Boston’s Appeals Court Overturns Sex Crime Conviction In Prostitution Case Involving A Juvenile- Attorney Sam’s Take

Samuel Goldberg has been a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney for 20 years. Prior to that, he was a New York state prosecutor. He has published various articles regarding the practice of criminal law and frequently provides legal analysis on radio and television, appearing on outlets such as the Fox News Channel, Court TV, MSNBC and The BBC Network.
To speak to Sam about a criminal matter call 617-492-3000.

Posted On: January 12, 2011 by Samuel Goldberg

Here’s one for the sex trade! In the past, we have discussed many times the various, and in my opinion, faulty rationales for keeping prostitution illegal. One of those rationales has been that prostitutes are, per se, victims. They are exploited and forced to perform sex acts for money. The thought seems to have been that being a prostitute is definitional of losing one’s will and performing the evil deeds by force.

Well, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled against this equation. It has thrown out the convictions of a pimp and a madam (hereinafter, the “Defendants”), ruling that the couple did not lure a homeless and drug-addicted teenager into prostitution because the 16-year-old runaway had sold her body for money in the past.

The court did, however, let stand the Defendants’ convictions for deriving support from prostitution and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The allegations in the case were that the Defendants drove the teen to the hotel where she met an undercover detective and agreed to engage in sex for $280, according to court records. Using a ruse, the officer convinced the teen to leave the hotel before any sexual acts occurred. The teen then apparently handed the cash the Defendants, who were waiting in the hotel parking lot

The court found, “We think that the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and that it clearly expresses the Legislature's intent to penalize a person for inducing a minor, who is not then so engaged, to engage in the commercial enterprise of prostitution by offering for hire his or her body for indiscriminate sexual activity’’.

As a Boston sex crimes criminal defense attorney for over twenty years, not to mention previous years as a prosecutor, I have been involved in a number of cases involving prostitution.

I agree that it is worth prosecuting those who force anyone into prostitution, or aid children in engaging in the trade is worthwhile. However, the attempts to combat those situations are diluted and tainted when we open the broad scope of assuming that every prostitute is a victim and must be saved from themselves, if not everyone else. In fact, it perverts the very effort of female dignity assuming that a woman could never make such a choice herself with sound reason.

In this case, the Appeals Court did not make new law or break new ground. It did, however, enforce the law as it was meant when it was written, rather than simply cave in to public sentiment.

Playing the devil’s advocate (something most people would say I do every day in my line of work), there is an interesting argument that could be made against the court’s ruling. As you know, in matters sexual, we tend to believe that a minor cannot consent to sex. Under the law, it does not even matter if the sex-mate knows that the minor is under age. In fact, it does not even matter if the minor lied and “proved” she was of age.

Sex with a minor, with or without her preferred consent, is rape. Pure and simple.

Couldn’t one argue that, since the prostitute here was a minor, she had to be induced, because any participation with her in the sex trade is manipulating her because she has no ability to consent?

After all, under the law, any customer who had sex with a minor should be not only guilty of prostitution, but also rape.

Just saying…..!

The language and rationale of the laws and how our law enforcement agencies choose to implement them is a pretty thick and, often, confusing forest.

This is why you need an experienced criminal defense attorney to help light your way through it.

If you would like to discuss my lighting your way, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story in which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/by_john_r_ellem_29.html

View the original article here

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...