Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogIt 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.
License Reinstated in Less Than Four Hours
DC lives in Ohio and has an Ohio license. Recently DC went to renew his Ohio license and was told he had a warrant in Massachusetts and a license suspension in Massachusetts and that both would have to be cleared up before Ohio would renew his Ohio license. DC had a very substantial job in the construction industry and absolutely needed a license to earn a living. On Tuesday, July 27, DC contacted Attorney Lewin and retained Attorney Lewin. Within minutes Attorney Lewin determined that in fact there was NO warrant outstanding against DC, that the entry of a warrant was incorrect. There had been a warrant but that warrant had been cancelled some years earlier. Attorney Lewin then contacted the Registry of Motor Vehicles, got the Registry to correct its records, and got DC’s driving privileges reinstated. All this was done in under 4 hours.
License Reinstatement in Under 24 Hours
In 2004 MS was cited in Brookline, Massachusetts for one criminal motor vehicle violation and two civil motor vehicle infractions. MS subsequently moved to Rhode Island and then to Viriginia and never received the court summons to appear in Brookline District Court. In 2005 a warrant was issued by Brookline District Court. For the last four years MS has had a valid Virginia license. Recently MS went to renew his Virginia license and was told he could not renew it because of the warrant in Massachusetts. On Wednesday, July 28, 2010 MS contacted Attorney Lewin and retained Attorney Lewin. On Thursday, July 29, 2010 Attorney Lewin went to Brookline District Court to begin work on the case. After reviewing the Court papers and speaking the with Assistant District Attorney, Attorney Lewin was confident the Judge would look favorably on a request to cancel the warrant and dispose of the case without MS having to travel from Virginia to Massachusetts. A Motion for relief was presented to the Judge who then (1) allowed Attorney Lewin to appear for MS, (2) excused MS’s appearance in court, (3) dismissed the criminal charge, (4) entered findings of not responsible on the civil motor vehicle infractions, (5) cancelled the warrant and (6) closed the case. The cancellation of the warrant was electronically transmitted to the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles and Viriginia allowed MS to renew his Virginia license. All this was done in under 24 hours.
Avoiding A Criminal Record As A Thief – Malden Court
One rainy day Patrick M, age 18, was walking to a friend’s house when it began pouring. Patrick saw a bicycle leaning up against a house in Wakefield. Patrick figured if he “borrowed” the bike he could get to his friend’s house more quickly and not get quite so wet. In a moment of poor decision making, Patrick entered the yard, grabbed the bicycle, and rode away to his friend’s house. Patrick left the bike at the friend’s house in the back yard. Unfortunately for Patrick, a witness had seen Patrick take the bicycle and had followed Patrick. The witness went to the police. The police retrieved the bike and confronted Patrick. In a moment of contrition Patrick admitted taking the bike and apologized profusely. He told the police it was his intention to return the bike the next morning and that he never intended to steal it. Patrick wrote a heartfelt letter of apology to the owner of the bike. The police charged Patrick with larceny over $250, a felony. Patrick retained Attorney Lewin prior to his arraignment. On the morning of the arraignment Attorney Lewin asked that the arraignment not be held but that the case be continued for a period of time to allow Attorney Lewin to try to convince the DA’s office to dismiss the case prior to the arraignment. The case was continued two more times and on June 23, 2010 the DA’s office agreed to dismiss the case “prior to arraignment”. The significance of the case being dismissed “prior to the arraignment” is that the case does not go on Patrick’s record. A charge of Larceny over $250 brands someone as a thief and no one wants to hire a thief. As a result of good lawyering at the outset of the case Patrick came out of this with no criminal record.
Clearing An Old Warrant
In 1995, while he was a college student in Rhode Island, Joseph C attended a concert in Massachusetts. Driving back to Rhode Island at two in the morning Joseph was going down Route 95 at 95 mph. He was pulled over by the State Police. It turns out that his California License was suspended. He was cited by the Mass. State Police for Unlicensed Operation and Speeding. Thereafter he returned to Rhode Island and eventually to California. He never received the Court summons and was defaulted. A Warrant issued for his arrest. The case sat idle for over a decade. In 2010 the Massaschusetts RMV (Registry of Motor Vehicles) picked up the warrant and revoked his right to operate in Massaschusetts. That revokation was entered into the NDR (National Driver Register) Data Base and California refused to renew his license. He contacted the Court and was told he would have to come out to Massachusetts to clear the warrant. Joseph retained Attorney Lewin on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. On Wednesday morning, June 23, 2010 Attorney Lewin appeared in Wrentham District Court. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney who, after some haggling, agreed to didmiss the charges. Attorney Lewin appeared before the Judge and the Judge went along with the dismissal of the charges (including the speeding ticket of which he was found not responsible). Attorney Lewin obtained the Notice of Cancellation of Warrant and furnished it to the RMV and by 3:00 PM Joseph C was cleared in Massachusetts so that he could get his license in California. This took less than twenty-four hours after being retained. Joseph C is back out cruising in his BMW.