battery on his seventy year old father. EB consistently and emphatically denied that he had struck his father. Following his arraignment EB retained Lewin & Lewin. Attorney Robert Lewin sought out the father and spoke with him. The father came to the pre-trial hearing at Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin put the father in direct contact with the Assistant District Attorney. The father told the Assistant DA that no assault occurred. The DA’s Office refused to dismiss the case at the pre-trial hearing!! This is the position the Middlesex County DA’s Office takes in virtually every domestic assault and battery case. Attorney Lewin requested a quick trial date. On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 litigation specialist Joshua Lewin from the firm of Lewin and Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court and answered ready for trial. The Commonwealth could not go forward and the case was dismissed.
MASSACHUSETTS SPECIAL DRUG STATUTE
One night in July 2010 RD drove from Vermont to visit a girlfriend in Ipswich; they planned to meet in North Andover. RD arrived first and parked in the parking lot of a convenvient store. The store was closed and it was around one in the morning. The police became suspicious and approached RD to see what his purpose was. One thing lead to another and the police discovered no less than three classes of drugs on RD. He was arrested and charged with Possession of Class A, Class D, and Class E Controlled Substances. RD was arraigned in Lawrence District Court and the case continued. There is a statute in Massachusetts that allows a judge in a drug possession case to “stay” the proceedings; that means the legal prosecution stops. The accused – if he consents- can enter a drug treatment program (which can be out-patient counseling) and, if he successfully completes the counseling, the case can then be dismissed. The Statute is Chapter 111E of the Massachusetts General Laws. In RD’s case Attorney Robert Lewin filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings pursuant to Chapter 111E. After a hearing, the Judge granted the Motion. The criminal proceddings were “stayed” (stopped); RD entered an outpatient drug counseling program and successfully completed the program. Today (October 13, 2010) the Judge in Lawrence District Court, after reviewing the report from the counseling program, ordered the case dismissed. RD is now in a position where he can petition the court to seal his record and that is the next step in getting this case completely removed from RD’s record.
ALLEGED DRUG DEALER WALKS
It was about 3:00 AM. JH was the front seat passenger in a car being driven by a highly intoxicated woman. There were two men in the back seat. The car got pulled over by the Groveland PD. During an examination of the car the police discovered a baggie on the floor by JH’s feet. Inside the bag were three smaller bags. The three small bags contained 1 gram of marijhuana, 1 gram of marijhuana, and 5 grams of marijhuana respectively. JH admitted to the police that the weed was his. Also JH had in his possession a pipe for smoking marijhuana. It looked like a simple possession case and that the police might let him go. The police then discovered that JH had $6,100 in cash in his pocket. That changed everything and the police charged JH with possession with intent to distribute marijhuana. JH, a painter, insisted that the cash was his that he earned from his work. In addition JH insisted that he had taken the money earlier that evening from home for the purpose of looking at a car. JH retained Lewin & Lewin. Attorney Robert Lewin spoke at length to the Assistant District Attorney at Haverhill District Court; the Assistant DA was reluctant to drop the case and suggested that the attorneys speak to the police. On October 5, 2010 Attorneys Robert Lewin and Joshua Lewin went to the Groveland Police Department and met face to face with the arresting officer and his superior. After a lengthy meeting at the police station an agreement was worked out. The charge against JH was dismissed and the money was split; the police kept $3,000 and returned $3,100 to JH. JH was relieved: he did not have to go to trial and he avoided the risk of losing his driver’s license for two years. (A conviction for Possession of Class D with Intent to Distribute carries a mandatory 2 year loss of license.) This was an example of lawyers being willing to go the extra step to get the result that the client wanted – a dismissal of the charge.
Road Block Stop + .08 = NOT GUILTY in Malden Court
CC, a very attractive 30 year old financial analyst, and two girl friends spent a night in Boston at the Harpoon Fest. On the way home CC was travelling on Rt. 16 in Everett when she approached and entered into a sobriety checkpoint roadblock. The police detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage and directed CC into the “pit area” so-called. She pulled in and was asked to exit her vehicle. Field sobriety tests followed, a preliminary breath test (in the field) was administered with a .10 result. She was then placed under arrest for operating under the influence and a formal breath test was administered with a resulting BAC of .08. Under the law in Massachusetts a .08 is a failing reading and is sufficient all by itself to sustain a conviction. During discovery Attorney Lewin learned that the breath test machine used in CC’s test was reading slightly high. Attorney Lewin developed the argument that the .08 was in reality something less than .08. The trial took place in Malden District Court on September 29, 2010. Attorney Lewin was able to keep the .08 reading out of evidence. The case was tried jury-waived (that is, to a judge without a jury). The Judge found CC not guilty. CC is a happy camper.
THIEF GETS BREAK IN LOWELL DISTRICT COURT
RC worked for an employer. RC stole his employer’s checkbook and removed 15 blank checks from the checkbook. Over a period of several weeks RC wrote out the 15 checks to himself, forged his employer’s signature, and cashed the checks at a local bank. RC received about $11,500 from this scheme. Shortly after the employer discovered the missing checks the police were called in. It took about 10 minutes for the investigation to focus on RC. RC was called into the police station without a lawyer where he made a complete confession after being Mirandized. RC was charged with 45 felony counts: 15 counts of forgery, 15 counts of larceny, and 15 counts of uttering. (Uttering is the act of knowingly tendering a forged check; this happened each time RC took one of the forged checks and cashed it at the bank.) RC’s employer was angry and wanted RC to go to jail. Attorney Lewin got RC into counselling and stressed to RC the importance of putting money aside each week so that when RC went back to court he would have a sum of money to be applied toward the restitution. On August 26, 2010 RC and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. The District Attorney asked that RC be given an 18 month split sentence: 6 months to be served and 12 months suspended for 3 years with probation and restitution. Attorney Lewin presented the Judge with a report from the counsellor and $500 in cash that RC had accumulated as a downpayment on the restitution. Attorney Lewin pointed out that sending RC to jail – even if only for a very short period – would cost RC his new job and would greatly hamper his ability to pay the retitution. Attorney Lewin requested a term of probation. The Judge followed the recommendation of Attorney Lewin and placed RC on Probation for three years (with an 18 month suspended sentence) and the Judge ordered restitution to be paid at the rate of $100 per week. RC believes he will be able to get the retitution paid off in 2 years; if that happens then a Motion to Terminate Probation early will be filed and presented to the court. Wins come in all shapes and sizes. RC did not want to go to jail and he wanted sufficient time to pay the restitution. RC got the result he wanted. As RC and Attorney Lewin were leaving the Courthouse RC turned to Attorney Lewin and said put this case in the win column!
Fugitive From Justice Released
Last Friday, August 13, 2010, AJ, a 40 year old Israeli born US Citizen, traveled to the Middle East with his wife and 18 month old baby for a month long trip. They live in Ohio and on the return flight from Paris to the US they landed in Boston. When AJ’s passport was scanned it was discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for AJ’s arrest from the State of Pennsylvania. The charges in Pennsylvania included Being a convicted Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Possessing a Stolen Firearm, and Driving on a Suspended License. AJ was arrested by the Massachusetts State Police at the Airport and held for court on Monday. AJ’s wife and 18 month old baby stayed in Boston over the weekend to be present in Court on Monday. On Saturday, August 14, 2010 AJ’s wife contacted Attorney Lewin and retained him. On Sunday, August 15, 2010 Attorney Lewin went to Massachusetts General Hospital to visit with AJ. Because of a severe heart condition, AJ was transported from the State Police Lockup to a locked unit at the hospital where a Mass. State Trooper was stationed outside his room 24 hours per day. Attorney Lewin (on Sunday) got the case fully prepared and then on Monday, August 16, 2010 appeared in East Boston District Court where AJ was arraigned on a Criminal Complaint charging him with being a fugitive from justice from the State of Pennsylvania. Attorney Lewin prepared a Motion for Release on Bail that informed the judge about AJ’s circumstances and why he warranted consideration for release on bail.. The Interstate Compact on Rendition allows a judge to release a person arrested as a fugitive; although it is a power that is rarely used. After a thorough hearing the Judge admitted AJ to bail and by noontime on Monday AJ and his wife and baby walked out of the Courthouse and headed for the airport to return to Ohio and then to return to the court in Pennsylvania. Everyone told AJ to save his money and not hire a lawyer as no judge would release him where he was a fugitive from justice from another state and lived in a third state. Attorney Lewin told AJ if we make a proper showing that you are not a flight risk and if we give the Judge the tools he needs, the Judge may very well admit you to bail. The worst the Judge can say is no; but in this case the Judge said yes. The lesson in this is don’t give up. When you are in a tough fight you have to fight back with all the tools at your disposal and sometimes you have to reach for the unreachable.
Case Against Lawyer for Larceny Dismissed
An Attorney was accused in Lawrence District Court of taking fees from a client and not performing the work. A criminal complaint for two counts of larceny from a person age 65 or older was filed against him. A charge of larceny can be easy to file but difficult to prove. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. In this case the “victim” was over age 65 at the time the charges were filed but it was clear from the evidence that at the time of the alleged thefts the “victim” was well under age 65. Right at the outset that reduced the two counts from aggravated larceny to simple larceny. Then Attorney Lewin noticed that the date of offense in Count 1 was more than six years before the date on which the criminal complaint issued. This put Count 1 beyond the six year Massachusetts Statute of Limitations. Now we were down to one count of simple larceny. To prove larceny by false pretences the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the taking of the money the accused had an intent to steal or defraud. This is an issue that is commonly raised in cases against contractors who take a deposit on a job and then for one reason or another don’t complete the job or don’t do any work at all on the job. Attorney Lewin and his staff researched the issue thoroughly and found a number of Massachusetts cases directly on point. The cases hold that mere non-performance of the job is not enought to prove an intent to steal or defraud at the time the the contractor is hired. An extensive Memorandum of Law was prepared for the judge and all the relevant cases were cited. When the Assistant District Attorney and Attorney Lewin argued the issue to the Judge, the Judge cited the very cases that Attorney Lewin had cited in his Memorandum. The District Attorney finally yielded and on August 9, 2010 all the charges against the lawyer were dismissed.
Online Child Enticement Case To Be Dismissed
AF, an 18 year old male from New York, had an online relationship with a 14 year old female from Massachusetts. The relationship included an exchange of pictures and an exchange of videos. The videos were very explicit. AF arranged to come to Massachusetts and meet with the female. They met and were seated in AF’s car when the police came. An investigation followed. The police in NY were contacted and AF’s computer was seized in NY. A forensic examination of AF’s computer and the female’s computer revealed the many explicit emails that AF and the female had exchanged as well as the videos. What this case was really all about was a love relationship between AF and the female. Attorney Lewin was able to convince the District Attorney that AF was not a “child predator”, that AF and the female had a genuine non-sexual relationship with one another (notwithstanding the pictures and the videos), and that AF was not the type of person the child enticement statute was designed to protect against. On July 26, 2010 with the agreement of the District Attorney the Judge in Framingham District Court continued AF’s case generally for six months. The case will be dismissed on January 11, 2011. There was no guilty plea; there was no “admission to sufficient facts”; this was NOT a plea bargain. There was absolutely no admission of any wrongdoing by AF. A successful result was reached, in part, because Attorney Lewin furnished to the District Attorney a number of the emails between AF and the female that showed that this really was a love relationship between AF and the female. It was important to avoid a conviction because a conviction would have required 20 years of sex offender registration as well as an electronic monitoring bracelet during any term of probation. All of that was avoided.