Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

The “wild west” has long been associated with images of folks making their own rules and bravely trying to tame the frontier. It would appear that two Western Massachusetts gentlemen had similar attitudes…although, according to the police, their actions would be more aligned with untaming than taming the area.

Let’s start with this past Friday in Springfield. 30-year old Ricardo M., (hereinafter, “Defendant”) was observed by police officers while allegedly ducking down inside a car near 86 Maple Street. When simply nestling under the dashboard did not work, he decided to jump out of the car and lead the police on a foot chase. This, however, did not make his situation dire enough, so he took the extra alleged step of breaking into an elderly woman’s apartment to hide.

She screamed. Police came. He was arrested.

Winning second place in the race, Defendant was awarded the runner-up prize, namely, charges of receiving a stolen motor vehicle (the ignition was found “popped” upon further investigation), breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, possession of burglarious tools, driving with a suspended license, two counts of assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. Oh yes, and a prize he had previously won, but never claimed – reunion with an outstanding parole warrant.

And so the Wild West Weekend began.

The Saturday Criminal Justice Races were held in Leominster. This race track did not include anyone’s apartment, but did include railroad tracks and all four lanes of Route 2.

The cause – at – issue for this life-threatening contest were charges for shoplifting videogames from a nearby shopping center.

Not surprisingly, the police won this race too. The runner-up prize was, once again, the Commonwealth’s bracelets of shame and additional criminal charges.

Sunday’s racing results have not yet been reported…or, at least, read.

SAM’S TAKE:

Perhaps I have not been clear enough in these daily blogs; that may well be the problem. Attorneys are supposed to be clear and try their best to make sure they are understood in these apparently complex and mysterious matters. Let me approach this way:

IF THE POLICE ARE SEEKING TO QUESTION OR DETAIN YOU, DO NOT RUN, HIDE, DRIVE, CRAWL, PUSH, SHOVE, ROLL OR ATTEMPT TO FLY AWAY. IT WILL ONLY MAKE MATTERS WORSE AND, OFTEN, BRING TO LIGHT THINGS THEY NEVER EVEN SUSPECTED!

If you have been apprehended or simply approached by the police…whether you are guilty of what you suspect their concerns are or not…engaging them in the Olympian way is not going to work. At best, you will win the runner-up prize of additional criminal charges. At worst, you could lose your life. You will certainly be further risking your liberty.

Nobody wants to be facing charges for receiving stolen property, violating parole or probation, shoplifting or the like. However, adding charges for resisting arrest, breaking and entering, assault and battery on a police officer and the like is hardly a profitable solution. It is, simply speaking, making a bad situation much worse.

“Self help” seldom works in the Criminal Justice system…especially for defendants. The way to minimize damage and help yourself is to comply with the officers and close your mouth until you get an experienced attorney to assist you. That’s right, no matter how golden a tongue you might feel you have, attempting to out-smart the officers to convince them why they should simply let you go will not work either. You will only give them more ammunition to use against you. That’s part of the reason for those Miranda Rights you’ve heard so much about.

I have been dealing with the myriad of cases the Criminal Justice system brings in for over twenty years. In the 1980’s, I was a prosecutor in two different states. Since the 1990’s, I have been a Boston criminal defense attorney handling cases in courts throughout Massachusetts. I cannot tell you how many cases I have handled in which, if the defendant simply was quiet and respectful to the police, the case could have ended early on with little to no damage but, because of a failed attempt to outsmart or outrun the police, the defendant was held in custody and faced heavier charges.

By the way, not only does trying to escape not work and bring additional charges, it also hurts you at trial. There is a doctrine called “Consciousness of Guilt” which prosecutors love to argue before judges and juries. The argument is that a person running to escape the police is evidence that they have a reason to do so…also known as guilt of what is being investigated.

To sum up, trying to run away from law enforcement is the anti-gift that keeps on “giving”. Get an experienced attorney with whom you are comfortable to help you deal with your problems in the trenches. The bottom line is that, without one, you are unarmed in the streets and the courtroom when dealing with these issues.

NOTE: The daily blog will not be so daily this week, I’m afraid. I will be unable to post on Tuesday and Wednesday due to the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah. However, I will be back and posting on Thursday.

Samuel Goldberg is the senior defense attorney at the firm of Altman & Altman, P.C. A former prosecutor in New York, he has worked as a defense attorney in Boston over 18 years. He frequently provides legal analysis on radio and television, appearing on outlets such as the Fox News Channel, Court TV, MSNBC and The BBC Network

The full articles of these stories can be found at
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/springfield_police_arrest_susp_6.html and http://www.telegram.com/article/20080928/DIGESTS/809280397/1005/NEWS06

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault , Assault and Battery , Criminal Law , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Misdemeanors , Probation Violations , Theft Crimes , Traffic Violations

Bookmark:

In Massachusetts, Buck Bishop, the then-18-year-old Danvers teenager who fatally struck 73-year-old Peabody resident Joyce Oliver and injured a Boston-area couple while driving to a methadone clinic last year, has been ordered to serve a 15-month-prison sentence.

Last week, Bishop pleaded guilty to misdemeanor vehicular homicide. He admitted that he crossed the center line and struck the two vehicles carrying the three victims while driving on Route 1 close to the Topsfield-Danvers line on November 16, 2007.

Bishop had previously told police that he blacked out at the wheel and did not remember anything about the accident. According to a drug recognition expert called in by police, the teenager was not driving under the influence of drugs when the accident occurred. Bishop, however, admitted to using cocaine two days prior to the crash.

Prosecutors had pushed to have Bishop serve a full 2 ½ year jail sentence, which is the maximum sentence for his crime. They noted that he had violated the terms of his release on more than one occasion when he tested positive for narcotics and failed to meet with his probation officer earlier this year. As a result, Bishop has been in police custody and held without bail since then.

Judge Robert Cornetta sentenced Bishop to the full-term but suspended half of the time at the request of Bishop’s Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer. Bishop will also serve probation for 10 years and his license has been revoked for 15 years. Bishop, who received credit for the 111 days that he spent in police custody, could be eligible for parole in four months.

If you face criminal charges for a motor vehicle accident in the greater Boston area or anywhere in Massachusetts, you are entitled to the best criminal defense available to you.

Man gets 15 months in crash that killed elderly Peabody woman, The Salem News, September 26, 2008

Teen changes mind about plea in fatal crash, The Salem News, July 8, 2008

Related Web Resource:

Massachusetts General Laws

Continue reading "Massachusetts Judge Suspends Half of Prison Sentence After Danvers Teen Pleads Guilty to Midsdemeanor Vehicular Homicide for Head-On Crash That Killed Elderly Peabody Woman " »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanors , Vehicular Crimes

Bookmark:

Almost everyone necessary showed up in the Hampden Superior Court in Springfield the other day. The jury was ready for the reading of the verdict. Judge McDonald was there. Assistant District Attorney Morse was in the courtroom. Defense attorney Stamm was sitting, albeit lonely, at her seat. Only one thing was missing.

38 year old Gerry H, also known as the Defendant, was gone.

He had been present for the trial, final arguments and instructions to the jury. Perhaps not coincidently that means he was the there to hear that he was facing a 20-year minimum mandatory sentence. His faith in the outcome was apparently justified…the jury found him guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, home invasion and threat to commit a crime.

Several hours after the jurors reported that they had a verdict, the Court made the determination necessary under law that the defendant had "voluntarily absented himself," and called the jurors into the courtroom. He told them that they should not concern themselves with the defendant’s absence as they reported their verdict. They didn’t and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

The case involved a March 22, 2005, home invasion on Colton Street. The victims were a 7-year-old girl and her mother, who the prosecutor described as being caught in the middle of a dispute involving the defendant. The woman testified that he was one of two men who pushed her into her house as she tried to enter, and shoved her head against a wall. The two slapped her, grabbed her in a chokehold, and held a gun to her head, the prosecution case alleged.

A neighbor, alerted by his dog barking, heard the commotion, walked across the street, and called out to the woman. The two men then walked to their car and drove away.

The second man has not been identified.

The defense attorney had told the jury that the victim's statements included inconsistencies, and that there was an incomplete police investigation of the event. She said the jury would see why the victim had a motive to fabricate the allegations. Maybe they did…but, if so…it did not seem to make much of a difference.

Sam’s take:

There is no “my eyes are closed so you can’t see me” remedy for jury trials. In other words, even if the defendant disappears before it ends…it ends anyway.

Appeals aside, the trial is the final battleground of a criminal case. Neither side has blinked and an agreed-upon resolution has not been reached. It is now time for the war. It is too late to decide that you do not like the way things are going and decide to change the team. You can run away and hope to defend another day…but that other day will most likely find you behind bars and it may be too late to do anything about it.

The time to have your team and strategy together is BEFORE the trial. In fact, even before the arrest if possible.

As an assault defense attorney in Boston for many years, I have developed an expertise in handling these cases at trial. In the over 20 years I have been in the Criminal Justice trenches, I have seen just about every type of scenario play out. I can tell you that the strongest defense is one in which the defendant and the attorney work together as a team. If your criminal defense attorney refuses to return your calls or have contact between court dates, then the attorney may not be totally invested in your case. If the defendant ignores the entire case between the dates, he similarly is ignoring the reality that is going to play itself out with or without his input ; either way, he will experience the consequences.

If you are either facing charges or have reason to believe you will be, get an experienced attorney who is expert at trying the case. It may or may not come to that, but if it does, you do not want to decide, for the first time, you have a lack of confidence during the trial itself.

My team and I at Altman & Altman PC have decades of experience in successfully handling criminal matters in and around Boston. We are available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and the initial consultation is always free. If you call us, we will be there for you.

Of course, the safest way to avoid a criminal trial is never do anything that can even remotely be considered or misconstrued as a crime. And don’t be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And don’t upset anyone who might bring false charges against you.

But, assuming you live on Earth in 2008, be prepared anyway.

If I don’t talk to you beforehand…

Have a good and law abiding weekend!

the full article of this story can be found at
http://www.masslive.com/chicopeeholyoke/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1222413430310040.xml&coll=1

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault , Assault and Battery , Criminal Law , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Illegal Weapons Possession , Misdemeanors

Bookmark:

Yesterday’s Salem News told of 31 year old Peabody resident Tyler P. According to prosecutors, he is an enterprising young man with a taste for some of the nicer things in life. Unfortunately, they also claim that his methods of financing such things were not so nice. So they went out and got him something they knew he had not already gotten for himself. They got it from the local grand jury. You guessed it, it’s a brand new indictment.

Mr. P. now faces a multi-count indictment alleging four counts of felony larceny, three counts of insurance fraud, three counts of filing a false police report, forgery, attempted larceny and uttering a forged instrument.

Mr. P. first came to the attention of insurance company investigators last spring after a series of claims raised red flags at Arbella Mutual, the company that insured his car. A year earlier, in July 2007, he had added rental car coverage to his auto insurance policy. An hour after adding the coverage, he called again to say he had been involved in an accident. While the car was waiting to be repaired, prosecutors in the attorney general's office allege, he filed a false police report with the Beverly police, claiming that his car had been vandalized and reported the vandalism to Arbella.

They claim that this was done in hopes that the car would be totaled. Instead, Arbella turned the case over to the Insurance Fraud Bureau, a private organization that works with insurance companies and prosecutors. The IFB concluded that Mr. P. had misrepresented the timing of the crash so that he could qualify for the rental coverage, which he did not have at the actual time of the accident. This conclusion, led to a closer look at some past insurance claims by Mr. P.

It turns out, according to investigators, that 2007 had been a very busy year for Mr. P. In May, Mr.P. had filed an insurance claim that an engagement ring he had purchased was stolen as he was on his way to dinner in Salem. According to investigators, he bolstered the claim with a forged Salem police report. In March and July, he is said to have twice claimed that his ATM card had been stolen and that someone had made withdrawals from his account.

He is scheduled to make his Criminal Justice debut in Salem Superior Court on Oct. 22nd

Sam’s take:

Mr. P.’s plight provides a couple of lessons for us which are true in most cases of alleged white collar crime.

First of all, it may seem obvious to some, but I know it is not obvious to others. Falsifying in any way, including “just a smidgen” of exaggeration on an insurance claim form is illegal. It is a crime. It is fraud. Do not do it. Yes, even changing the date. You may be able to change history with your friends or your family…but not with the insurance company or such entities. They have a motivation to not go along with it…they are not terribly anxious to cut you the check you want.

Perhaps Mr. P. is one of those honest individuals who are unlucky in life. Perhaps he is a guy who saw a “good” scam and pounded it into the ground in front of a sign that read, “ Greed Is Good; Overdo It”. Either way, he is in big trouble and the alleged facts and circumstances do not look good.

The key here is that, probably even before he knew it for sure, there was an investigation. Assuming Mr. P. is at all conscious of reality, he must have suspected there such an investigation was possible. Further, such investigators usually notify the suspect at some point, alerting them about the investigation. This is done for two reasons. First, to give the insured an opportunity to not cooperate with their investigation. This refusal to cooperate relieves the insurance company of responsibility to honor the claim.

Such investigations are also used to help law enforcement. It is a way of pressuring the insured to submit to interrogation and produce documents in a venue where the investigator is not hampered by the inconveniences that police officers must respect, such as reading a suspect his rights and the like. Many people, figuring that all that is at stake is not getting their money, feel they can handle this without a lawyer.

And they can.

They are also free to walk around wearing a t-shirt saying, “I must have done something wrong…arrest me”. In other words, it is a foolhardy thing to do, particularly if you know that the insurance company suspects you of fraud. While some may say that Mr. P.’s history is a bit extreme, even less extreme cases can end up listed in an indictment. The fact is that some people are ignorant of certain laws. Further, mistakes can be made. Whether you feel you did something wrong or not…protect yourself.

The bottom line here is that, at the first suspicion of such an investigation, or at least when notified by the insurance company that it suspects fraud, get an experienced lawyer to guide you through the process. Especially in times like this, with the current events wreaking havoc with the economy, the insurance companies and government tend to take these things serious. When fraud is alleged, you are not simply at risk of losing the money; you are could lose your liberty too.

The full article of this story can be found at
http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_268000836.html

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Law , Misdemeanors , Theft Crimes , White Collar Crimes

Bookmark:

The US Senate has passed a bill that would update the country’s laws related to cyber crimes. The legislation, known as the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act is tougher on cyber criminals and gives victims of identity theft an opportunity to sue for damages.

The Bill Proposes:

• Making it a felony to install keystroke-monitoring programs or spyware on 10 or more computers regardless of damage. This is a major change, since many cases of cyber crime involve thousands of computers at less then $5,000 in damages per victim.

• Allowing federal courts to prosecute cyber crime defendants within their states of residence, rather than only if they used interstate communication to commit a cyber crime against a victim.

• Making it a crime to extort companies using cyber technology.

• Giving victims of identity theft the opportunity to obtain restitution for time and money lost in their efforts to recover from the cyber crime.

In Massachusetts, if you have been arrested for a cyber crime, it is important that you seek the counsel of a defense attorney that will know how to defend you against any charges.

Examples of cyber crimes:

• Internet fraud
• Cyber stalking
• Internet porn
• Identity theft
• Internet gambling
• Computer fraud
• Sexual solicitation via the Internet
• Computer hacking
• Planting Internet viruses

Senate Approves Bill to Fight Cyber-Crime, WashingtonPost.com, July 31, 2008

S. 2168: Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2007, Govtrack.com

Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, USDoj.gov

Continue reading "US Senate Passes Bill that Would Update Cyber Crime Laws" »

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Cyber Crimes

Bookmark:

Last Wednesday, a Hampden Superior Court jury returned with a verdict in a case of alleged unarmed robbery of a person 60 years old or older.

The cast of this particular drama included two defendants. They were Aretha Hallums, 40, and Donald Alford, 55. Cast in the role of victim was the elder Edward Foster, formerly of Springfield. The scene of the facts at issue was outside the Bay Street Social Club at Bay and Catherine streets, apparently an unlicensed bar.

Particularly helpful for the jury, I would imagine, was that both defendants testified in their own behalf…each contradicting the other.

Defense counsel set the stage during her opening statement, explaining that the jury would hear a case of "sex for money for drugs that went awry"
.
Mr. Foster testified that he went to the Bay Street Social Club, which he called a place to dance, socialize and drink, in on one particular November afternoon. "It wasn't a fancy place”, he explained. “It's kind of run down. It turns out, by the way, that it was also unlicensed.

Mr. Foster went on to describe how the club let him purchase drinks on a tab and "when your check comes you pay what you owe for the month." However, this simple happy scene changed. An afternoon of drinking and socializing turned to a beating when he was beaten and robbed when he went outside at Ms. Hallums' request. He identified Ms. Hallums and Mr. Alford as the robbers to police.

Ms. Hallums testified that she knew Foster and he had paid her for sex on a number of previous occasions. "Mr. Foster used to be my trick. ... I used the money to get high," she said. She further told the jury that Foster himself wanted crack and that he and Alford pooled their money, totaling $20, and the three of them went onto Catherine Street where they bought crack. She testified that after they smoked the crack, Alford demanded money from Foster, and then punched Foster repeatedly. On cross examination, she also admitted that she had been convicted previously of distribution of cocaine.

When it became his turn at bat, Mr. Alford testified that Foster asked him what he needed to do to get sex from Hallums and he told him to get crack. He said that after he divided the crack between himself, Foster and Hallums they separated. He said Foster and Hallums went to a back hallway and he thought they went to have sex.

He said he went back and saw Foster grabbing Hallums shirt, so, being the gentleman that he is, he grabbed Foster. He claimed that Foster then hit him. He simply hit Foster back and left.

The jury did not go for either defense scenario, however. After several hours of deliberation, they found Ms. Hallums and Mr. Alford guilty of assaulting Mr. Foster. They did, however, acquit Ms. Hallums on a second charge, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon… her cane.

Sentencing for the two is set for this Friday

Sam’s take:

This is not the typical age group for such money-sex-crack triangles. However, if you are looking for…let’s call it “love”…an unlicensed drinking establishment where you do not even have to pay for your drinks until the end of the month is probably not the best of places…especially if you are going to “step outside” with strange women who have a drug history, to buy crack. Many people come to that realization by the time they obtain the age of 60 years. Perhaps the unlikely descriptions are what brought the jury to its decision that Mr. Foster’s version was the more believable.

That is not what today’s blog is about, however. I was not there. I do not know. I do, however, know jury trials and how they work…or don’t work. So, that is what today’s missive is about – specifically your right to testify at your trial.

Many criminal defendants insist on testifying on their own behalf at trial. It is, of course, their right to choose to either testify or not to testify. Sometimes, it is simply the need to express their “side of the story”. Other times it is a fear that the jury will hold it against them if they do not testify.

The decision, however, needs to be made soberly and with an experienced trial attorney. There have been many cases in which defeat is clutched out of the jaws of victory by a defendant’s testimony. If the jury does not like you when you testify, or they decide you are not being entirely truthful with them, it will hurt you. I have seen this occur even in cases in which the jurors were ready to acquit because they did not believe the defendant had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt…until he/she testified.

True, a jury will be told by the judge that it is the Commonwealth’s burden to prove the defendant guilty and that the burden does not shift. However, a defendant who testifies puts his/her own credibility on the line. If the jury detects falsehood they tend to ask themselves why the need for that falsehood. As I have written previously, it is the perception of the evidence that sways juries. If their perception is that they do not like the defendant because the defendant has lied to them, that defendant is likely to feel the sting of that dislike by way of guilty verdict.

A jury is also told by the judge that the defendant has a Constitutional right not to testify and that they cannot hold it against him/her. While in some cases it does make a difference if the jury does not hear from the defendant, I find that jurors usually are able to follow the judge’s admonition not to consider a defendant’s lack of testimony.

If you decide to testify on your own behalf at your trial…you had better know what you are doing and the risks involved.

When I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York, in the 1980’s, I would love it when defendants would testify and contradict each other. It made my job easier. When defendants point the finger of blame at each other, the jury is usually happy to agree with both of them…and put them both away.

The full article of this story can be found at
http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-16/122172218362420.xml&coll=1

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault , Assault and Battery , Criminal Law , Drug Offenses , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Misdemeanors , Robbery , Sexual Assault , Sexual Crimes , Theft Crimes

Bookmark:

Did you have a nice weekend? A few Museum Patrons in Hollis, New Hampshire didn’t. According to Friday’s news, a lawsuit has been filed against in Worcester Superior Court that is likely only the tip of the legal iceberg of their problems.

Fruitlands Museum has filed a lawsuit against former chief operating officer Peggy Kempton and her children for allegedly embezzling more than $1 million during the past eight years. Also named in the legal action is a Leominster accounting firm that allegedly did not notify museum officials about the alleged fraud.

The Complaint, filed Tuesday, accuses Peggy Kempton, Fruitlands’ former chief operating officer, and her children, of obtaining money and property by false pretenses, and converting or misappropriating Fruitlands’ assets. Ms. Kempton, who leased a cottage owned by Fruitlands at 144 Prospect Hill Road, next to the museum since October 1999, for $1,400 a month, is also accused of failing to pay rent. The lawsuit further accuses Solar & Kilcoyne, an accounting firm in Leominster, Massachusetts, of negligence and failing to alert anyone on the nonprofit museum’s board of directors about the alleged financial irregularities.

According to the complaint, Ms. Kempton was hired in July 1997 as the chief operating officer, and was the sole employee who handled check writing, taxes, donors, vendors, events and the museum store, along with communicating with Fruitlands’ bank and accountants. The alleged embezzlement is said to have begun in the early 2000s, when Ms. Kempton opened up credit accounts and obtained credit cards in her name and in the museum’s name. She is said to have charged items unrelated to her job, and then paid the cards off with Fruitlands’ money, diverting other museum funds pay her rent.

In subsequent years, the museum claims that Ms. Kempton made the scheme a family project as her children received credit cards in Fruitlands’ name (used for personal expenses of course) and received various payments to which they were not entitled. For example, in 2007, Mother Kempton diverted $29,121.09 to two of her three kids, claiming it was for work performed. Apparently her third child had taken the year off or was being punished.

Peggy Kempton’s annual salary was $67,000. In 2007, she allegedly withdrew approximately $40,000 in addition to that, and on top of the money allegedly obtained through embezzlement.

The complaint claims that Fruitlands so far has calculated that Ms. Kempton has diverted more than $1 million to cover credit card charges made by her and her children.

Ms. Kempton left the job abruptly in February 2008. Apparently, enough was enough. According to Fruitlands, irregularities in the museum’s financial operations were discovered in the spring. A law firm and a forensic accountant were subsequently hired.

Maud Ayson, Fruitlands’ executive director, said yesterday that she is “proud of our swift action (hiring auditors and the forensic accountant) to assess what we needed to do quickly to rectify procedures and move ahead.” She stressed that the museum is in solid financial shape, and is embarking on several new events and exhibits, including “Branching Out at Fruitlands,” a series of exhibitions and outreach programs with a dozen regional partners.

Fruitlands, a 94-year-old museum off Route 111 that has four distinct themes — transcendentalism, Shakers, American Indians, and fine art — is one of the country’s first outdoor museums. It was founded in 1914 by Clara Endicott Sears, and got its name earlier, when Bronson Alcott, father of author Louisa May Alcott, started a short-lived utopian community there.

The alleged embezzlement has been reported to the state attorney general’s office, which is also investigating, according to a Fruitlands spokesman.

SAM’S TAKE:http://www.altmanllp.com/lawyer-attorney-1322578.html

I hope that Kempton family members are either readers of this daily blog or have friends who are. If so, one expects that, having learned of this investigation (one imagines awhile ago), they have retained experienced counsel to prepare for the onslaught of the filed civil complaint as well as the almost-surely upcoming criminal indictments.

The difference between a civil action and a criminal action confuses many people. A civil complaint, such as the one filed last week, is a lawsuit brought by one entity (the plaintiff) against another (the defendant) for damages allegedly caused by that defendant. At issue is usually money. A person does not go to jail or get a criminal record as a result of a civil action. A criminal action is one in which the government (state or federal), as plaintiff, brings a complaint against a defendant claiming a violation of criminal law. While financial restitution might be a part of a particular sentence, it is not usually what is hanging in the balance. At risk is the defendant’s criminal record and very often the defendant’s freedom. In other words, it is for criminal matters that a person faces incarceration.

The same allegations can result in both a civil and criminal action. For example, if you get angry with your neighbor one day and decide that burning his house down would teach him a good lesson, you are likely to be facing a civil action (the neighbor and anyone else burnt down by the fire seeking recompense for their damages) as well as very serious criminal action for arson and a plethora of other charges. Not advisable, by the way.

In this case, Fruitlands has filed a civil suit to get back the money they claim the Kemptons embezzled, or stole, from it. The Attorney General’s Office, having been notified of this matter, is said to already be investigating. I would be extremely surprised if criminal charges are not forthcoming. The rules and prcedures for civil and criminal actions are different in many ways, and it is easy for a defendant to be pulled in various directions when faced with hard decisions in maneuvering both at once; an attorney knowledgeable in both civil litigation and criminal law is critical in best protecting the Kempton’s interests in this matter.

Under our system of law, while the burden of proof is different, a defendant in either a civil or criminal matter is presumed innocent unless and until they are proven guilty (or responsible). Nowhere is this presumption more important than in civil and criminal prosecution for a white collar crime such as that which is alleged here. There are many cases in which simple mistakes or misunderstandings as to what a business official was authorized to do resulted in civil and criminal prosecution. Further, particularly in the case of the Solar & Kilcoyne, the accounting firm in this matter, I have handled many matters in which simple oversight or mistakes are alleged to be part of a criminal prosecution for a criminal conspiracy. In this matter, I would expect that the government, upon bringing forth charges against the Kemptons, will either include charges against the accounting firm, or pressure the accounting firm to give evidence against the Kemptons in order to keep their license intact…and liberty…intact.

The bottom line as we begin this new week in September? The same old lesson. Treat any suspected investigation such as this with the greatest of gravity. Get knowledgeable counsel as soon as possible to guide and protect you.

Yes, a good lawyer is expensive. But liberty is priceless.

Samuel Goldberg is the senior defense attorney at the firm of Altman & Altman, P.C. A former prosecutor in New York, he has worked as a defense attorney in Boston over 18 years. He frequently provides legal analysis on radio and television, appearing on outlets such as the Fox News Channel, Court TV, MSNBC and The BBC Network

The full article of this story can be found at
http://www.telegram.com/article/20080919/NEWS/809190533/1116

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Law , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Misdemeanors , Theft Crimes , White Collar Crimes

Bookmark:

Last February, it would appear that the political scene at Bridgewater State College got a bit heated. Bomb and death threats began being posted around campus. On September 2nd, 2008, as the country’s major parties were celebrating their conventions, a former Parliamentarian was being arrested for her alternative methods of announcing her platform.

Former Student Michelle Fortune, 47, of East Bridgewater, had held the post of Parliamentarian, which is a high ranking position within a campus leadership organization called the “Student Government Association”. She was arrested at her home on six counts of threats to kill, six counts of vandalism, six counts of making a bomb threat, disturbing the peace, and creating a disturbance at a school. Unfortunately, political fever being what it is, the arrest did not go terribly smoothly and she was subsequently charged with resisting arrest.

The threats made on February 26th and 27th came in the form of six messages handwritten on several bathroom walls around the BSC campus. February 28, 2008 was specified as the date attacks would occur. Investigators employed the services of a handwriting expert in hopes of cracking the case. According to Chief Tillinghast of the BSC Police Department, "more handwriting samples were needed so a search warrant was obtained. BSC Police executed the search and seized numerous documents from the suspect's home. The suspect was found to be responsible."

In response to the threats, the campus police department had temporarily amped up security. "The whole department was on campus that day (Feb.28). Police walked through the buildings and had lunch with concerned students," Tillinghast explained. President Dana Mohler-Faria, whose life was directly threatened in the messages, made the decision to go about his normal routine on campus for the duration of the crisis. “I made it a point to be visible on campus . . . to demonstrate that we can't live in fear," Mohler-Faria told reporters, just days after the threatening messages were found. He was assigned an undercover police officer who remained at his side.

"The threats were general, at first. They contained words that said 'murder, murder, murder,' 'kill' and there were references to Virginia Tech. On the second day the threats were made towards the president," said Chief Tillinghast.

Sam’s take:http://www.altmanllp.com/lawyer-attorney-1322578.html

“Murder, murder, murder” is not a party platform that is taken likely these days. One may think that, especially on a college campus, a student’s right to free speech is indulged to the “nth degree”. Unfortunately, recent years have seen too many tragedies for that to remain the case.

While most schools will allow, even encourage, political unrest, activism and many types of protest, this is not one of those protected forms of expression. Threats are threats and, both in school and out. Making them is a crime. Defacing public, or school, property is also an offense. However, slogans like, “The dean is a ding-dong” will be generally treated much differently than, “I am going to string up Dean Ding-Dong on February 28th , between the hours of 2 and 4 in the afternoon and gut him like a pig”.

As well they should be.

In the meantime, our Disgruntled Party candidate is allegedly nothing if not consistent. According to the police, she resisted arrest. We do not know the specifics of that scene, but, as this daily blog regularly suggests, taking a bad situation and making it worse by challenging law enforcement is not the wisest course of action.

So, as we end another week, consider a platform more likely to win posts other than Defendant;

1. Your rights to free expression are limited. Do not make threats to commit a crime. They will likely be taken seriously and you will be awarded the Commonwealth Bracelet Of Shame and a trip downtown;
2. As they return to school this fall, make sure your kids understand the limits on their right to save the world. Threats or other crimes from younger students tend to be treated just as seriously as those from the older ones.
3. If you find you are the subject of an investigation, or if the police are at your door, do not resist, do not fight and do not threaten. Go quietly and get a lawyer.

Have a good and law abiding weekend!

The full article of this story can be found at
http://media.www.bsccomment.com/media/storage/paper662/news/2008/09/17/CampusNews/Campus.Threats-3439014.shtml

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery , Criminal Law , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Misdemeanors , White Collar Crimes

Bookmark:

Last night, all major crimes of the area having apparently been prevented or solved, Haverhill police officers set their sights on their admittedly decreasing prostitution concern. It was said to be a lucky break in their war against drugs.

They ended up arresting a “major cocaine dealer” who had a drug sales ledger containing the names of "prominent'' Haverhill residents. The ledger, according to the police, will kick off an investigation that could lead to a series of arrests.

Christos Eleftheriou, 45, of Haverhill, was arrested at 8:11 p.m. after he propositioned a woman police officer for sex during the prostitution sting, said police spokesman Sgt. John Arahovites. He was charged with sexual conduct for a fee and brought to the police station, where police found 16 grams of powdered cocaine in five bags on him with a street value of $16,200, along with $340 in cash, Sgt. Arahovites said.

The officers then got a search warrant for Eleftheriou's vehicle, a Ford Explorer, and found drug scales, $2,800 in cash and the ledger containing the names of several people. "Given the evidence seized, it appears he is a major cocaine dealer in Haverhill,'' Sgt. Arahovites said. "There were the names of several prominent people in the ledger.'' According to Sgt. Arahovites, the new information will widen their investigation beyond Eleftheriou, and that other arrests are possible.

Eleftherious’s reward was additional charges involving trafficking in cocaine and is scheduled to be arraigned today in Haverhill District Court.

Sgt. Arahovites said Eleftheriou is well known in Haverhill, and that he and his family own and operate the Haverhill House of Pizza sandwich shop in Riversedge Plaza next to Haverhill Stadium. He went on to explain that the arrest linking Eleftheriou to drug sales was "very lucky'' because it came as police conducted a relatively routine prostitution sting using plain clothes women officers.

"Even though the incidents of prostitution are down, we want to keep it down,'' Sgt. Arahovites said of why police do the stings several times a year. He said the department conducts stings about four times a year and they have been successful in keeping down the number of prostitutes working the streets of Haverhill and the number of men who are looking to pay for sex.

Apparently eager to give the specific location of this scourge on the public streets, he explained that last night's sting started just after dark in the inner-city area of Winter, Portland, Welcome and Cottage streets where prostitutes have been known to work. The area is at the edge of the Acre neighborhood and just north of downtown. The stings usually begin with police getting real prostitutes off the street. Then, the competition having been removed, having women officers in plain clothes walk the area. When men drive up and proposition the women officers for sex, they are arrested, he said.

Sgt. Arahovites said the sting was run by police Captain Alan Ratte, two women officers and six undercover detectives

Sam’s take:http://www.altmanllp.com/lawyer-attorney-1322578.html

Trying very hard to sidestep a multitude of comments about the officers getting “lucky” going after what has been said to be the world’s “oldest profession”, I will steer my comments to the misadventures of Christos Eleftheriou. As one would imagine, his problems have now increased well beyond anyone in adult entertainment can help him with.

First of all, the man now becomes a human footnote in my long-standing argument in these daily blogs suggesting that it is best not to take a bad situation and make it much, much worse. Obviously, there are certain risks involved in approaching street level prostitutes. For example, you may run into the police in a less than pleasant manner. Might I suggest that if you are going to so engage, you might not want to bring thousands of dollars in cash, drugs, drug paraphernalia and your drug-related paperwork with you? In fact, any paperwork reflecting any illegal activity is far from wise. Finally, if you are “well known” in the area, these bad ideas are even worse.

The unfortunate Mr. Eleftherious is now caught in the web of criminal justice and I would wager that he is being given the opportunity to decide which role he wishes to take. One option is that he can simply be satisfied with playing the role of defendant and sit back watching the arrests roll in from investigations inspired by his ledger. This particular show will have a certain amount of suspense for him, waiting for the climax, which will be the forming of a conspiracy prosecution linking the new arrestees with him in which he will be charged with everything everyone else did in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Mr. Eleftherious will be given another option, however, if he has not already been so offered. He will be given an invitation to join the prosecution in its quest and assist them in building and prosecuting their case(s). This helpful hand of prosecution will bring its own risks of a more obvious kind.

You know, it might have been easier (and cheaper) to simply call an escort service…!

By the way, is there anyone else out there curious about the fact that upon coincidently happening upon the “well known” Mr. Eleftherious walking around with over $16,000 in drugs and money on his person, that the officers suddenly knew to seek a search warrant for only his car and not his home?

I know, I’m too suspicious. Been in the trenches for too long.

The full article of this story can be found at
http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_262012349.html?keyword=topstory

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Law , Drug Offenses , Federal Crimes , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Misdemeanors , Sexual Crimes , White Collar Crimes

Bookmark:

Some people have not been taking this blog to heart and so apparently did not believe that it was not good to take a bad situation with law enforcement and make it worse. Now, 19-year-old Falmouth resident, Tevis Yarmala, faces multiple charges after he allegedly struck and tried to stab a Falmouth police officer in the face with a stick during a traffic stop last week.

Mr. Yarmala is alleged to have run a red light. First strike. Observing this, Patrolman Christopher Bartolomei , according to police reports, pulled the vehicle over. Mr. Yarmala is said to have greeted the officer by name. Second strike. When the patrolman “detected” the odor of burnt marijuana and asked about it, Mr. Yarmala admitted to smoking marijuana at a friend's house. Third strike.

In this particular game…not out yet.

Mr. Yarmala was then ordered out of the car. His response was apparently to strike Officer Bartolomei in the head with his elbow when Officer Bartolomei attempted to remove a plastic bag containing marijuana from Mr. Yarmala's pocket. A struggle ensued in which Mr. Yarmala is said to have made "moans and groans as if he were possessed."

Strike out.

A passing motorist came to the officer’s assistance and the two were able to subdue Yarmala sufficiently so that he could be handcuffed with his hands in front of him. Mr. Yarmala, who was not ready to give up the game, is reported to have reached above his head, grab a four inch stick and attempt to stab Officer Bartolomei in the face. When additional police arrived, the Commonwealth’s newest guest was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and shackled. Ever the optimist, he continued to put up a struggle.

But it was “game over”.

During the fight, Mr. Yarmala was apparently able to successfully grab the bag, rip it and scatter some of the contents on the grass. A portion of the marijuana that had been scattered was recovered. It, along with portion still in the bag, totaled 60 grams.

Officer Bartolomei injured his knee during the fight when he crashed through a stone wall. He was treated at Falmouth Hospital and told that he may have sustained ligament damage.

Mr. Yarmala, aka Defendant, was charged with possession of a class D substance, possession of a class D substance with intent to distribute, violating drug laws near school or park, assault and battery on a police officer, assault with a dangerous weapon, disorderly conduct and several traffic violations. An arrest warrant had already been in force at the time of his arrest, the result of an OUI and leaving the scene of an accident on August 28th.

Sam’s take:

Well, at least Mr. Yarmala had more to be afraid of than simply getting a traffic ticket given the outstanding arrest warrant. However, as discussed in earlier blogs, all he accomplished was to make a bad situation infinitely worse. The fact is, even if there is a warrant out for your arrest, engaging the officer in a struggle is going to make your plight much, much worse. And, by the way, if you are in mid-struggle with the solo police officer…when a bunch of his fellow officers show up…your chances at success do not increase, they decrease. And when you are cuffed and shackled? It is a strong sign that you are probably not going to win the struggle. As they say in “Star Trek”, “Resistance is futile”.

Actually, Mr. Yarmala’s mistakes began long before last week. First of all, leaving the scene of an accident in which there was damage is a crime in itself and is seldom successful. He apparently was aware that there was an arrest warrant out for him. I cannot tell you how often I meet a client who was aware they had such a warrant, but thought they could somehow outlive it without having to answer to it. These meetings often take place in jail, by the way. So far, at least in my more than twenty years of experience in the Criminal Justice Trenches, this has not been a gamble that pays off. Things get much worse if you do not address the warrant yourself voluntarily before the good folks in blue show up at your door. So, if there is a warrant out for your arrest, deal with it before it catches up with you.

It was a mistake for “You Can’t Catch Me” Yarmala to go through the red light or to drive after smoking marihuana . Those are really so obvious they are barely worth mentioning. So, let’s go to the next stop (no pun intended). Especially if you are driving around with an arrest warrant dangling over your head, the wiser course is to not have some leftover drugs in your pocket. If pulled over under these circumstances, it is not the best of judgment to be a wise-guy and happily greet the officer by name. And if you found these things to difficult to follow…you really do not want to answer happy little questions like if you had been smoking marihuana. There is that whole right to remain silent and get a lawyer thing, remember?

And then there is that attacking of the police officers problem. Bad idea. You will not win. The only rewards you can hope for are more charges and greater injuries.

By the way, assuming he was not merely trying to fit in some planting, Slugger Yarmala’s attempts to sprinkle out the marihuana was really a fool’s errand. First of all, as discussed in earlier blogs, the drugs do not have to be found physically on you for you to be successfully prosecuted for them. Even if they did, if they had already been observed in your pocket, dumping them in front of the officer does not usually change history.

So, let’s review the lessons of today’s daily blog:

1. If you have an accident causing property or physical damage, do not simply leave;
2. If there is a warrant out for your arrest, get an attorney and deal with it immediately, if not sooner;
3. Do not drive stoned or drunk and do not carry your stash around with you while out for a drive;
4. Do not engage the officer who stops you in clever repartee like calling him or her by name or telling them that you just smoked pot. Answer the questions you have to answer (as in give your license and registration) and wait for a lawyer to assist you;
5. Do not attack, fight, struggle with, try to kill, attempt to outrun, drive over, stab, dump drugs in front of, or even argue with the officer. Do what you are told and minimize damage; and finally,
6. Read this daily blog and take its lessons to heart!

The full article of this story can be found at :
http://www.wickedlocal.com/falmouth/archive/x332631811/Falmouth-traffic-stop-results-in-scuffle-multiple-charges

Posted by Altman & Altman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault , Assault and Battery , Criminal Law , Drug Offenses , Felonies and Violent Crimes , Misdemeanors , OUI/Drunk Driving , Traffic Violations

Bookmark: