Chuck Turner Is Sentenced In Boston’s Federal Court For White Collar Crimes- Attorney Sam’s Take

Chuck Turner (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) faced the federal judge yesterday. Finally, after listening to lord knows how many hours from the Defendant, the judge got to have his say. It was sentencing day for the Defendant. The final act of the recent federal trial during which a jury found him guilty of white collar crmes

The defense argued for leniency for the 70-year-old civil rights crusader. They pointed to his four decades of service as a community activist and elected official...aside from whatever other corruption one might assume took place during those years. They appealed to the court to give the Defendant probation, allowing him to avoid obligatory government housing altogether.

The prosecutors suggested a prison term of 33 to 41 months. They argued that the Defendant lied on the witness stand (aka perjury) and that he made a mockery of public office and the criminal justice system.

The Defendant was convicted in October of attempted extortion and three counts of providing false statements to FBI agents. He protested his innocence then and does so now. He blames his conviction on a government conspiracy to discredit elected officials of African-American descent.

The Defendant’s mouth was getting him into trouble even before the trial. I remember that, while his attorney was doing his best to keep options open regarding whether his client would testify, the Defendant was making promises that he would indeed testify. It got so bad that the lawyer had to just about label him as unreliable from there on.

Of course, after the Defendant testified, I understood why the attorney wanted to keep the issue close to his vest. Instead, I was scratching what little hair I have left trying to figure out why, other than a bad case of megalomania, the Defendant wanted to testify.

At sentencing, the Judge Woodlock did not mince words. He called the Defendant’s testimony at trial "ludicrous and surreal.''

"The defendant perjured himself at trial,'' he said. "He stated things he knew were not true. ... No one forced him to testify."

Still, the Defendant remained defiant after the sentencing, calling the case an example of "prosecutors gone wild.''

The bottom line, however, was delivered by the court. Three years behind bars. The Defendant reports in March to start serving his sentence.

I am not only a Boston criminal defense attorney with 25 years of experience in the criminal justice system, I am also a father. I have two kids. One of them is currently 12-years-old. He is very much into Hip Hop and Rap music.

This has caused issues from time to time. For example, perhaps since he was around 5 or 6, he insisted on wearing t-shirts to school that were provocative and celebrated his favorite entertainers. Suffice to say, said shirts caught attention of teachers and principals and not in the best ways.

I remember an adult friend of the family finally asking him, “Why don’t you just wear a t-shirt with a big middle finger on it. Wouldn’t that be easier?”

I thought it was funny then, but it made the point. The point, however, is lost on the Defendant.

I don’t know whether the Defendant was really guilty or not. However, I do know that he was convicted by a jury and until an appeals court strikes those convictions down, he will be presumed guilty by the system.

It therefore may not be in his best interest to continue to “thumb his nose” at the powers that be…like the judge. Remember, in federal court, things like acceptance of responsibility factors into sentencing. Virtually communicating “up yours!” to the judge and prosecutors at sentencing is a good way to get sentenced to more time not less.

I am always telling you to hire experienced counsel to represent you. Perhaps I should spend as much time explaining what I have assumed to be a given. Namely, listen to that lawyer!

If you want to listen to 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, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/turner_convicte.html?p1=News_links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

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...