Los Angeles authorities are investigating allegations made by Grigorieva, who is accusing the actor of having struck her on the face on more than one occasion. She claims that the alleged assaults caused her to break a tooth, lose a veneer, and suffer a concussion. If charged and convicted for domestic violence-related assault, Gibson is facing time behind bars.
Already, there has been fallout from the recordings for the celebrity. His agent, William Morris-Endeavor, has dropped him, which may not bode well for his film career, and his reputation, which already took a pretty hard beating when he was arrested for DUI and made sexist and anti-Semitic remarks in 2006, has been significantly damaged.
Gibson has not publicly commented on the audio recordings. The media, however, is reporting that is is accusing Grigorieva of threatening to leak the recordings to the media unless he gave her money. He has met with the authorities about his claims. Grigorieva denies there is any extortion plot.
Boston Domestic Violence
Custody, divorce, and legal separations can be acrimonious, and sometime, the allegations between both parties can escalate. If you are under investigation for domestic violence, child endangerment, extortion, or any other Boston criminal charges related to the dissolution of your relationship, it is important that you are represented not only by a family law attorney but also by a Boston domestic violence law firm that knows how to protect your legal rights and defend you against the charges.
Investigators interview Mel Gibson to discuss extortion allegations against ex Oksana Grigorieva, New York Daily News, July 27, 2010
William Morris Endeavor dumps Mel Gibson, Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2010
Gibson charged with drunken driving, CNN, August 3, 2006
Related Web Resources:
Mel Gibson News, The New York Times
Two Palmer residents now face criminal charges that they supplied alcohol to a 17-year-old boy who later died in a dirt bike accident.
For those of you who are not sure, the drinking age is currently 21.
Police say 45-year-old Robin K. and 28-year-old Kenneth D. (hereinafter collectively, the “Defendants”) will be summoned to appear in court on charges of procuring alcohol for a minor.
Detective Sgt. Scott Haley told the Republican newspaper of Springfield that
the teenager, Erik N. (hereinafter, the “Deceased”), drank alcohol during a bonfire in April at the apartment complex where the Defendants live.
While one of the Defendants has declined to comment to the newspaper, the other has denied giving alcohol to the teenager.
While this event did not technically occur in the summer, it is something that we often see in the summer…certainly when the weather is warmer. We especially see it around prom time, where parents, seeking to do the right thing, allow parties to occur at their home in which alcohol is served.
It is a crime to do so, and these crimes are often prosecuted. Further, they open the accused to huge civil lawsuits for any damages that result.
Of course, in this case, if the Defendants are found to be responsible for the death, the damages are catastrophic.
You may be wondering why it has taken so long to bring charges in this matter. Well, one would imagine that the Commonwealth has been conducting an investigation into the matter.
You see, a case like this needs to be investigated as if it were a homicide case…because that is what it could turn out to be.
The investigation should include accident reconstruction in relation to how the accident took place as well as an examination as to blood alcohol in the body at the time of the crash. Next, I would imagine that everyone at the party would be interviewed.
Of course, said interviews could prove difficult. The Defendants would be understandably reluctant and any juveniles who drank would be running the danger of prosecution if they admitted drinking.
“well, Sam…they could just deny drinking when interviewed. After all, they would not be under oath, so no charges for perjury would be possible, right?”
True, perjury would not be an issue (unless they lied at the Grand Jury), but other charges would be. For example, believe it or not, the felony charge of Intimidation of a Witness includes lying to law enforcement when in the middle of an investigation.
Apparently, our fine legislators were able to understand the fear and intimidation that courses through an officer’s veins when a civilian is less than truthful with them.
In this case, there is no indication that the Defendants are being prosecuted for homicide of any kind.
Yet.
But then, the investigation could still be continuing.
A situation like the Defendants now face is an example of how usually law-abiding people, perhaps seeking to do the responsible thing, can find themselves facing a criminal justice nightmare which could easily end in their financial, professional and emotional ruin…not to mention their loss of liberty.
It is not to be taken lightly and the mistaken belief that ,”if I just tell them my side everything will be ok” is likely not to be helpful. What the person needs is counsel. That means an experienced criminal defense attorney.
If you find yourself in such tragic circumstances, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to advise and represent you. Should you wish that attorney to be me, please feel free to set up a free initial consultation by calling (617)492-3000.
To view the story upon which today’s blog is based, please go to http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/27/2_face_alcohol_charges_in_death_of_mass_teen/
]]>Things like future liberty.
Let me save you the time of reading the remainder of this blog; the short answer to the title is “No”.
“Well, Sam”, you respond, “Can’t getting a lawyer involved in such a delicate time reflect badly on me or complicate matters?”
Maybe. If you have hired someone who does not have the experience to deal with the situation. But, then, that would be like not calling a doctor when you have a heart attack because there is the risk of medical malpractice out there.
Let’s say you have received a call from either your supervisor, boss or some kind of “risk management” department. Whoever made the call has asked you for a few minutes of your time. You are unaware of any potential misdeeds, so you say “sure”.
You enter their office, and “Hang’em High Harry” from HR is sitting in the office along with the caller. You are politely asked to sit down.
You begin to sense that this is not a typical session. What do you do?
My suggestion in most cases is that you, first, listen to what they have to say or ask. After all, they are way ahead of you here…they know what is on their mind.
Quite often, their questions will reveal their suspicions. As soon as they even hint that they think that some wrongdoing has been done, my suggestion is that, rather than sit and try to pinch hit until you get an attorney, that you explain that it sounds like they suspect you of doing something illegal and so have always heard that you should have a lawyer with you.
“But, Sam, won’t that seem suspicious?”
Usually, no. However, let’s say that this makes them even more suspicious. If they have gone this far, they have probably already decided their version of the facts. Better to make their already-full cup of suspicion overflow than make statements that will come back and haunt you later on.
Another example is the call from the local police station telling you that someone has made a charge against you, but that they would like to get your side of things. They may even tell you that they don’t really believe the claims that you forced your old neighbor's head into a blender and just need your input to put the matter to rest. Then, you go down to the station and they say, “Yeah…seems like nothing….just tell us your story and then go on home and forget about it.”
They “forget” to finish the statement which should read, “…forget about it until we come by tomorrow to arrest you”.
You see, police officers, by law, are allowed to lie as part of their investigation and especially in trying to get statements from suspects which can be used against them.
It is a freedom which they make great use of.
While there have been exceptions, I seldom see a case where I find myself happy that my client had already made a statement. I cannot recall ever having a case where I wish my client had made a statement and he hadn’t.
Cases wherein my client made statements that he thought were clever and I wish he hadn’t? too numerous to mention.
So, whether it is that friendly little invitation by the local police to come give your side to the story , a confrontation at work or a police officer showing up at your doorstep/on the street…at the first sign of accusation, my suggestion is that you get a lawyer involved who can look into what is going on and determine if it is safe for you to talk…or simply to sit back and listen . Period.
Now, I am not saying never cooperate with the police or your supervisors. However, you have to be smart. If you know you have done something which could get you in trouble, and that seems to be the topic of conversation that they just happen to be seeking your views on, it is time to protect yourself until you can be sure you are safe.
“But, Sam, isn’t what Miranda Rights are for?”
Only police need to worry about such things – not your boss. Further, the case law regarding these rights have become so complicated that it is too much to give a discussion about it here. Suffice to say…not necessarily.
So, at the first sign of an investigation wherein you may be the target, it is never too soon to consult an attorney. It is part of what we do. If you wish to contact me in such a matter, please feel free to contact me at (617)492-3000.
The Rock star "Meatloaf" once began a hit song with the line, "On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?" After various lines seemingly meant to understand the original question, the answer was "Yes".
The image of hot summer nights is often used to portray passonate and, often, violent, occurences.
This is not limited to music or fiction.
We often see what might otherwise be verbal arguments escalate into physical altercations. Maybe it is the heat that makes tempers more flammable. For example, on Saturday, I wrote about a woman who was shot by police after she allegedly assaulted them with a knife. This was, of course, after she had assaulted someone else at home with the knife. This ended tragically…the police shot and killed her.
This is also a story which may bear a closer look this week, by the way.
]]> Meanwhile, two women died in an unrelated homicide in Lowell. This occurred within 24 hours of the previous stabbing this past Friday. It is still under investigation. While no death resulted, two brothers were stabbed outside a Boston club early Sunday morning. This resulted from a fight inside the club.Such explosions of temper are not the only types of criminal matters which are typical of the summer. People like to go on drives and, often, these drives get them into a bit of trouble. Take, for example, the case of 35-year-old Jeffery K. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) of Dartmouth. He now faces various charges, including leaving the scene after an accident causing bodily injury and child endangerment as a result of his summer night cruise.
Apparently, the Defendant crashed his SUV Thursday night, seriously injuring a 66-year-old New Bedford woman and then sped off. At the time, he had his 3-year old son in the car with him. While this matter is still under investigation, vehicular crimes, such as OUI, seem to be more prevalent during the summer. After all, what beats a summer night drive?
What beats a nice cool beer or ten at a relaxing cookout on a hot summer’s day?
Another crime that we see quite often in the summer is that of disorderly conduct. It was last summer, for example, that this crime (as subjective and based upon police officers’ opinions) reared its head in the news. I refer to the Professor Gates incident. During that debate, there was a great deal of media interest about the crime and how overplayed a card it might be for law enforcement. Then, we decided to call it a racial incident and so any question as to the statute itself disappeared from view.
But, I digress.
The point is that when the weather is nice, people go out. Sometimes tempers flare with the heat. Sometimes outdoor partying goes alittle too far.
And, yes, sometimes, police are even more on the lookout for certain crimes because of the season.
In any event, it is worthwhile to be even more diligent as to one’s temper, extent of “relaxation” and driving habits.
I have often told you how easy it is to get arrested these days. I have often described the nightmare such participation in the criminal justice system is.
Better to be even more aware of what you do; the police are likely to be.
Meanwhile, such arrests are going to happen.
If you find yourself in such a predicament and would like to consult with me regarding representing you , please feel free to give me a call at 617-492-3000 .
To view the original stories upon which today’s blog was based, please go to http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/two_brothers_st.html, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/25/da_investigates_police_shooting_of_woman/?page=full, http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/?p1=Well_Local and http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/suspect_fled_wi.html
]]>This one, though, seems to have taken domestic violence to an unusual level.
Authorities say that they went to investigate a 911 call from a gentleman who claimed that his girlfriend had lunged at him with a knife and had tried to set his clothes on fire.
The officers arrived at the Somerville home at about 6:30pm yesterday. This was apparently not the first such response; police indicate that they had responded to the same home at about 3 a.m. after a neighbor reported shouting
When they arrived, 33-year-old Carol K. attacked them with a knife.
She died.
The officers were treated for stab wounds to the hands, arms, shoulders and back and released from a hospital.
The city’s ,Mayor Joseph Curtatone, released a comment that the officers acted as they were trained.
They may be some controversy about how the police handled this tragic occurrence.
The fact is, however, that the mayor is correct. Police officers handle various calls which have the potential for violence. They are trained in split-second thinking and the importance of keeping themselves and other’s at the scene safe.
In cases of domestic violence, anything can happen. A domestic violence situation which you already know involves a weapon and assault is particularly ominous.
Firing upon her might be seen as an over-reaction, but it is within police training. If, indeed, the woman was attacking them with a knife, then they are trained to shoot. When shooting, they are trained to shoot to kill.
Interestingly, this might not be the case if they were not police officers. In that type of case, whether the threat of a knife equaled that of gunfire would be an issue in the self-defense argument.
In the meantime, of course, if you wish to discuss a domestic violence, assault or homicide matter with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
In the meantime, have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!
To find the original storiy upon which this story is based, please go to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/07/23/3_cops_injured_woman_dead_in_mass_family_dispute?mode=PF
]]>Police were contacted and within minutes an officer found the car parked at the corner of Lafayette and Scott. The children were still in the vehicle and hadn’t been harmed.
Following a foot chase, Collazo was arrested and charged with Massachusetts kidnapping and trespassing. He is accused of forcing his way into the building where police found him.
Meantime, Colecchi, who is accused of then stealing another car, was pursued by cops on the I-290 first in cars and then on foot after he crashed the vehicle. Colecchi is charged with two counts of kidnapping, operating a vehicle as to endanger, receiving a stolen motor vehicle, leaving the scene of property damage, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, and possession of Class B substance. His criminal defense lawyer told the Telegram that the 36-year-old man is being overcharged. He says that whoever took the first car got out at once upon discovering that there were children inside the vehicle.
Van Stolen With Sleeping Children Inside, WCVB, July 13, 2010
Two suspects arrested for kidnapping, Telegram.com, July 12, 2010
Related Web Resource:
Crimes against the Person, General Laws of Massachusetts
Now, a couple of developments have some people reconsidering the events.
When 15-year-old Phoebe Prince committed suicide in January, six fellow South Hadley students were blamed for relentlessly bullying her. It was an easy fix for SuperDA Elizabeth Scheibel – indict them all and ruin their lives.
Whoops!
A new report shows there may have been factors other than bullying that led to the death of the South Hadley student.
Court documents, recently obtained by Emily Bazelon of the online magazine Slate, contain police interviews with Phoebe's mother, classmates, teachers and administrators that tell a different story; one that suggests the teen's troubles extended beyond the halls of South Hadley High.
Yes, this would be before that tragic day of relentless abuse that ended in the undeniable tragedy.
Also detailed in the documents is the fact that Phoebe had taken Prozac, and had a history of cutting herself. …from chest to hip.
There is no question Phoebe was bullied: evidence ranges from tortured text messages the day of her death to student and teacher testimony. But now, there are questions about whether bullying is the whole story.
“It's more complicated than the idea of a predatory pack of kids descending on her and there are different levels of culpability of the kids,” Bazelon said.
But what of the school system in South Hadley itself? Surely, between the Heroic DA and the rushed-but-“strongest in the nation” legislation, any bullying there has been crushed….right?
Well, actually, kind of not so much.
Students in South Hadley say bullying continues even after the suicides and new anti-bullying laws in the state. In fact, the parent of one middle school student is seeking criminal charges.
That’s right, “seeking”, as in “prosecutors have not taken action on their own yet”.
According to the parent, her 12-year-old boy has been picked on, punched and slammed into lockers right up to the end of the school year in June.
In case you are wondering….two of the three of these allegations are considered assault and battery and have been illegal even before the new legislation. Of course, speaking of the new Massachusetts law, it does require teachers and staff members to report bullying and then for the school to investigate and, if appropriate, report it to the police if it seems a crime has been committed.
"Why the school didn't take the appropriate measures as outlined in their own handbook is still a question," said Beth Coushaine, the mother of the alleged victim.
"It is outrageous that things should get to the point where they now have to be handled in a courtroom when they could just as easily, and more appropriately, have been handled by the school," added Abigail Williams, the attorney for the alleged victim.
Three parents are suing the South Hadley School Committee for how they handled the bullying and suicide of Prince. In light of the tragedy, the School Committee has been meeting to discuss a new bullying policy for the school.
“Hey,Sam, what’s the big revelation? The bullying did occur, right?”
Sure it did. The bullying in this case occurred just as it, and circumstances much more violent, has occurred since children were invented. However, although some such cases have made their way to the criminal and civil courts, they are not typically indicted. These particular kids were indicted because the chief law enforcement politician of the county declared that these facts were so heinous so as to cause a suicide.
Further, this was somehow going to make a difference.
So far, the only difference it has made has been in ruining the lives of the six accused kids. As for the purported rationale…well, that seems to have been mistaken.
Woops, sorry kids. Guess we got alittle over zealous. Who was supposed to be the bully in this case?
Bullying been has been around since kids were invented. It is horrible and we should do everything reasonable to prevent and combat it. This was not it. Neither was the passage of “feel-good” legislation which merely, at best, gave a false sense of security.
What needs to happen is a thoughtful approach. Are you a school system, parent or even student who would like to really deal with the issue? Let’s talk. I am more than happy to consult. But let’s not make the misleading mistake that our positions do. Understand…it will take work and it will take time.
So, I wonder what approach the heroic DA will now take in light of the new discoveries by the public? I vote for “none”. After all, we may have just discovered the facts…but apparently they were contained in the court file. This means that the prosecutor had already been aware of them.
Have you heard of any movement to dismiss the indictments or go after other people in the short life of Phoebe?
No, I haven’t either.
Maybe I wasn’t crazy and “pro-bully” after all. Maybe you had realized the fallacy of the legal answers in this case too. Perhaps I just gave voice to what you were thinking. Call me the Howard Stern of criminal justice.
Whatever you want to call this debacle….let’s try to fix it.
In the meantime, if you find yourself accused in such a matter and would like to consult with me regarding representing you , please feel free to give me a call at 617-492-3000 .
To view the original story upon which today’s blog was based, please go to http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12001743376299/reasons-besides-bullying-for-s-hadley-suicide/ and http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12001577008342/
]]>Currently, I am handling a high profile case about child pornography. Already, the press is interested. This, of course, is natural and is the job of the media. However, I am troubled not by the fact that it is newsworthy, but the reaction of people. Any passer-by who is questioned about the matter seems to have already formulated the verdict of “guilty”. People are shocked that “this has happened”, except that a man's good deeds have been completely disregarded because of the new accusations. Other than that, nothing else has been proven to have “happened”.
What is even more troubling is the aftermath.
I can still locate articles from 2008 when another client of mine was arrested and charged with rape involving a child. People were interested then. Well, for the last two years, we fought against the “assumption of guilt” while trying to remind everybody else that a “presumption of innocence” was rumored to still exist. Finally, two years later, my client was completely exonerated…as in “Not Guilty”. Out of curiosity last night, I cruised the internet to find mention of the fact that my client, who attempts to resurrect his life now that he has been acquitted, has been found not guilty.
Big surprise – nary a whisper.
Of course, deserving or not, members of the clergy are big recipients of this type of suspicion. Usually, it is the church in the hot seat. Yesterday, an allegation from two years ago hitting the press involved the Jewish clergy – a rabbi.
The now-adult complainant, Michael B. (hereinafter, the “Complainant”) charges that , in the1970s, he was molested by a rabbi who was teaching sixth grade at one of the region’s most prestigious Jewish day schools, the Maimonides School.
Since then, two more complainants have come forward to aid the charge against Stanley L (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). Currently, according to court records, more complainants are being sought.
Of course, in this case, such suspicions have haunted the Defendant after he had left Maimonides, after moving to Philadelphia. Six years ago, the Defendant ended up pleading “no contest” to molesting a boy living in an Orthodox Jewish community in Philadelphia. He was later cited for violating probation when he refused treatment at an institute for sexual offenders.
“He basically flunked the sex offender course there because he refused to accept responsibility for what he did,’’ said Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney James Berardinelli, who prosecuted the case.
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley has charged the Defendant 64, with molesting the three above-referenced complainants.
The Defendant has been released on $5,000 bail.
He has pleaded “not guilty”…not that it seems to mean much to most people these days.
…And so, years from now, when there is a Massachusetts verdict either for or against the Defendant, will we even hear about it? Will it matter?
Will press coverage be conditioned on what the verdict is?
Don’t simply blame the media – they tend to give us what we want to hear and see. If they don't, then they are out of business. It is we who remember the guilt and often lose interest in the end result.
But then again, my blog is about criminal justice, or what passes for it, and not the sociology of media..
I have suggested in previous blogs that when one is being investigated or charged with any crime it is best to engage the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney. This is nowhere more true than with sex crime cases.
The musty air of suspicion is particularly rank when it comes to these cases.
This is true, by the way, whether or not the allegation concerns children…but particularly when it does.
“Sam – why especially so when kids are involved?”
There are a number of reasons. First of all, children are the most helpless among us. They need the most protection and, indeed, we naturally feel the most protective about them. Most of us even love them.
We like to assume that a child would never lie; we even do this in cases when there is a presumption that the child is not competent to testify because he/she does know appreciate the difference between the truth and a lie.
Studies tell us otherwise, by the way. We don’t like to believe such studies very much.
Because of the above, the horror of a sexual attack on a child makes news. It is news that sells almost as well as what celebrity is entering incarceration, starting a new love affair or is revealed to act like an idiot in a nasty telephone call or five that was recorded (ala’ Mel Gibson).
While these accusations are like fast food to us, the verdict, often years down the road, is not. Is this because we ourselves have already long since reached the verdict of “guilty”?
Maybe. But, especially in the case of an acquittal, the development is not considered so newsworthy.
After all, the accused’s life is often destroyed by that time anyway…so who wants to think about that?
The bottom line here, folks, is the usual one, but especially so. When the accusations start, so does the need for counsel who has passed through these nasty waters before.
Me? I have only been wading in them for 25 years or so.
If you find yourself in such a predicament and would like to consult with me regarding representing you , please feel free to give me a call at 617-492-3000 .
To view the original story upon which today’s blog was based, please go to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/20/sex_abuse_case_against_rabbi_raises_larger_issues/
]]>There have been a number of incidents where officers have been struck by civilian drivers over the past month. The latest example to grace the headlines was Mathew C., 24, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). On Saturday morning, he allegedly rear-ended a state police cruiser in a highway breakdown lane. He is said to have had a blood-alcohol level over twice the legal limit. Police also claim that he admitted at the scene to having had “too much” to drink.
I guess that would seemgly slam the lid shut for a prosecution for, among other things, drunk driving.
This was the fifth such crash in recent weeks. This time, the police say, the driver didn't brake at all before slamming his car into the cruiser.
]]> The Defendant pleaded not guilty to drunk-driving charges at his arraignment yesterday in Taunton District Court. He was released on personal recognizance (no bail) after agreeing not to drink alcohol and submit to random testing. His driver's license was automatically suspended for 30 days for failing a breathalyzer test."He is very remorseful about what happened”, explained his attorney.
Other than a speeding ticket in 2004, the Defendant has no previous criminal history and a clean driving record..
State Trooper Correy Rose was behind the wheel of the cruiser when the Defendant’s Volkswagen barreled into it around 2:20 a.m. on Route 24 in Taunton. Rose, 33, suffered minor injuries and is recovering at home.
Rose had just pulled over another driver for violating the state's "Move Over" law, which requires drivers to slow down when approaching stationary emergency response vehicles and, if possible, change lanes to give them more room. Rose had spoken with the driver and had returned to his cruiser, which had its flashing lights on, police said.
After the crash, the Defendant’s car flipped over and skidded more than 80 yards along the guardrail. Fortunately, the Defendant was wearing a seatbelt and was uninjured.
Police said they found two bottles of an alcoholic beverage in the car -- one was empty.
State police plan to announce new safety measures this week following the spate of roadside crashes. All five incidents occurred between midnight and 2:30 a.m. In one, police have not identified the driver; in the other four, all the drivers facing charges were allegedly drunk.
Police officers are in a class in which they get different reactions.
Often, particularly in Defenselawyerland, they are treated with suspicion. On the streets, the reaction ranges from respect to fear.
In a blog like this one….well, it depends on the case. Law enforcement has received its share of criticism at my hands via the written word.
However, there is one area in which I have not yet met anyone who really disagrees. Nobody likes to see them killed or injured, particularly when they are doing things like trying to keep the roads safe and orderly.
We who criticize the police, often, I believe, correctly, are also among the first who call on them when we need their help. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. But now, one wonders if police officers are about to become a class of another kind in the criminal justice system.
A special class of victim.
At least back when I was a prosecutor in New York, Murder in the First Degree was reserved for the murder of a police officer. Here in Massachusetts, there is no such sub-category. However, it has certainly been considered an aggravating factor in a case if a police officer was injured in a case.
In some cases, this has been met with ridicule. Perhaps it was not so long ago that I relayed in my blog how defense attorneys tend to look at the difference between the charges of “resisting arrest” and “assault and battery on a police officer”. The difference is how badly the defendant is injured.
Automobile accidents are also likely to be treated differently if they include injury or death of a police officer as opposed to the average citizen. On one hand, while there is a certain amount of “acceptance of risk” inherent in the duties of police officers, most people do not believe that such injuries should be part of simple traffic enforcement.
Now that there have been so many such cases, expect a move in the legislature for potential new criminal penalties in cases where a police officer is injured or killed.
Such are the things that mandatory minimum sentences are made of.
In the meantime, if you are accused of such a crime before the laws change…it is serious enough. Do not take it lightly. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to advise and represent you.
Should you wish to contact me for a free consultation, please feel free to do so by calling (617)492-3000.
To view the story upon which today’s blog is based, please go to http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/bridgewater_man.html
]]>During Sliech-Brodeur’s criminal defense trial, the defense claimed that Sliech-Brodeur’s long-standing mental issues were made worse by Brodeur’s intentions to divorce her. A psychologist who testified on her behalf said that Sliech-Brodeur doesn’t remember stabbing her husband.
In February 2006, a jury rejected Sliech-Brodeur’s defense that she was not responsible for stabbing her husband because she was mentally ill. The then 61-year-old woman was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Now, however, the state’s highest court is saying that the discovery process that took place during the trial violated criminal procedure rules (including the state’s limitations on discovery in insanity cases) and prejudiced the West Springfield woman’s Massachusetts murder case. The court says that the psychiatric expert for the prosecution was given information he should not have obtained and that the defense should not have had to give prosecutors statements and notes she had made for her own psychiatric expert.
Finding that Sliech-Brodeur was “unconstitutionally forced to help the state convict her,” the court is ordering a new trial.
SJC overturns murder conviction for West Springfield woman, Boston.com, July 19, 2010
Mass. court orders new trial in husband’s death, Boston Herald, July 19, 2010
Woman guilty of first-degree murder in husband's death, Mass Live, February 24, 2006
Related Web Resources:
Murder, Cornell University Law School
He is accused of taking the girl, then 14, to an area of the hospital where there were no security cameras and sexually assaulting her. His Boston criminal defense lawyer is asking jurors to remember that the defendant was a mental health patient when the allegedMassachusetts sexual crime happened. She also noted that because of his diminished mental capacity, he was incapable of understanding his actions or conforming to the law.
Diminished Mental Capacity Defense
Due to mental illness, a psychological disorder, or other health issues, some people who’ve committed a crimes lack the capacity to understand that their actions constituted a criminal act. Evidence of diminished capacity can be presented to a jury as part of the defense as they consider whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of a crime.
Massachusetts is zealous when it comes to pursuing people charged with sexual crimes and it is important that you are represented by a Boston criminal defense lawyer that can secure the best outcome possible for your case. A conviction as a sex offender can land you in prison for years, place you on the Massachusetts sex offender registry for life, and likely have serious repercussions on your career and personal life.
Girl, 16, testifies at rape case, Boston.com, July 14, 2010
Hospital Rape Case To Begin, WCVB, July 6, 2010
]]> You are entitled to be represented by a Boston sexual assault and rape defense law firm that will zealously advocate on your behalf.]]>According to authorities, the Wellesley woman punched and kicked a pregnant woman during a brawl in April at Tulip Nail, a Boston nail salon. Following the incident, the fetus was delivered by emergency C-section but died. According to the medical examiner, the placenta became detached from the uterus. Woodhouse is related to the baby’s father.
Woodhouse’s Boston criminal defense lawyer says that it is unclear who began the fight. Per a Boston police report, after the two women left the salon the pregnant woman followed Woodhouse in her car and they reportedly continued their dispute. According to the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office, there was not enough evidence to establish that any intent to kill was involved. Massachusetts is one of the US states that will pursue homicides of unborn children who could have otherwise survive outside the womb.
A conviction for Massachusetts manslaughter can land a defendant in prison for up to 20 years. This is a serious criminal charge and in many cases the accused never intended to harm the victim.
Wellesley woman pleads not guilty to harming fetus, Boston.com, July 12, 2010
Woman indicted in death of fetus, Boston Herald, July 12, 2010
Related Web Resource:
Fetal Homicide State Laws, National Conference of State Legislature
As you have probably, heard, the ten alleged Russian agents recently rounded up in the Boston area and other parts of the Northeast, have pleaded guilty at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Most of the defendants admitted that they are Russian citizens and are agents working for the Russian Federation.
The sentence?
Well, a swap has been arranged. The Russian Federation will receive the spies in their custody and in turn will release four individuals claimed to be connected to American intelligence agencies, according to the United States Department of Justice.
In a Department of Justice press release, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “This was an extraordinary case, developed through years of work by investigators, intelligence lawyers, and prosecutors, and the agreement we reached today provides a successful resolution for the United States and its interests.”
Everybody is excited about this solution.
Ever mindful of the problems daily confronting our criminal justice system and its participants, I realized that this could be the beginning of a “win-win” scenario of criminal sentences.
The Russian spies, for example, would probably rather go home than stay here in custody. So they are happy. Both the United States and Russia are happy because they do not have to pay to house the spies of the other country, while they are happy to welcome home their heroes.
So…I ask this: why can’t we do this with more crimes?
For example, we have a hang-up about cruel and unusual punishments. This is why we do not beat our criminal defendants. Well, not blatantly, at least.
Why not take our assault and battery defendants and send them to countries where such battery is not necessarily frowned upon? There are countries, for example, which believe in caning the guilty. We could put our assault experts to work there, working for the government no less, instead of housing them here. In return, we can take in all those folks who have been arrested for speaking against their government. We allow that more or less here, so we can take them here and they will no longer be criminals!
There are countries where those in the drug trade have real power in the nation. Well, here, we tend to imprison drug dealers. Why? Couldn’t we send them to such places where they would simply take their places amongst the country’s elite instead of housing them in prisons? In return, we could take in those who face unofficial death penalties for talking with law enforcement.
We allow talking to law enforcement here.
Another example where this might work is “hate crimes”. Different nations hate different people. I am sure that someone who attacked a certain minority group in the USA might be considered a hero somewhere else. Visa versa too!
Now, it is just possible that I have not thought through all the potential kinks in this solution. After all, I am still on trial and have been very busy.
But, it’s a start.
Until we do adopt this type of strategy for other crimes, if you are suspected of or arrested for such crimes you are likely to face old fashioned USA criminal sentencing. So, you ought to take it seriously.
Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to defend you immediately. As for me, I am one such attorney. Don’t worry, though. As any of my clients can tell you, I may make jokes on the blog, but in court I am deadly serious.
So, if you are facing such charges and would like to consult with me regarding representing you , please feel free to give me a call at 617-492-3000 .
To view the original story upon which today’s blog was based, please go to http://m.theepochtimes.com/index.php?page=content&id=38860
It is a lesson learned the hard was for 18-year-old Buzzards Bay resident Daniel M. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), if he did not know it beforehand. Currently, he is being held on $5,000 bail after he allegedly beat a family member with an aluminum baseball bat.
Yes, that would make this a case of domestic violence.
The Defendant was arraigned in Falmouth District Court Tuesday morning after being arrested for allegedly hitting the 43-year-old man (hereinafter, the “Unnamed Complainant”) in the head with the bat at around 12:15 a.m. yesterday outside a Buzzards Bay home.
According to law enforcement, the Defendant struck the Unnamed Complainant with the bat after the latter attempted to leave after the two had had an argument.
When the investigating authorities arrived, they found the Unnamed Complainant lying in the driveway, unconscious and bleeding from the head, Bourne police said. He was taken by MedFlight helicopter to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston early yesterday morning, according to Bourne police.
While he apparently lacked remorse or good judgment, the Defendant was apparently in possession of a couple other things, such as drugs. Specifically, he was found with three tablets of Clonazepam (a muscle relaxant which is classified as a class E substance). He also had a small switchblade knife in his possession, according to the police report.
The Defendant has been charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (a felony) and possession of a class E substance.
The Unnamed Complainant’s condition from the hospital has not been released. Nor is his name listed in the hospital’s directory, apparently by his request.
.
Attorney Sam’s Take:
Well, assuming the above is all true, there is one little spark of good judgment that the Defendant showed. Namely, he neither ran from nor fought against the police when they arrived.
Other than that, the young gentleman is in trouble. What we don’t know is exactly how much trouble.
We do not know whether the Unnamed Complainant was merely knocked out, has a concussion or has brain damage. He could also potentially die. This occurrences would certainly up the ante in terms of criminal justice.
Presently, the matter is pending in district court. However, since there is a violent felony charge, it could end up in superior court. If the damage does turn out to be more severe, look for the addition of other charges such as “Assault with Intent to Kill”, “Mayhem” or some form of homicide.
“But his statement was that he meant to hit the guy in the shoulder, not the head.”
This does not matter. The law frowns upon whacking people with baseball bats. Intentially striking someone in the shoulder, missing, and hitting the head will not be much of a defense to murder charges, except to, perhaps, lower the charge.
Unlikely though.
The little knife and drugs could also be issues, but, as one would imagine, they are not likely to be the main issue in the prosecution.
People get angry. That is understandable.
However, when people act out of anger and cause physical damage, they are held responsible. There is no “Well, He Pissed Me Off” defense. Further, this is not likely to be seen as “self-defense” because the cell phone had been thrown.
Sometimes, though, people lose control. When they do, they need experienced help in minimizing the damages to them when facing accusations about the event.
In cases like this, they need an experienced criminal defense attorney.
That’s right, somebody like me.
If you are facing such circumstances and you wish to consult with me regarding representing you , please feel free to give me a call at 617-492-3000 .
To view the original story upon which today’s blog was based, please go to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100707/NEWS/7070327/-1/NEWSMAP ,and http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/24154425/detail.html
]]>It does involve criminal law, though. As well as show business.
You may have heard snippets over the past months of Lindsay Lohan and her difficulties with the law. One such difficulty has been showing up in court for such incidentals such as probation violation hearings.
Finally, it would seem that the court had enough.
Yesterday, a Los Angeles judge found Ms. Lohan in violation of her probation. The actress was sentenced to 90 days in jail. The hearing revolved around a missed court date in May. Ms. Lohan had claimed that the reason she had missed the court date was that she had lost her passport at the Cannes Film Festival and was unable to travel back to the states to attend the court date.
I hate when that happens, don’t you?
]]> Well, anyway, Judge Marsha Revel referenced several instances involving Lohan’s 2007 Driving While Intoxicated arrest in which she lied about possessing drugs and drinking. “It’s like someone who cheats but doesn’t think it’s cheating if they don’t get caught,” the judge said in court.We have discussed the realities of being on probation many times. The truth is that it really does not matter what state in the union you live in. If you are on probation, you had better do what the Department of Probation tells you to do. Further, neither said department nor judges take very kindly to feeling ignored.
Not showing up in court usually brings about default warrants. Ordinarily, Ms.Lohan would be returned to court in handcuffs.
“Yeah, why should she be treated differently?”
Well, the suggestion is that she is a person of privilege and so the normal rules do not apply to her. That may well be correct to a certain extent. However, there is a down side to that. The down side is that you never know when the powers that be are going to decide to enforce those normal rules because they have had enough.
Other than being a celebrity, there are reasons Ms. Lohan may have been given the benefit of the doubt in the past. She is not a person with a bad criminal record. It would be somewhat tough for her to simply skip court and never come back because she is so recognizable. Finally, one would expect that with so much to lose, she would not play games with the court.
in short, she should be a good bail risk.
But then, sometimes such suppositions are incorrect.
“Well, she lost her passport…what was she supposed to do?”
Take a hint from Ms. Lohan’s misfortune. If you have a court date, and are not able to move it with the help of your attorney (before the actual court date, that is), show up.
You could lose your passport? Either keep it stapled to your body or simply do not go.
Might get a cold? Do not go out.
Might oversleep? Stay awake.
Am I sounding foolish? Maybe. But the fact is that when you have a court date, it is vital that you show up. This is particularly true if, Like Ms. Lohan, you are facing a probation violation and already have a few strikes against you from the start.
It is an area in which one does not take chances if one is wise.
But then, people are not always wise.
When your wisdom has failed you in such matters, you need to get in touch with an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible so as to minimize damage and defend you.
If you find yourself in such a predicament and would like to consult with me regarding representing you , please feel free to give me a call at 617-492-3000 .
To view the original story upon which today’s blog was based, please go to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/07/06/judge-rules-lohan-90-days-in-jail/
]]>