Roslindale Man Is Charged With Leaving The Scene Of An Accident And Vehicular Homicide In Boston – Attorney Sam’s Take

A Roslindale man has allegedly learned a criminal justice lesson on the topic of hit-and-run accidents. Namely, you can hit. You can run. But you cannot hide.

Colin Ratiu, 23 (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is the=is unfortunate driver according to the Commonwealth . He was arraigned in court yesterday after pleading “not guilty” to charges of leaving the scene of an accident after causing death, and motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation.

The accident happened in November. The Defendant was using someone else’s car and is said to have explained the damage on the vehicle by saying that when he had swerved to avoid a skunk, he ended up hitting...”something”.

In fact, what the car actually struck was a 24-year-old Northeastern University graduate driving home in a scooter. The scooter was thrown about 150 feet. The graduate was killed.

“He then proceeded to drive away without stopping,’’ the prosecutor told the judge yesterday.

Homicide detectives began the investigation immediately, but it was not until 89 days after the accident that an anonymous tip led them to the car that had allegedly been driven by the Defendant that fateful night. The damage on the vehicle was consistent with what they were looking for. Upon questioning, the vehicle’s owner told the detectives about the Defendant and his skunk story.

When the police went to question the Defendant, he is reported to have said, “I have a lawyer, and I don’t want to talk about it.’’

In court, the defense did not address the allegations, but pointed out that members of the Defendant’s family were in court (showing strong community ties) and that the Defendant had had no prior criminal record and had not left the state and answered to police when he knew they were looking for him.

Bail was set at $7,500 cash.

Over my years as an experienced Boston criminal defense attorney, I have been contacted by various frightened people who seem to be exploring the idea of sitting back and ignoring the fact that the police or prosecutors are investigating them. My advice to them is generally the same as what I tell you. Get an experienced defense attorney involved as soon as possible. When you do, you can at least tell the police that you are only too happy to speak to them, but they have to get the green light from your attorney first.

This way, if no statement is given, it is the defense attorney who is the bad guy, not you.

Please note the difference between “go through my attorney, but I have nothing to hide” and “I have a lawyer, so get lost.”

Anyway, many of these calls from either people with outstanding arrest warrants or who have been involved in some kind of accident…and then kept going.

Often, these individuals figure that if the police have not already come banging down their door, then they are probably home free and so do not need any help.

This is generally a mistake.

First of all, as you can see from this story, the investigation does not stop simply because the driver is not yet caught.

Second, in most cases, particularly if there is damage on the vehicle, the more you wait the worse it will be. Every case is different, of course. However, if you contact the police, at least you can take some of the sting out of the leaving the scene. Perhaps you did not know you hit something until you got out of your car and saw the damage.

“But, Sam, what if you do not know if it was a car bumper or a living person you hit?”

It really does not matter in terms of leaving the scene. It is illegal whether a person was injured or killed or if it was simply property damage that was the result.

“What if you can tell that, at worse, it was a little scratch you may have left behind?”

It does not matter. The law indicates that any damage, “however slight” counts. You see, once you leave the scene, the damage is not really the issue anymore. It is the fact that you left the scene.

And, yes….the Commonwealth takes these cases quite seriously, even if the damage was slight.

So, if only to minimize damage to your liberty, it is best to get an experienced criminal defense attorney involved as soon as possible.

If you would like it discuss such a matter with me, please feel free to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/15/suspect_is__held_in__fatal_nov__hit_run/?p1=Local_Links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Police Department Investigates Officers For Court Misconduct – Attorney Sam’s Take

I guess it is a good thing that I am vacationing in New York as I write this; the Boston Police Department just broken my heart!

Imagine my excitement after all the blogs I have written about police misconduct...particularly the off-an-on relationship law enforcement seems to have on the stand when it comes time to testify. I found an article on the Boston Herald announcing, “BPD eyeing possible ‘misconduct’ of 4 officers”

My hopes even grew as I learned that said misconduct involved what they did in court!

“Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy”, I thought. “Finally, this is going to be addressed. Hurray for law and order and no-nonsense prosecutors”, I thought.

But then I read on.

“Testilying”, as it was called in Brooklyn, was not what everybody was worried about.

You see, it is true that a Boston police detective sergeant is on paid leave and three other officers are on administrative duty while internal affairs and prosecutors investigate the possible misconduct, according to a police statement. However, the “misconduct” has nothing to do with robbing citizens of their liberty through blatantly breaking the law against perjury.

Instead, the transgression has to do with making too much overtime.

Kind of a white collar sort of thing. Kinda sorta.

You know, the kind of thing that would be called "fraud" if you or I did it.

You see, police officers make overtime pay for court appearances that fall on their days off or at times that are not part of their regular shift. The concern, according to Boston Police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll, is whether four officers went to court when they were not supposed to go.

“At this point we’re trying to determine the facts and circumstances relative to this investigation,”Ms.. Driscoll explained.

She further explained that the situation has led the department to audit the system it uses to manage police officers’ court appearances. In a message from Boston police Commissioner Edward Davis to the entire department, Davis said the investigation involves “several” officers from Area E-5 Hyde Park/West Roxbury.

A vital and necessarily huge investigation like this cannot be handled by the police department alone. And so, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley’s office is cooperating with the department and monitoring its investigation a spokesperson for the DA announced. She said that “The commissioner has called for an audit of the court reporting system...At this point, it’s a citywide audit. It’s just good management, being extraordinarily thorough.”

As you can imagine, serious allegations like this requires a vigorous defense. It should therefore be no surprise that Gerry Sanfilippo, president of the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society, has weighed in, saying that the union remains firmly behind its members as the investigation moves forward.

He further explained “We always support our members to the fullest.”

Oh, thank G-d. I thought that the Commonwealth’s priorities had somehow collided with common sense in my absence!

Over the past quarter century, both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I have had a great deal of experience dealing with law enforcement and police testimony.

My eyes moisten as I remember the early days, in Brooklyn, when I was preparing an officer to testify on a search and seizure matter in a drug case. I asked the officer how the search happened, trying to find a way to make two inconsistent stories somehow consistent.

His answer was, “Which was is better?”

Smile, smile, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

He actually seemed somewhat confused when I told him, “The way it actually happened.”

Police officers are given a great deal of deference by judges and jurors when they testify. It is assumed that they always tell the truth. Of course, it is also assumed that were the officers to stray from the truth after taking that all-important oath, the prosecutors would surely prosecute.

You remember the last time something like that actually happened?

No, I didn’t think so.

Naturally, the powers that be are not concerned with such things. After all, who do they hurt...defendants? Come on, things are much too tight to worry about them.

After all, there is money involved here!

So, don’t look to the Commonwealth for considerations of fairness and an even playing field.

If you want a shot at that, look for an experienced criminal defense attorney who knows the situation to argue for it on your behalf.

If you want to talk to me about a case, feel free to call me at 617-493-3000.

In the meantime, have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1317663&srvc=rss

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Former South Hadley Prosecutor Testifies At Boston Bullying Hearing – Attorney Sam’s Take

How do former Massachusetts prosecutorial politicians and general politicians admit that they were wrong? Well, they don’t. They simply, and quietly, try to seek a “do over”, as young kids would say.

And so it was that former South Hadley prosecutor, Elizabeth Scheibel (hereinafter, “EXDA”), joined with others yesterday to address the fact that her and other heroic (and speedy) legislators’ measures regarding bullying do not seem to be working very well.

You remember EXDA, don’t you? In response to the public outcry of Phoebe Prince’s suicide, she is the political prosecutor (“PP”) who made headlines, instead of sense, when she indicted a bunch of kids for, when it comes down to it, bullying. Rather than doing further investigation (which the media did later for her), it was more palatable for her to ruin the lives of the other kids involved.

The transparently political move, while gaining accolades at first, soured in the light of day and she thereafter retired. However, the damage had been done. Part of that damage was to “up the ante” with her fellow politicians regarding bullying. So, in true political fashion, they pushed through what they called “the toughest anti-bullying law in the country” Unfortunately, the awesome law did little save give a false sense of security to the general public and confuse those who had to actually read the thing.

Oh. And it also gave us "No Name Calling Day".

Well, since the bullying problem is, if anything, getting worse, folks are meeting to figure out what to do. A hearing took place at the State House in Boston yesterday. It was convened by PP Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is leading a seven-member panel charged with assessing the anti-bullying law enacted last year.

There were various participants testifying. For purposes of this blog, EXDA was the most interesting of them. One of the obvious problems that she addressed was that there are no “teeth” in the bill as described in this blog on Tuesday.

EXDA opined that the anti-bullying law should be more like laws governing child abuse, a criminal offense, which require a broad range of caretakers to report suspected abuse or face civil penalties.

The law does urge school officials to refer anything that could be considered criminal to law enforcement. EXDA, however, feels it should go further. She suggested that administrators report to prosecutors all episodes they have determined to be bullying, not just those they believe are criminal, as the law currently demands.

EXDA explained that referring credible bullying cases to law enforcement would not increase the number of criminal prosecutions because law enforcement officials share school administrators’ hopes of keeping students out of the criminal justice system.

Apparently, this is a bad thing in EXDALAND.

However, EXDA explains, prosecutors do not have such an odd reluctance. Further, she says, that district attorney’s offices are better equipped to make the call when criminal charges are appropriate.

Coakley declined to comment on Scheibel’s testimony.

I have been imbedded in the criminal justice system for over 25 years. I have been on both sides of the aisle. I think I have a fairly accurate picture of who the players and their mindsets.

Judges judge. They are human, of course, and therefore susceptible to various influences like the rest of us. However, they try to rise above that and they judge. Defense attorneys defend. It is what we are supposed to do and it is what we do...when the job is done right.

Prosecutors, though, are not meant to simply prosecute. Their job description is to “do justice”. While most assistant district attorneys probably want to do that (again, with their own frailties and prejudices), they must obey office policies and directives. These are handed down by the particular PP who’s office it is.

Doing “Justice” is not necessarily the goal of a politician who knows that he or she will be judged simply on whether they were “tough” enough on crime.

I do not hate to say “I told you so”, so I will just tell you that I did. While it was all happening. Just check the blogs from back then. It is no surprise that the problem has simply gotten worse and that school officials, PPs and legislators are all scratching their heads at the problem.

Just like it is not brain surgery to suggest that putting prosecutors in charge of all bullying instances is sheer lunacy. On the other hand...look who suggested it

The issue of bullying is an age-old one and it is not going to be solved by knee-jerk quick political answers.

So, assuming you have no affiliation or interest in schools or kids. What does this posting have to do with you?

It is a reminder that is not often presented with such a clear illustration. However, it is an important one and, thanks to EXDA, I have a great illustration.

As mentioned, prosecutors prosecute. It is the mindset as well as the political motivation.

I meet many people who still believe that if they just “play ball” with the prosecution and tell the truth, as they see it, then everything will be ok and those investigating officers will simply go away.

This is naivety.

When the investigation leads to your door….call a lawyer!

An experienced criminal defense attorney is your best bet in having….to be kind to my friends representing the Commonwealth…another mindset involved.

One that cares about you.

If you have a criminal case and would like to discuss it with me, , please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/10/activists_urge_lawmakers_to_extend_law_on_bullying/

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Area Men Are Arrested For Drug-Related Arson-Attorney Sam’s Take

The Boston Housing Authority has had to close a nine-unit building for repairs, displacing nine families after three men allegedly set fire to a unit at the Bunker Hill housing development this week. The police say that the intended victims escaped through a window. Boston firefighters extinguished the two-alarm fire, but also had to rescue second-floor residents who were trapped by heavy smoke and fire.

Thankfully, no serious injuries were reported. According to the BHA, the families have been at hotels while the new apartments for them are sought. In the meantime, the families are being aided by the Red Cross.

James Burrell and Dashaun Lanair James, both 32 and of Charlestown, and Daniel Grayson, 28, of Roxbury, (hereinafter, collectively, the “Defendants”) have been charged with the blaze and have pleaded not guilty to arson of a dwelling and other related charges.

Bail was set at $150,000 for Burrell, $85,000 for James, and $50,000 for Grayson.

The Commonwealth believes that the arson was committed in connection with a drug debt. According to police, Burrell had been arguing with a man over said drug debt. Then, police say, the Defendants were standing in a hallway of the building shortly after midnight when a flammable liquid was poured under a unit’s door. Burrell is said to have ignited the liquid and then the Defendants all allegedly ran into a neighboring apartment building on Decatur Street.

Inside his apartment in that building, police found Burrell in his bed.

Tipped by a “concerned community member,’’ police also found James and Grayson inside a vehicle which had been spotted driving away from Decatur Street.

While not as common as assault, arson is a crime that any experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney has had to deal with.

The crime is treated particularly seriously when the fire caused was in a residence. It is also one of those felonies where, if someone dies from the fire, said death is considered foreseeable. Therefore, “I didn’t think anybody was home” is not a defense.

The charge would be murder.

Because such fires are rarely set in front of an audience, the evidence is these cases tends to be fairly circumstantial and scientific. After all, the prosecution needs to prove not only that the defendant committed the crime, but that a crime was committed at all.

In the instant case, there is clearly much more that the police suspect than has been released. For example, why were the Defendants named at all? Did someone allegedly overhear the drug money argument? Why would the two defendants in the car be suspected? Why was their car noticed?

After all, it is not unusual for two men to be in a car together. It is not suspicious that a man would be in his bed in his own apartment at night.

Because this evidence is likely to be eyewitness testimony, it presents even more issues for the prosecution. For example, since the informant seems to know the people involved, could he have some vendetta against these defendants? Was he part of the drug trade? Finally, could he have started the fire and pinned it on the Defendants?

This would not be the first time that such actions were taken to eliminate debts or competition in the drug trade.

A key item the Commonwealth will be looking to will be whether the scientific evidence is consistent with what the witness says.

If not…they will have to choose.

Choosing under such circumstances tends to have the odor of reasonable doubt about it.

As with any type of criminal case, you want an experienced defense attorney to aid you if you are accused. If you want to discuss such a matter with me, feel free to call me for a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

To view the original story on which this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/09/3_held_as_ars

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Arrested In Boston For Drunk Driving With A Little Warrant In Between- Attorney Sam’s Take

Boston police got a 2-for-1 bargain earlier this week in the area of drunk driving.

They stopped an automobile near Columbia Road and Holden Street in Roxbury. It was initially stopped, according to law enforcement, because it had not stopped at a red light.

As part of normal practice, the driver was asked to produce his license and registration

Guess what?

Whoops! The driver’s license had been revoked. Whoops again...the driver had an outstanding warrant for his arrest due to a pending drunk driving charge.

So, the driver was about to become a guest of the Commonwealth. He asked the officers if his passenger could drive the vehicle home so that it would not have to be impounded.

Whoops a third time!

Upon checking the passenger out, it was discovered that she, too, had a drunk driving warrant out for her arrest.

Ironically, there is nothing in the story to indicate that either arrestees were suspected of being intoxicated when they were arrested.

Over the past 21 years as a Boston criminal defense attorney, I have handled more than my fair share of drunk driving cases...not to mention cases in which an outstanding arrest warrant has “dropped” upon a semi-unsuspecting citizen.

As I have mentioned in the past, the Commonwealth takes drunk driving and driving to endanger cases quite seriously. Obviously, matters are made even worse when one has a warrant out for their arrest.

Once law enforcement finds out that there is an outstanding warrant for your arrest, you are immediately placed under arrest.

“But Sam, it is a pretty busy Commonwealth. Surely they have better things to worry about than putting me in jail just because I forgot to show up in court to answer a mere vehicular crime.

Not so. The Commonwealth may be busy, but they still have time enough for you. Courts take defaults seriously and, often, if a person returns to court by way of handcuff, bail will be raised or completely revoked.

Now, if you put together that there is a warrant out for drunk driving, you do not have a valid license and you are still driving anyway...well, it does not make a particularly impressive picture.

On the other hand, if your aim is to create a challenge for whichever attorney is arguing bail on your behalf, it is a nice approach.

Speaking of which...if you wait to be brought into court unexpectedly by law enforcement your chances of steeper bail conditions go up. It is best to be proactive in these cases. Come back on your own terms, voluntarily. It will help a great deal. Want to improve your chances even more? Hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to help ease the way beforehand and appear with you when you return.

It’s more of a “prodigal son” type of approach.

If you want to discuss a criminal case with me, feel free to call me for a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

In the meantime, have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!
To view the original story about which this blog was based, please go to : http://bostonist.com/2011/02/01/boston_blotter_armed_robbers_caught.php

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Mass Assault Results In Multi-Defendant Murder Trial- Attorney Sam’s Take

Two years ago, a group of men capped off a friend’s funeral by allegedly committing murder. These gentlemen were in South Boston and are now hereinafter referred to, collectively, as the “Defendants”.

It was August, 2009, and the Defendants, dressed in their red tuxedos had apparently decided to go “clubbing” to drown their sorrows after the funeral. According to the Commonwealth, they had a verbal disagreement with 22-year-old Jose “Danny Alicea and two of his friends outside Club 33 on Stanhope Street.

These exchanged words were then capped by one of the Defendants’ allegedly throwing a bottle at their sparring partners. Yes, as in assault with a dangerous weapon (to wit: a bottle).

A melee erupted between the two groups.

Police arrived to find Mr. Alicea lying on the ground, bloody and unconscious. People were trying to wake him.

They couldn’t. He was dead.

The first group of the Defendants, Jason Benalfew, 28; Daniel Ek, 24; and Johan Garcia, 30, all of Lynn; and Anthony Villalobos, 23, of Revere, began their second-degree murder trial on Monday. A second group of the Defendants will be tried at another date.

In his opening statement, the prosecutor acknowledged to the jury that none of the Defendants intended to actually kill Mr. Alicea. “But make no mistake about it”, he explained, “This was no accident.”

All four defense attorneys decided to make opening statements on behalf of their clients. They argued that law enforcement had unfairly lumped their clients together amid the chaos. They further pointed out that, under the law, merely being present at the scene of a homicide is not a crime.

One defense attorney predicted that the case will be too confusing to reach a verdict. He told the jurors, “You will have more questions than answers about who did what.“You won’t be able to tell whether one is going in the direction of the (brawl) to help, to watch or to fight.”

Through my quarter century of experience in criminal law practice, I have brought many cases to trial. Through many years of training less experienced attorneys and law students on trial practice, I have been intimately involved in many more trials.,

Trials are the “moment of truth” in the trenches. It is the front line of the mounting battle between defense and prosecution in any given case. While every case is different, certain things tend to happen more times than not.

For example, beginning a trial telling the jury that they are unlikely to understand what the heck happened in the case they are about to hear is generally not a great idea. First of all, the prosecution has just laid it out for them. While it is fine to say that the Commonwealth is not going to be able to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, starting the trial by basically insulting the jury is not terribly wise.

It basically challenges them to be sure to keep their facts straight in spite of you. “in spite of you” translates to they do not like you. Not liking you is not going to help your client.

These type of cases do have their difficulties built into the prosecution. After all, this was a melee by all accounts. There will unquestionably be issues as to who did what. Even if the Commonwealth’s witnesses offer clear accounts about how events transpired, there will be questions as to their ability to perceive.

Is that the end of the prosecution’s hope to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

No.

As we have often discussed, the Commonwealth’s theory in these cases are that the Defendants acted in a joint enterprise. It is a conspiracy-type of theory. Should they be able to show that the Defendants acted together, each defendant will be responsible for what their co-defendants did. True, the defense may argue that this is not fair, but the judge and prosecution will tell the jury that it is the law.

This is not a “Murder One” case. The prosecution does not have to show that there was “deliberate premeditation”. Merely “Malice aforethought”. There are differences, which the court will explain to the jury. Additionally, the jury could convict the Defendants if it finds that the killing was caused while in the commission of a felony not punishable by life imprisonment.

Yes, assault with a dangerous weapon qualifies.

So, the bottom line is that this case is not a “slam dunk” for any side.

Clearly, an experienced trial attorney will increase chances of success. But then, I have told you that many times already.

If you have a criminal case to face, and would like to discuss it with me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1313770

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Fall River Man Released In Boston Murder But Held On Drug Charges- Attorney Sam’s Take

It would appear that Fall River’s Shawn Drumgold, 45, (hereinafter the “Defendant”) has clutched defeat out of the jaws of victory. He was once wrongfully convicted of a 1988 Boston murder. He ended up being exonerated and released. He then even won a lawsuit, and a $14 million judgment for said conviction.

That's where the good news ends.

Yesterday, he was back before the bar of justice...now arrested on drug charges, including possession of a Class A substance with intent to distribute. After pleading “not guilty”, he was released on $500 cash bail.

According to a Boston police report, an informant told police earlier this month that drugs were being sold out of a particular Roxbury. Police raided the apartment on Wednesday, the report states, and recovered several bags of heroin and crack cocaine, as well as $304 cash from the Defendant’s person. He was arrested along with several other suspects, authorities said.

The Defendant had been released in November, 2003 after prosecutors said they believed he was wrongfully convicted because he did not receive a fair trial. In April 2008, a federal jury in Boston ruled that a city police detective violated the Defendant’s civil rights during the investigation by concealing that he gave money to a key prosecution witness before that witness testified in the murder trial. The jury awarded the Defendant $14 million, plus interest, in October 2009.

The Defendant’s current lawyer says that the Defendant has been working as a day laborer but has not received any job training or counseling from the state, which is required by law under the wrongful conviction statute.

‘‘I’m sure that 15 years of demons [in prison] takes a lot of counseling to take care of,’’ she said.

I have been in the criminal justice trenches for around 25 years. I can tell you that to be able to show your innocence and get out of prison on a murder case is to seriously beat the odds. To have such a thing happen at the behest of the prosecution is basically a miracle.

Indeed, the Defendant’s life seems to be a roller coaster ride. Big highs, big lows.

After all, being found guilty of murder and thrown into prison is a downer for anyone. One can only imagine the horror if you know you are not guilty! How that effects a person I can only imagine.

One can also only imagine the difficulty of trying to rejoin society after such a thing with no training or counseling.

By the way...if you are wondering what happenned to the money he won? He hasn't gotten it. The Commonwealth is deciding whether to appeal the jury's verdict.

And yet…while that may be a part of how the Defendant finds himself in this new trouble, the same system which wronged him before will likely not consider these uncomfortable details. Today, he stands simply just another criminal defendant who has been arrested in our crusade against the drug trade.

And who’s job will it be to stand up and demand that the judge and jury remember that he is a human being, not just a “defendant”?

His lawyer. If the Defendant is lucky, she is an experienced attorney. It could make the difference between fair treatment as a human being and another cruel blow of criminal justice fate like he received before.

If you would like to discuss a criminal matter with me, whatever your past, please feel free to call me at t 617-492-3000 for a free consultation.

In the meantime, have a great, safe and a law-abiding weekend!.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/man_cleared_in.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

A Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Discuses Changes In MA Parole System Due To Homicide Of Woburn Police Officer- Attorney Sam’s Take

If you heard a cacophony of crashing noises yesterday from the direction of Boston’s Beacon Hill, it was the sound of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick , along with a certain Parole Board, caving in to public ridicule and political pressure.

As you have heard time and time again, the now-infamous Massachusetts Parole Board released a repeat violent offender in 2008. Of course, it was not the first time that this has happened. However, this time, said offender , in 2010, was involved in a robbery to which the late police officer John Maguire responded. There was a gunfight and the officer, as well as the offender, were killed. Since that time, amongst various reports of unexplained police shootings of suspects and non-suspects, a state-wide hand-wringing has been occurring.

Naturally, in 2011, tragedy must be someone’s fault. Someone living’s fault. Thus, it was the Parole Board’s fault.

At first, Governor Patrick had the gall to be a leader and indicate before rushing to judgment and demanding the Parole Board’s heads on a stick, that perhaps we should concentrate on the victims, then gather all the evidence and then decide fault.

Well, so much for that kind of nonsense.

Governor Patrick has now announced “sweeping changes” at the Massachusetts Parole Board. The political broomstick has swept out, for example, the five Parole Board members at issue (through their own resignations, of course).

Said sweeping also includes a moratorium to remain in place on executive sessions for high-risk offenders, he said. The governor also promised to file legislation calling, among other things, for tougher sentencing for repeat offenders and greater truth in sentencing. According to press accounts, Governor Patrick wants paroles of repeat violent offenders to stop until the Parole Board can demonstrate an ability to oversee their release.

Patrick also said at the news conference he was appointing Josh Wall, first assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, as the interim executive director of the board. He also said he had nominated Wall to the board and intended to appoint him chairman.

During my many years as an experienced Boston criminal defense attorney , I have had many dealings with assistant district attorney Wall. He is an experienced prosecutor and, as the late Jerry Williams would say, “Not a bad guy”.

He is, of course a seasoned prosecutor which means he is well indoctrinated to that point of view. I suppose that’s ok…the assumption at parole is, after all, that the potential parolee “did it”.

The problem is when the governor, who should know better, succumbs to the weight of political expediency. Statements like no paroles should be allowed until the Parole Board can guarantee that it can oversee all parolees is a command not rooted in reality and he knows it.

Parole cannot guarantee that. Not enough resources.

One might as well say that nobody will be placed on probation any longer because the Department of Probation cannot guarantee adequate oversight. Anyone in the system will tell you that, actually, they can’t if they are honest.

I wonder if, given the above-referenced police shootings and beatings, whether we should hold off on giving police officers weapons until we can guarantee that they are all fit and properly supervised. Ahh, but now I am talking crazy...!

Again, in a system where we try to cure everything by criminal sentences and prison terms, it is not possible. There are not enough resources and there will be less tomorrow. Raise taxes for it? Come on…you know better than that.

On the other hand, the governor claims he wants better “truth in sentencing”:. Actually, we have that. A sentence of 10 years, for example, means that you will basically serve 10 years. However, “life sentences” which sound so good ‘n tough cannot actually always mean life. First of all, it would not be appropriate for all those who receive such sentences. Further, again, we would not have the resources to keep all of them in for life. Finally, take away all hope of freedom and all such prisoners would have nothing to lose by their conduct. In short, an already inadequate and, n my view dangerous, correctional system will become more out of control.

On the other hand, such “tough talk sounds mighty good when you say it fast, doesn’t it? True, it might trample on a few felons’’ rights, but, after all, they are criminals, so we don’t really care about their rights.

Nor the problems the resulting anger, bitterness and realization that the “Justice System” is anything but that in the “big house” will bring.

At least, for now.

Until the whole system shuts down.

But we can continue to play our word games until then, can’t we?

In the meantime, if you want to cut down on the odds of your becoming one of these “human beings turned statistics” after being accused of a crime, you want a criminal defense attorney with experience. If you want that attorney to be me, If you would like that attorney to be me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

Have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/governor_announ_2.html?p1=News_links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Robbery Suspect Gets Robbery Charges Dropped Yet Held On Parole Violation- Attorney Sam’s Take

Well, Gerald M. Hill, 48, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) got good news and bad news yesterday at Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court. The good news? The robbery charges against him have been dropped. The bad news? He’s going back to jail, perhaps for life, anyway.

You see, the Defendant was on parole when he was accused of robbing a taxi company at gunpoint in 2009. His prior case, on which he was out on parole, involved the participation in two 1977 killings. I don’t know much about that case, but can tell you that he had not been found guilty of Murder in the First Degree because, if he had been, he would not have been eligible for parole.

The new charges were dismissed yesterday because the evidence against him were suppressed by the court because the court found that critical evidence against him had to be suppressed because of the police’ failure to follow “the rules” of search and seizure. Because the evidence was suppressed, prosecutors said, they no longer had enough of a case to prosecute the Defendant.

Because the evidence could not be used, in other words, there would be no trial against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant, heretofore presumed innocent under the law, could never be found guilty. Therefore, he remains presumed innocent and goes home free....right?

Wrong.

After all, the Defendant did get arrested.

As we have discussed in the past, merely getting arrested is a violation of either probation or parole.

I have been handling matters involving homicides, robberies, probation and parole as a Boston-criminal defense attorney of many years, as you have probably gathered over the years, there are certain issues that really light a fire in my gut.

This is one of them.

It is very easy to get arrested in this day and age, as I have often described to you. You could be at the wrong place and wrong time. You could have angered someone who has the ever-increasing knowledge of how to “work the system” and is trying to get revenge on you. You might also be stuck facing an accusation that everyone knows is extremely unlikely, but, out of fear of tomorrow’s newspapers, are afraid not to take action because of the fear that you might “go out and kill somebody”.

We know, of course, that sometimes innocent people are sent to jail. Many will say that simply cannot be helped. But what about here, when someone has been out on parole (or it could be probation) and they will never have their “day in court” because of how the Commonwealth handled the investigation? Is it right that the accused be sent back to prison anyway because there was, after all, an accusation and the person did, after all get accused in the first place?

The arrest,we all know, is simply an accusation. The suspect is still allegedly presumed innocent.

But, because they were accused in the first place, that presumed innocent person goes back behind bars to either wait to have a day in court or, here, where said day will never come, simply be locked back up by the Commonwealth. Yes, that would be the same Commonwealth who screwed up the investigation in the first place.

Makes you feel real confident that we give much credence to that old document they call the Constitution, doesn’t it?

Of course, many of you will disagree with me. You will argue, “Well, it’s more complicated than that!”

It shouldn’t be.

“We all knowthe guy is a bad guy…!”

In that case, why was he even brought to court? Why have a trial, much less evidentiary hearings?

In short, let’s cut the hypocrisy. Is he an already established “bad buy” so that we do not have to waste court’s time with him and we can just lock him away or shoot him because he was, after all, arrested…..or do we really care about a presumption of innocence?

Well, you decide what you want. I will wager this, though. If it were you or a loved one who were accused, you would likely care about that presumption of innocence stuff.

Why don’t you give me a call when that happens…particularly if you want a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

In the meantime, be careful of the snow and have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

(if not, you might get arrested.)

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/21/convicted_killer_gets_2009_taxi_robbery_charges_dropped/?p1=Local_Links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Watches As Shootings In Arizona Leave Six Dead, Representative Gabrielle Giffords clinging to life And Questions About Violent Speech-Attorney Sam’s Take

Continue Reading...

Boston Police Demonstrate Arrest Procedures In Wake Of Roxbury Juvenile Beating- Attorney Sam’s Take

The Boston Police Department (hereinafter, the “Department”) has taken a large, and very laudable, step forward . They are realizing that if they want to be a trusted, and effective, member of the community, they have to communicate with said community.

As you know, there have been various complaints regarding the use of undue force in various cases. In fact, a You Tube video emerged last fall that showed several officers forcefully subduing a 16-year-old boy,

The video, recorded on a student’s cellphone, showed at least six officers at Roxbury Community College surrounding and then “taking down” the teenager who they said was resisting arrest. The Department claims that the juvenile, who had been wanted on a warrant, had swung at the officers, police have said.

Many were outraged and made claims of excessive force. The Department, however, said that the procedure was consistent with what officers’ training in cases where a suspect refuses to be handcuffed.

The Suffolk district attorney’s office has been investigating the incident. In the meantime, the Department is reaching out to officials, media and the public to demonstrate that police officers receive proper training which includes strict guidelines regarding the use of force.

“I think it’s time we remove the mystery around police use of force,’’ Commissioner Edward F. Davis said Thursday night at the Boston Police Academy in Hyde Park, where officials invited several reporters, religious figures, and leaders of the Boston branch of the NAACP to meet with police instructors.

On Tuesday, for nearly four hours, officers lectured, showed footage of arrests, and traded blows in mock confrontations to show how they respond in violent arrests. This presentation was the second within a week and is said to have given unusual insight at an aspect of police training that officials said they hope to show to more people, including high school students and those in their late teens and 20s.

Reactions to the demonstration were mixed. Some were upset by what they saw. Some were relieved. Some simply did not “buy it”..

In the 1980”s, I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York. Since then, I have had the experience of being a Boston criminal defense attorney for over 20 years. I have had a fair amount of experience with police officers.

What amounts to a “Blue Wall” of secrecy seems to have become the norm for police departments. To some degree, it is necessary. However, I believe it is over-done and often presents more problems for the police…not to mention the rest of us...than it is worth.

It does not take a criminal justice expert to tell you that police work is dangerous work. Every day, police officers risk their lives. They often deal with dangerous people in dangerous situations and when they arrive on a scene, they often do not know what to expect.

It is the stuff that paranoia…righteous paranoia….is made of.

It would make officers’ work much easier, not to mention safer, if there were increased trust bestowed them on the street. No, that will not work with everyone, but the more the better. However, when police deal with the general public in a secretive and arrogant manner, even when there is no criminal activity afoot, it maintains an “us vs. them” atmosphere.

“Sam, you are a criminal defense attorney. Isn't it “us vs. them” out there?”

Sometimes perhaps. But that does not seem to work that well, does it? True, it keeps business good for people like me, but we all have to exist, with some order, in this world. Let’s face it, love them or hate them, we rely on the police and when we do, they usually come a-running.

I will also tell you that the mutual distrust on the street carries a bad combination to the stand when it comes time to testify. Here is a sad truth – sometimes officers do not tell the truth while on that stand. Not because they are looking to “fry” an innocent defendant, but because they feel that the realities on the street are not felt in the courtroom where they are still trying to get the “bad guy”.

“So what? That’s their problem, right?”

Nope. Prosecutors, juries and judges give great deference to police testimony. So as long as they “testily” (a New York term), defendants, factually innocent and guilty, pay the price.

The more the “us vs. them” mentality is in force, the more we all lose. Steps like the demonstration given by the Department, to, in a way, open the door a bit to shine some light on what they encounter and what we should expect, is a big step forward.

at the very least, it may mean the difference between resisting arrest and disorderly conduct chages.

Don’t misunderstand me…some people will criticize what they see. But, at least the procedures are known. It is no shock…unless procedures are not followed by officers…which cases may become clearer.

Maybe it will even get us to a point where the public will realize that officers have to maintain control of a potential crime scene…and police officers will not have to be as aggressive as they often are about it.

What does this have to do with you?

I don’t know…do you ever encounter police?

If you do, and it has resulted in an investigation or an arrest, feel free to contact for a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/23/reeling_from_video_boston_police_offer_insight_on_use_of_force/?single=1&p=2

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Governor Proposes The Elimination Of Sufficient Legal Representation For Indigent Defendants- Attorney Sam’s Take

…And as we prance away from acknowledging the realities of the criminal justice system, we dance along with Governor Deval Patrick. His new proposed dance-step bows politely to law enforcement. It’s a nice dance, really. The only people likely to be hurt are the poor and disenfranchised. But then, if you follow the tune, you will realize that when they are accused of crimes, they are probably guilty anyway. So, perhaps still stinging from criticism that made him cave in the Parole Board fiasco, he is in no mood to consider them.

That's right. It’s gonna be another one of those blogs.

We discussed this issue awhile ago. Massachusetts’ prosecutors are whining that those big bad criminal defense attorneys who are hired to represent indigent criminal defendantsr, after a proper nickel and diming and receiving only a fraction of what their work is worth, are making too much money. Never mind the vastly uneven playing field in which prosecutors who do not have anywhere near the professional expenses and yet have all of the resources available to their disposal. Forget about the fact that those poor crusaders of justice are able to support families and build a nest egg while their indigent-representing-opponents can barely meet the expenses that law enforcement agencies meet for the "good guys".

Do you realize that those scourges of justice, the defense lawyers, have the temerity to believe that they ought to be able to meet expenses? Some such misanthropes even think they should earn a living!

Well, the governor has decided to solve the problem in true Shakespearean style. While he is not going so far as to "kill all the lawyers", he is taking a dramatic stand with they who seem to have the power…law enforcement. Of course, there is not enough money to give better salaries to prosecutors yet, so why not crush the other side of the aisle a bit more? Who’s going to complain? The poor who depend on those attorneys for a chance at a fair trial? Oh, come on, now. Those professional vermin the defense attorneyes? Grow up!

The governor now wants to eliminate the use of private attorneys to represent indigent defendants. Aside from the relativly few full-time defenders, hired by the Committee For Public Counsel Services (CPCS), private defense attorneys have been accepting appointments from the court to represent indigent defendants at surprisingly low hourly rates. Said attorneys are chosen by CPCS because of their abilities and, often, experience in the courtroom.

Hence, of course, part of the problem. Who wants experienced criminal defense attorneys in the trenches when defendants are fighting for their freedom?

Patrick’s suggestion , which he plans to include in his fiscal year 2012 budget, would end the practice. The state instead would hire about 1,000 full-time staff attorneys to replace the 3,000 private lawyers the state draws on to represent poor people.

The Commonwealth somehow sees this as a way to save money. One wonders what these salaried attorneys would be paid, in addition to what benefits and free office space would cost...which, of course, the private bar advocates do not get.

Of course, the math kind of works when you remember that the 3000 bar advocates (who are already over-burdened) will be replaced by only 1000 attorneys.

Well, maybe the governor figures that the 1000 new attorneys will be virtual super men and women who have such vast training and experience that they can do three times the work. Whooops! I forgot about the part that said attorneys would usually be new attorneys rather recently graduated from law school.

Hm. Well, maybe the governor is banking on the exuberance of youth. Alternatively, maybe the governor and the prosecutors realize that if the defense attorneys don't know alot, they cannot do alot!

On the more important bright side, at least the political prosecutors will be pleased. And, after all, the only ones being screwed, either than the lawyers, will be the indigent defendants.

Hell, do they even vote?

Previous to my 20+ years as a Boston criminal defense attorney, I was a prosecutor in New York. There, such a plan is in effect. The full time defense lawyers work for the Legal Aid Society. However, even they cannot handle all the indigent criminal defendants. Further, there are often conflicts of interests which prevent attorneys from the same organization representing certain clients. Therefore, private attorneys, such as those Governor Patrick seeks to eliminate, are necessary.

It is no surprise that the prosecutors are beside themselves with glee at this proposal. First of all, maybe it will free up some money to line their pockets a bit better. Second, indigent defendants will pose less of a threat in the courtroom.

Until the onslaught of successful appeals for ineffective assistance of counsel, that is.

You know, I get tired sometimes of clients who tell me that only people with money get a fair shot in the courtroom. They argue that the poor do not stand a chance..

I get tired of arguing with them.

It looks like, soon, I will not have to disagree.

I no longer do court appointed work. However, if you wish to consult me for a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/24/patrick_wants_to_end_use_of_private_attorneys_for_public_defense/

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Mattapan Suspect Arraigned In Boston Superior Court For Home Invasion And Drugs But Not Murder- Attorney Sam’s Take

It may take awhile for felony prosecutions to come, but, usually, when the police painstakingly take their time in their investigation, suspects emerge. This is being played out in Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court. Kimani Washington, 35 (hereinafter the “Defendant”), has been arrested in connection with the quadruple homicide in Mattapan in September. He was charged with various charges, including armed robbery, armed carjacking, trafficking cocaine, and being an armed career criminal.

He has pleaded “Not Guilty” and was ordered held on $500,000 cash bail after arraignment in Suffolk Superior Court.

Interestingly, the Defendant was not charged in the actual murders, although the prosecutors allege that he was a mastermind behind the armed home invasion that precipitated the deadly shootings.

Apparently, during the investigation into the murders, police found over 28 grams of crack cocaine allegedly taken during the robbery, as well as two guns. They say that these were found in a location where the Defendant often stayed. The Commonwealth also claims that one of these firearms were fired during the multiple homicide.

The Defendant is not the only one charged in the case. Another man has been actually charged with the murders and are expected in Suffolk Superior Court shortly. Further, another gentleman was arraigned previously arraigned on murder charges and held without bail.

Prosecutors allege that the Defendant and one of his alleged co-perpetrators knew each other from mandatory visits to prison, and that they hatched a plan to rob the location of the homicides of drugs and cash. On the morning of September 28th, the burglary was carried out according to authorities.

The Commonwealth further claims that the Defendant left the house after the robbery, which is when the executions were carried out. Later in the morning, the three men met again to divide the proceeds from the robbery.

I have handled several gun and murder cases over the past 25+ years as attorney in the criminal justice trenches. While there are nuances in every case, fact scenarios generally fall into a few common patterns. This does not mean, however, that the Commonwealth treats them all the same.

In many cases, the Commonwealth would be charging the Defendant with Murder In The First Degree along with his alleged cohorts.

“How, Sam? He left before the shooting ever took place according to the allegations.”

First of all, we do not know how the Commonwealth came to that conclusion. I will come back to why that may be important in a moment.

Understand that, whenever possible, the Commonwealth charges people they believe are acting together as being a conspiracy or, at least, a joint venture. Under either of these theories, each person is responsible for what the other(s) do during the course of whatever was planned.

Even if something foreseeable, if not planned, took place. For example, two guys rob a store and, as leaving, one of them turns and shoots the store owner. The shooting was foreseeable, so both would normally be charged. The applicable law does allow for someone to withdraw from a conspiracy or joint venture, but it requires a good amount of announcements by the “withdrawer” to qualify.

Further, there is apparently evidence that the group met up again after the killing. It would seem, therefore, that the joint enterprise was still in existence at that time.

I find it interesting that this Defendant is being arraigned all on his lonesome and is not charged with the killing. Also, unless there was a video camera going at the scene of the crime, how does the prosecution know who planned what when and who left when? The victims, of course, are dead. Math is not my strong point, but it seems to me that this just leaves the Defendant and company who would be able to tell the Commonwealth these things.

Could it be that the Defendant is now a Commonwealth witness in exchange for not being charged with murder? Obviously, I don’t know. I will tell you, though, that, as a trial attorney, particularly one in criminal practice, I have developed a well-toned a strong case of “professional paranoia”.

It helps. A lot.

Might I suggest that if you find yourself suddenly facing down the barrel of a criminal charge, you look for an experienced criminal defense attorney with that occupational disease? If you want to contact me to discuss such a situation, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/man_held_on_hig.html

View the original article here

Continue Reading...