I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed for an article in the Metrowest Daily news regarding the frequent and sometimes over aggressive use of civil forfeiture laws by prosecutors and police.
.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1522324581/Drug-money-pads-DA-police-budgets
Three men were charged with larceny from a person, conspiracy to violate drug laws, and possession of more than an ounce of marijuana on February 3rd, according to the MetroWest Daily News. Two of the men are both reportedly from Rhode Island. The third is reportedly from Framingham. Police allege that the men traveled to Marlborough to purchase $2,000 worth of marijuana, but robbed their dealers instead.
Police were allegedly responding to a report of a domestic disturbance on Beach Street in Marlborough when a man and a woman flagged an officer down. The woman allegedly told the officer that a man had stolen her purse and run away with two other men toward Williams Street. Officers reportedly followed footprints in the snow to find the men in the Holiday Inn parking lot on Lakeside Avenue.
Police allege that one of the men that was arrested matched the description given to them by the woman whose purse was allegedly stolen. Police also allegedly found two pounds of marijuana and an air pistol on or near that individual.
The man matching the description then reportedly admitted to the police that he and the other two individuals had driven to Marlborough for the purpose of conducting a drug deal. The man allegedly stated that the three of them had made an agreement with the alleged drug dealers in which the men would pay the dealers $2,000 for the marijuana. However, the man allegedly stated that he did not have the money and had no intention of paying for the marijuana. He allegedly said he grabbed a paper bag containing the marijuana from the woman and ran away. The man allegedly contended that the air pistol police reportedly found on him had been tucked into the front of his pants and had not been shown during the alleged robbery.
All three men were reportedly released on personal recognizance at their arraignment in Marlborough District Court on February 4th.
The man and woman who flagged down police had not been charged when police released arrest logs Monday morning.
In order to prevail on the larceny from a person charge, prosecutors will have to prove that each of the men took property that was owned by someone other than him and that he intended to deprive that person of the property permanently. To prove the conspiracy to violate drug laws, the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the three men joined in an agreement or plan, the purpose of which was to violate Massachusetts drug laws, and that each of the men knew the plan was unlawful and intended to help carry it out. Finally, to prove the charge of possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the men possessed marijuana in an amount greater than one ounce. The other two men may have a defense against the possession charge since the marijuana was found on or near the first man. However, it is also possible for the charge to be proven against them despite the marijuana being in a companion’s possession. The three men are facing serious charges and could face the punishment of incarceration in prison or a house of corrections.
According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News a 31 year old man was arrested on Saturday, February 2nd at approximately 2:15 p.m. on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon. The man’s arrest allegedly stems from an argument in his hotel room at the Sheraton Hotel in Framingham. The argument reportedly involved two men in addition to the defendant. The three men work for a New Mexico company called Keystone. The men were reportedly staying at the Sheraton Hotel at 1657 Worcester Road to do installations at the hotel.
Around 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 2nd, one of the men allegedly stabbed the defendant in the chest, injuring him slightly. The defendant then allegedly attacked the man, who reportedly sustained multiple lacerations to his face. Police allegedly found a small knife in the hotel room with blood on it. The defendant reportedly told officers that he was defending himself when he cut the man. The third individual reportedly took the injured man to the hospital after the argument. The three men reportedly told police that “a long night of drinking” led to the dispute and resulting injuries and arrest.
Judge Robert Greco ordered the defendant held on $2,500 cash bail. The judge was likely motivated to set such a high bail amount due to the fact that the defendant is an out of state resident. The court wants to ensure that defendants are present for their next court date after arraignment. Therefore, defendants who do not have strong ties to the community are seen as more likely to flee and may receive higher bail amounts.
This case involves numerous complexities, including an ambiguity about the defendant’s home state. Conflicting information has arisen about whether he is from Pennsylvania or Mississippi. Additionally, the alleged victim and witness are both from New Mexico. Having the directly involved parties in this case all from states other than Massachusetts will likely lead to challenges for the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and many other parties involved in the case. Because the defendant’s bail is set at $2,500, he may remain in jail until his next court date. He has reportedly only worked for Keystone for a couple of weeks and only made about $200 thus far.
To prove the assault with a dangerous weapon charge, prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally touched the alleged victim with a dangerous weapon. If convicted, he is facing up to ten years in prison or 2 ½ years in a house of correction.
Someone facing a charge as serious as assault with a dangerous weapon needs an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney with the skills to advocate on his behalf. The defendant has a possible defense–self-defense–against the charge he is facing. Often, a fight results in one party being charged with a crime, even when that person was defending himself against an attack. The police who arrive on the scene may be missing crucial information that would allow them to assess who the instigating party was and who was merely defending himself.
Annie Dookhan pleaded not guilty to fifteen charges on Thursday December 20th at Suffolk Superior Court. The MetroWest Daily News has been following Dookhan’s case. Dookhan is the former Massachusetts drug lab chemist accused of tampering with evidence in a drug testing scandal that threatens thousands of criminal cases. Dookhan has been charged with tampering with evidence and perjury. She was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday, December 18th. Dookhan of Franklin, Massachusetts faces another twelve charges in other counties.
Dookhan, 35, pleaded not guilty to one count of perjury, five counts of obstruction of justice, one count of making a false claim of holding a master’s degree and eight counts of evidence tampering. Dookhan was released on $10,000 bail in September at the time of her arrest. Dookhan had previously but issued a 6:00 p.m. curfew. However, the Judge extended her curfew to 10:00 p.m. on December 20th. Dookhan has also been ordered to wear a GPS tracking device.
State prosecutors allege Dookhan fabricated test results and tampered with evidence when she tested substances for criminal cases. Judges throughout the Commonwealth have released approximately 200 defendants from custody over the last few months. Judges have put cases on hold for these defendants while this case is evaluated. The state is also reviewing thousands more cases that may be affected by Dookhan’s alleged crimes. The lab has been shut down since August 2012.
State police shut down the lab in August. Many more than the 200 cases that were put on hold since then could be affected. Authorities say Dookhan tested more than 60,000 samples involving 34,000 defendants during her nine years at the lab.
During Dookhan’s arraignment in September 2012, an Assistant Attorney General alleged that state police first learned of Dookhan’s actions after a chemist at the lab in which she worked said that he observed “many irregularities” in Dookhan’s work. The Assistant Attorney General also alleged that Dookhan admitted to state police that she would take shortcuts in her work, such as only testing five out of fifteen to twenty samples and then listing them all as positive for the presence of a drug.
She also allegedly acknowledged that sometimes, if a sample tested negative, she would take known cocaine from another sample and add it to the negative sample in order to make it test positive. Dookhan’s alleged motive in this case is that she wanted to be seen as a good worker in the lab.
Dookhan was suspended from lab duties after she allegedly was caught forging a colleague’s initials in June 2011. She resigned in March during an internal investigation by the Department of Public Health.
Dookhan’s case undermines the validity of drug testing in criminal cases. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases in Massachusetts will be affected by the claims against Annie Dookhan.
A 52 year old Chelsea man has been ordered held on $25,000 bail for charges of trying to extort $150,000 from a Framingham man, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. On Tuesday, January 8th, the defendant pleaded not guilty to charges of extortion, threatening to commit a crime, and making harassing phone calls.
The defendant reportedly told the alleged victim that the alleged victim owed him money due to a land deal involving the alleged victim’s father in Brazil. The defendant and several of his friends reportedly began calling the alleged victim in 2011, demanding money. The defendant also allegedly created a website, claiming that the alleged victim was a criminal and was wanted for murder in Brazil.
The alleged victim reportedly paid the defendant $3,000 in January 2012 out of fear. The defendant reportedly began calling the alleged victim again, demanding $150,000. The defendant reportedly told the alleged victim that he had contacts in Brazil who would kill the alleged victim’s family and also that he would kill the alleged victim and his family. If the defendant posts bail, he has been ordered to surrender his passport and not to contact the alleged victim and/or his family.
Under Massachusetts law, Extortion is defined as the malicious threat to accuse another of a crime; or any person of authority unlawfully using his powers, with intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will. To prevail on the extortion charges, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant engaged in written, verbal, or printed communication; that the communication constituted a threat; that the threatening communication was undertaken maliciously; that the threat was to accuse another person of a crime or offense, or to do injury to the person or property of another; and that the threat was undertaken with the intent to extort money or other pecuniary advantage, or to compel another to do an act against his or her will. The prosecutors in this case have many elements to prove to prevail on their charge of extortion against the defendant.
If the defendant is convicted of these charges, he will be facing up to fifteen years in prison or up to two and a half years in a house of correction, or a fine of up to five thousand dollars, or both.
To prove that the defendant made threats against the alleged victim, prosecutors will have to prove that he had the intention and ability to commit a crime, which would justify the alleged victim’s fear. If the defendant is convicted of threatening to commit a crime, he is facing fines and possible jail time.
Finally, to prevail on the harassment charges, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant engaged in a pattern, or committed a series of harassing acts over time. If convicted of harassment, the defendant is facing up to two and a half years of incarceration, as well as fines.
Anyone facing such serious charges needs a serious and committed Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer.
A Framingham woman was arrested on Thursday, January 10th, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. The woman was reportedly arrested at approximately 11:00 a.m. after police reportedly found her sitting in a running car on West Union Street drinking rum from a plastic cup.
Police reportedly checked on the woman because she was sitting in her car for a long time. Police reportedly found her drinking from a cup. The woman was allegedly startled by police; the officers also allegedly smelled alcohol on her breath.
The woman allegedly denied drinking alcohol; however, she reportedly subsequently admitted that she had a drink and that she “likes to drink rum.” Police reportedly administered several field sobriety tests, which she allegedly failed. Police also reportedly tested the liquid in her cup; the liquid allegedly tested positive for alcohol. Finally, police reportedly administered a Breathalyzer test, and the woman reportedly blew a .20. The legal limit for blood alcohol while driving is .08, meaning that the woman reportedly tested two and a half times over the legal limit.
The woman is charged with driving under the influence of liquor, driving to endanger, and possession of an open container of liquor in a vehicle. The woman has reportedly been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol once already, making this a subsequent offense for her. If she is convicted again of this charge, she is facing more severe penalties under Massachusetts law. However, the woman’s first OUI offense reportedly occurred in 1978. Therefore, the court may look more favorably on her than if she had been convicted of this offense more recently. Because this second offense is alleged to have occurred more than 10 years after the 1st offense, the woman is eligible for a disposition that would help her avoid some of the more serious penalties often associated with second offense OUI.
The woman pleaded not guilty at her Framingham District Court arraignment on Friday. She was released without bail. She is due back in court on February 11th for a pretrial conference.
To successfully obtain a conviction for the OUI charge, prosecutors will need to prove that the woman was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Because the woman took a Breathalyzer test, the prosecutors can use the evidence from that test as evidence that she was under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. The woman may claim that the Breathalyzer test was not properly calibrated as a defense. For the driving to endanger charge, prosecutors will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was operating a motor vehicle on a public road so as to endanger any person, including her. Because the woman was sitting in a running car, but was not actually driving, she could have a defense against this charge.
If convicted of the OUI charge, the woman will be facing serious penalties, including fines and a suspension of her license. A driving to endanger conviction can lead to penalties, such as jail time.
A recent article in the MetroWest Daily news tells the story of a Shrewsbury man who is facing serious charges, including motor vehicle homicide by negligent driving. The charges were issued in connection with the death of a pedestrian the defendant is accused of hitting. The defendant is a former bus driver for the Worcester Regional Transit Authority and was working when he allegedly struck a 62-year-old woman with his bus. The alleged victim reportedly died on September 28, 2012. The defendant, who is 70 years old, reportedly retired after the accident. A complaint containing the charges was reportedly issued on Thursday, December 13th. The defendant is scheduled to be arraigned next month. It will be decided whether the defendant will be held on bail, and how much, at the arraignment.
The alleged victim was reportedly six to ten feet into the road when she was struck by the defendant’s bus. She also was reportedly not in a crosswalk. Police allege that the defendant never came to a complete stop before making a turn. Visibility was reportedly poor because of rain, as well as glare from other vehicles.
The charges the defendant is facing are serious. A conviction for motor vehicle homicide could result in incarceration.
The defendant could be facing a misdemeanor or felony offense of motor vehicle homicide. What the prosecution will have to prove depends on whether he has been charged with the misdemeanor or felony offense. Either way, the prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public way or where members of the public have a right of access or are invitees and that his actions caused the death of another person.
However, if the defendant is charged with the misdemeanor version of this offense, the prosecutors will only have to prove that he operated the vehicle recklessly or that he operated the vehicle negligently so as to endanger the lives and safety of the public. If convicted of the misdemeanor section of the statute you can be sentenced for up to 2 ½ years in jail.
If the defendant is facing the felony version of this offense, the prosecutors will have to prove that he operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that he operated the vehicle recklessly or negligently. The defendant could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison if convicted under this section. There is a minimum mandatory one-year jail sentence if he is convicted.
The article does not mention whether the defendant is alleged to have been under the influence of any drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident. Therefore, he is likely facing the misdemeanor charge of motor vehicle homicide. The article also makes it sound as though the prosecutors will argue that the defendant was driving in a negligent manner at the time of the accident.
According to a recent article in the MetroWest Daily news, a Marlborough resident was ordered held on $20,000 bail in Marlborough District Court Thursday, December 20th. The man was arraigned after police said he stole more than $5,000 in checks from his girlfriend’s parents. The man has been charged with two counts of uttering a false check and two counts of larceny by check over $250.
The alleged victims – the parents of the man’s girlfriend – reportedly contacted police on Wednesday and said that the man had stolen checks from them and had tried to cash one of them at St. Mary’s Credit Union earlier in the day.
The alleged victims reportedly told police that they were contacted by a branch manager. The branch manager allegedly told them that the man had tried to cash the check but could not do so because there were insufficient funds in the account. Officers reportedly stopped a car in which the man was riding and arrested him Thursday.
Police allege that over the previous month, the man had drained the account. The man allegedly had written himself twelve checks for a total of $5,551.
The alleged victims reportedly positively identified the man in a surveillance video. The man was also allegedly seen passing checks and receiving cash on December 5th and December 18th.
Investigators are reportedly working with the bank to get surveillance footage from other times when the man was believed to have passed false checks. The man is facing serious charges, including larceny over $250, which is a felony in Massachusetts.
To prevail on the charge of uttering requires that the Commonwealth prove that whoever passed the document knew it was false. However, in Massachusetts, courts may consider a bounced check to be prima facie evidence that the person who passed the check intended to defraud, unless the person deposits enough money to cover the check within 48 hours of being notified by the bank that the check has passed. In other words, simply passing a false check and not depositing money to cover the debt can be evidence that you knew there were insufficient funds in the account and were deliberately trying to defraud the bank. Therefore, the man needs a skilled attorney that can fight these charges and the presumption that he was intending to defraud by allegedly passing the checks.
If convicted of these charges, the man is facing serious penalties. Larceny of property valued at $250 or more is a serious offense in Massachusetts, punishable by up to five years in prison. Larceny of property worth less than $250 is punishable by up to one year in prison. These charges can have a serious impact on his future if he is convicted. A felony conviction can impact a person’s ability to secure employment, own a firearm, or have custody of his or her children.
A Natick woman has been charged with stealing packages off of two residents’ doorsteps, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. The woman pleaded not guilty to the charges in Framingham District Court on Thursday, December 20th. Natick police reportedly arrested her at 11:54 a.m. Thursday morning at her home.
A local resident reportedly said he saw a woman, later allegedly identified as the defendant, grab a package that was on his front porch and walk back to her car. He told police he confronted her and wrote down her license plate and called police after she left with his package.
Police reportedly spoke to the woman at her home, at which time she denied any knowledge to what police were referring. Police allegedly found another package in her car with another name on it. Police allege that they could smell a strange burning odor and saw a very large fire in the woman’s fireplace. Police allege that the item she had stolen off the resident’s porch that day was burned in the fireplace.
One of the items allegedly stolen by the woman was a dry erase board worth about $50. It is unknown what the other item is and its value because the victim reportedly ordered several things online and has to wait until after Christmas to see what was delivered.
The woman was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of larceny of property worth less than $250 and one count of larceny of property worth more than $250. She is also charged with intimidation of a witness and burning personal property.
The woman posted $100 bail after her arrest and was released. Prosecutors did not ask for any additional bail at the arraignment on Thursday. The woman is due back in court on Feb. 11 for a pretrial conference.
The woman is facing both misdemeanor and felony charges. Larceny of property worth less than $250 is a misdemeanor. However, larceny of property worth more than $250 is a felony. The article does not say what was stolen that was worth more than $250. The police appear to be assuming that whatever property was burned was worth more than $250 since the dry erase board was only worth $50. If the property that police allegedly found burned ends up being worth less than $250, the woman will only be facing misdemeanor larceny charges. Prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was worth more than $250 to prevail on that charge so they may face tough odds on that element.
In order to prevail on the charge of burning personal property, prosecutors will have to prove that: (1) the property in question was certain personal property as defined by the law that was owned either by another; (2) the woman aided, procured, caused, or set fire to or burned the property; (3) the woman did so wilfully; and (4) the the woman did so maliciously.
If convicted of any of these charges, the woman could be facing jail time, probation, or fines. The woman needs an experienced attorney to help her overcome these charges. She may overcome the felony larceny charge if the burned property allegedly found in her home was worth less than $250. Additionally, if the property was burned as police stated, she may be able to argue that they could not identify the property as belonging to the resident who called police.
According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman was arrested Wednesday, December 19th at 11 p.m. after an alleged attack on her boyfriend. The boyfriend was also for allegedly shoving the woman.
Police charged the woman, with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon–a stool–burglary during the night with an armed assault, and malicious mischief causing more than $250 worth of damage. The boyfriend was charged with assault and battery.
Police reportedly received two 911 calls around 8:30 p.m. after a fight at 7 Taylor St., Framingham. The woman reportedly told police that her boyfriend had assaulted her. Police arrested the boyfriend. He then reportedly told police about a violent attack on him committed by the woman, which another man allegedly witnessed.
The boyfriend was allegedly at his apartment drinking with a friend when his girlfriend came over. The woman allegedly thought that her boyfriend was cheating on her and reportedly arrived at his home screaming and forced her way into his apartment. She also reportedly knocked down a wall to his living room when he locked himself inside. The woman allegedly broke a television by throwing it on the floor, dumped a case of beer on the floor, and broke a stool over her boyfriend’s body.
The woman reportedly denied the boyfriend’s allegations and told police that she cut her finger when the boyfriend repeatedly shoved her. She also allegedly denied trashing the boyfriend’s apartment.
Both the woman and her boyfriend were reportedly released without bail. However, the boyfriend was reportedly taken into federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody because authorities had a detainer warrant for him. Both the woman and her boyfriend are both due back in court on January 11th for a pretrial conference.
The woman is facing serious felony charges, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and burglary with an armed assault. To prove the charge of burglary during the night with an assault, prosecutors will have to prove that the woman broke into a person’s house, entered the house, did so with the intent to commit a felony, either entered the home armed or became armed with a weapon while in the residence and assaulted someone, and that she did so in the nighttime. Prosecutors will have to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The woman is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of no less than 15 years if convicted of burglary with an armed assault. If she is able to get the armed assault during the burglary reduced to assault on someone occupying the residence, she is facing a minimum of 10 years for a first offense. If the woman has been convicted of a similar crime in the past, she is facing even harsher penalties.
The boyfriend is facing assault and battery, which is a misdemeanor charge; however, he is apparently facing immigration issues. A conviction can seriously impact a person’s immigration status.
Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog