Drew was supposed to receive her sentencing for the cyber crime this week, but California U.S. District Judge George Wu said he was not upholding the jury’s decision. He is challenging the federal computer crime statute that the prosecutors used when making their case against Drew. They contended that she violated MySpace’s terms of service that prohibited 1) the creation of bogus registration information, 2) the use of accounts to get personal information about juvenile members, and 3) the abuse, harassment, or harm of other members.
A spokesperson for the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles said that the judge is concerned that Drew’s guilty verdict would allow for anyone that violated the social networking site’s terms of service to be found guilty of a misdemeanor cyber crime.
Experts had called the jury’s 2008 verdict against Drew the first cyber-bully verdict. Testimony during her criminal trial revealed that Drew, her daughter Sarah, and family friend Ashley Grills created a bogus MySpace account to send messages to Meier. The “sender” was a fictitious boy named “Josh Evans.” Josh flirted with Meier, made friends with her, and then abandoned her, telling her that the world would be better if she wasn’t in it. Meier, who had a history suicidal impulses and depression, hanged herself in October 2006.
Drew was never charged with Meier’s murder. She was also acquitted of felony charges related to the cyberbullying case. Her criminal defense lawyers contend that although Drew new about the bogus account, she did not know about the mean messages that were sent to Meier.
As our cyber world continues to expand, people are being charged with crimes related to this high tech arena. You need the help of an experienced Boston cyber crimes law firm that knows how to provide you with the best defense.
Lori Drew MySpace Suicide Hoax Conviction Thrown Out, ABC News, July 2, 2009
U.S. woman convicted in MySpace suicide case, NY Times, October 27, 2008
Related Web Resources:
MySpace
Cyber Crimes, US Doj.gov
]]> Contact Altman & Altman LLP today. ]]>“Larceny” is basically another word for “theft” under the Massachusetts General Laws. According to Chapter 266of such laws, anyone “ Who steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another… whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny”.
Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it?
Well, not so much.
Actually, there are varying degrees of larceny. While larceny seems to simply be what we call in the outside world, “stealing”, how it was done and how much was stolen come under different sub-headings in the law and are treated differently.
]]> Let’s take an example. Tommy Take and Shelia Concealer go into a convenience store. Tommy decides he wants a few candy bars but has no money. He stuffs the candy bars in his coat pocket. Shelia sees a neat fancy player that seems like a bargain at $190. However, it is a better bargain at $0 and so she rips off the tag, slips it into her purse and decides to simply leave with it. As they approach the door, they are stopped by the store manager, the police are called, the material is recovered and the two are charged.“For what?”, you ask. “They never even left the store!”
“You are right”, I answer. “But, then, they do not have to. Under Section 30(a), the store does not have to wait until they actually make it outside. Further, simply by concealing and ripping off the tag of the DVD player, the statute has been violated.
Now, they did the same thing, so they get the same charges, right?
Not necessarily.
They will probably face the same charges if they are believed to have acted in a joint enterprise and are therefore each guilty of what the other did as well as what they did. Aside from that, however, they have violated the larceny laws to differing degrees. This is because of the value of the things stolen. While Tommy may simply be prosecuted for “shoplifting” at its lowest level and not punishable by jail time, Shelia is not so lucky. The value of her crime is the full misdemeanor offense of what is known as petit larceny. It is a misdemeanor for which she could technically be sent to jail. Of course, had she taken over $250 worth of items, she would be looking at a felony.
Then, of course, there are the question of their criminal records, which will most likely play apart in what the prosecutor and the court is willing to do for them.
The crime of larceny is the crime of theft. The circumstances of that theft will dictate the specific statute the act triggers.
If the larceny was done through fraud, such as by passing a bad check, the charge could be “larceny by check”. If it was a theft accomplished by sticking a gun in someone’s face and suggesting their money for their life, it is a “robbery”. If it comes from breaking into someone’s home and pilfering a bunch of valuables, it is a “burglary”.
Many examples of larceny are considered “white collar crimes”. This is especially true in business- related crimes such as fraud, embezzlement and the like. In the past, people thought that white collar crimes were “no big deal” and treated with a “slap on the wrist”. People like Bernie Maddoff have graciously provided the example of late to remind us that such is not the case.
Now, here is the good news for the investigated – the acts have to be done intentionally. In most cases, simple negligence is not enough (although it certainly is in terms of civil lawsuits). And now the bad news…
Daniel Deepockets has worked for the same company for many years. He has worked his way up the latter to a figure of prominence. In fact, he is in charge of some of the funds handled by the company. After he bought his fourth yacht, the company began to notice that it seemed to be losing money. An in-house investigation revealed that more money went into Daniel’s personal checking account than was supposed to. In fact, it seemed, Daniel’s bank statements revealed the travelogue of the funds which the company had expected would be in its accounts. And so they called the police.
But, hey, mistakes happen, right? How does the prosecution prove that this was intentional? Maybe it was bad book keeping. After all, Daniel never did very well in math back in school…! And, honest man that he is, especially since he seems to be doing so well, he now sees where the mistake must have happened and is willing to give the money back. Problem over?
Not quite.
"What do you mean, Sam", you exclaim. "After all, 'presumption of innocence' and all that, right?
Well, not exactly. Remember my adage that while one may be presumed innocent (especially at trial), one is also assumed guilty (especially until trial)? Well, do you really think that everyone is going to assume that Daniel is simply the victim of his poor math skills? No, this will be an issue to played out at trial…assuming he does not plead guilty to a bevy of charges first all centered by today’s Attorney Sam’s Take focus: Larceny.
In today's business world, many transactions are performed between states or countries through the internet. More bad news. If such was involved in Daniel's transactions, he now has cyber-crimes added to the roster of charges facing him and the matter may be prosecuted federally.
Because of the complexities, the surface of which we could only scrape in a short blog posting, if you suspect you may be on the receiving end of an investigation into missing funds or merchandise…do yourself favor. Consult an experienced criminal defense lawyer to advise and defend you.
Now, where have I heard that before….
NOTE TO READER: I will not be posting tomorrow because of the holiday weekend. I will be back, however, on Monday (morning) for a new week of blogs. In the meantime….
Have a good, safe and law-abiding weekend and fantastic Fourth Of July!
]]>Timothy W., 40, of Great Barrington (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is that gentleman. He was arrested Thursday and arraigned in Pittsfield Superior Court on Friday. At that time, he was merely being charged with the break-in and theft at Rouge, a restaurant on West Center Road in West Stockbridge. However, law enforcement now believe that Rouge was one of a number of late-night break-ins which took place in the town last week.
Counting the eatery, there were allegedly six buildings broken into late night Wednesday or early Thursday morning, including three restaurants, a gift shop, a real estate agency and a vacant home.
Unheard of? Apparently not.
]]> There had been a similar string of more than two dozen similar business break-ins in South County and Columbia County, New York. In fact, it is believed that the Defendant had been on quite a spree and was, in fact, spreading the loss-of-wealth around. West Stockbridge Police Chief Michael Stanton indicates that the break-ins have been going on for a while and “…Wednesday night, we had ours.”Members of the West Stockbridge, Great Barrington, Egremont, Lenox and Columbia County, N.Y. police departments, along with state police from the Lee barracks, met Thursday to discuss the string of business break-ins that had been occurring -- all of which follow a similar pattern, according to Stanton.
That meeting, along with information from local business owners, gave the department the break needed for the arrest, Stanton said.
"It’s good to get together [with other departments], especially in a small town like ours," said Stanton, of the benefits of the sharing of information which took place in the meeting.
The Defendant remains a suspect in the other West Stockbridge cases, Stanton said, but investigators are looking at other suspects as well. It is unclear at this time if he will be arrested for any burglaries in the other towns at this time.
This is not the first time we have discussed the fact that today’s law enforcement community is one which likes to keep in touch…not matter how widespread.
It is a message that has two effects. It brings comfort to crime victims, potential crime victims and the rest of society…for the most part. “The most part” excludes those same people when they, mistakingly or not, end up being the accused as a result of such sharing.
Like most things, the benefits of sharing are only as good as those who are doing the sharing. Unfortunately, such sharing groups are comprised on individual human beings. Human beings, even en masse, make mistakes. True, the comparing of information and evidence works against such mistakes, but the very fact of such sharing of information should not be taken as anything more than what it is, namely, the grouping together of various information compiled by individuals who have their own prejudices, assumptions and opinions.
In other words, they can still make mistakes.
What is no mistake, however, is the assumption that once a group reaches its shared opinion, they become even more sure than if they had reached their conclusion on their own.
The result?
Whoever the sharers have decided likely did the crime is going to be, at least, investigated. They will also probably be charged.
Knowing law enforcement’s growing ability through this “information age” and its technical possibilities, it is no surprise that these meetings are occurring more and more often. It is easier than ever to share information, whether it be from town to town, state to state or even country to country.
The message here is that the old days of “What are the chances”, assuming that various jurisdictions will not be comparing notes over crimes of which you are suspected are long over. Jurisdictions talk. Jurisdictions share. We have discussed this many times, particularly on the subject of outstanding warrants.
As a result, if you were a suspect of some crimes in, for example, Philadelphia and figured it was safe to move to Massachusetts and start again, figuring that the good folks in the Commonwealth would know nothing of your suspicious past in Philly, guess again.
There is no real escape. There is only defense.
This is why, if you feel you are being investigated for a crime, even if that crime is in another state, it is important to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.
It may be more expensive than simply leaving town…but it is also more effective.
NOTE TO READERS: Tomorrow’s Weekly Attorney Sam’s Take Discussion: What is “larceny” anyway?
For the full article concerning today’s posting of the Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog, go to http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_12728293
]]>Often, you would be correct. Today you would be wrong.
One of the constant messages of the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog is that one never knows where criminal allegations may come from next. In this case, there are criminal allegations…but not of the sexual nature. In fact, not even of the intentional nature.
According to a local paper, the owners of a Fall River day care center were arrested last Friday. The police say that they failed to get medical help for two children who had been bitten by a third child (hereinafter, the “Biter”) under their care. Apparently, Ashraf W., 40 and his wife, Mervat H., 35, the owners of the center and now collectively the “Defendants” are each charged with wanton or reckless endangering of a child.
Specifically, the allegations amount to permitting substantial injury to a child and permitting injury to a child. No, they are not charged with actually committing the assault as that was apparently the doing of another child.
According to the Commonwealth, the injuries were sustained at the day care center, which is underneath the Defendants’’ home.
Of course, we are not talking about the garden variety injuries either.
]]> One of the victims, a 2-year-old girl, was hospitalized in Rhode Island with a severe injury to her left eyelid and may have to undergo plastic surgery. The police say that she had been bitten by the Biter 12 times.A 1-year-old boy had also been bitten on the temple by the Biter during the incident, but was not hospitalized.
Now, you may have visions of the Defendants callously ignoring the cries of the young children, left bleeding from their faces from the Biter. However, this is not the case according to law enforcement. Apparently, it was the Defendants themselves, for example, who contacted the girl’s grandmother at 2 p.m. on Monday after they had discovered her injuries. According to the Herald News, however, they told the grandmother that the injuries were “not that bad.”
The grandmother, apparently unalarmed and, to date, uncharged by the Commonwealth, did not rush to pick the girl up. Instead, when the girl was dropped off at her grandmother’s home seven hours later (which is when the woman got off from work), she saw the injuries and transported her granddaughter to St. Anne’s Hospital.
According to the police, the Defendants never contacted the mother of the 1-year-old boy victim of the Biter.
As you may have noticed from past postings, I very seldom use the word “victim”, but usually say “complainant”. This is because I do not assume all the facts must necessarily be as the prosecution contends they are…call it an occupational hazard or, simply, actual experience. However, it is difficult to refer to 1 and 2 year old children, bleeding from bite marks on their faces as anything but "victims".
As a society, I find that we like to have clear-cut “bad guys” to blame whenever possible when disquieting events such as this occur. This is why there is often a certain amount of “scape-goating” and rushing to judgment that this blog has so often pointed out.
In the instant case, the Biter is the apparent cause of the biting. However, it is difficult to jump up and down and really put the blame at the feet of such a young assailant. Rest assured, if the Biter had been older, that problem would not be before us.
Since we cannot hold the Biter truly responsible, and we have such an ugly scene, who can we drag into the criminal courts to answer for it? One might make the argument that the grandmother was negligent, at least in terms of the girl victim, because she did not leave work and rush to the child’s side. Of course, she is probably doing a fair job of blaming herself as it is and, after all, she was allegedly told that the wounds were not that serious.
Clearly, it was the Defendants who had been responsible for the childrens’ safety and wellbeing while the kids were in their care. It also goes without saying that, according to the news, they failed at that duty on this particular day. Not only was the supervision such that the Biter was able to cause all the damage that he/she apparently did, but they did not immediately call for medical attention, minimized the injuries to the grandmother and did not even call the boy’s parent (although, it would appear that the injuries sustained by him were significantly less than those suffered by the girl).
In days gone by, one would read this story and actually be able to smell the upcoming lawsuits. Today, we may be sure that the lawsuits are coming…but will have to wait their turn.
This is because today, civil personal injury lawsuits alone are not deemed sufficient in these types of cases. Today, we bring the weight of the Criminal Justice System down on the accused wrongdoers…even if the wrong-doing is actually “negligence”.
Until today’s justice system, “negligence” has been a cornerstone to the Civil Justice System.
This is not to say that it had previously been only purely intentional acts which graced the halls of criminal justice. No, reckless and wanton acts, sometimes referred to as “depraved indifference” to human life have long been a part of the system. For example, you shoot a gun into some house without a care of who a bullet hits and you kill someone…it is a homicide. If you are in the middle of an automobile chase with the police or are driving drunk and you cause the destruction of property, that destruction is, of course, a criminal act.
However, we are unaware of any facts that would make the Defendants acts in this case “reckless” to that same level. Usually, there is some kind of intentional act which sets the stage for the harm caused. In this case, it would appear to be simple negligence both in the supervision as well as the action after learning about the Biter’s misdeeds.
We could debate whether this trend of the blend between civil justice and criminal justice is a good or bad thing.
But not here. Not today.
This blog concerns criminal law issues and what they mean to you. The golden question, therefore, is what does this case mean to you?
A lot, actually.
It signals you once again that you cannot simply sit back and relax if there appear to be allegations or even the suspicion of wrong-doing on your part. The old adage of, “Ah, let ‘em sue me” is not only foolhardy in terms of civil litigation, but, now, quite dangerous in terms of criminal justice. Maybe they will sue you…maybe they won’t.
But maybe they’ll rely upon law enforcement to do it for them. After all, state or federal prosecutors carry much more clout than litigators. Litigators cannot end your future hopes and dreams by destroying your record. Also, litigators cannot simply throw you in jail.
Litigators also often cost money; prosecutors do not.
“Sam, are you really saying the prosecutors and police officers simply see themselves as litigators of choice to be used by aggrieved parties who simply do not want to pay for a lawyer?”, you may ask.
For the vast majority, the answer is “of course not”. However, we are talking about allegations of wrongdoing and, often, horrible results here. The line between what is criminal and what is simply someone’s fault has become much thinner than you might imagine. Further, when there are cases which really pull at the human heartstrings, people get angry and want real punishment. Period. A long term lawsuit is not what the public usually feels it wants.
While it is the prosecutor's job to “do justice” and sort out what is civil and what is criminal…prosecutors tend to be human beings too. These human beings have their own prejudices and emotions. Often these emotions include anger and fear.
“Fear?”
“Oh, most definitely fear. Fear that tomorrow’s paper may have a nice little picture of them or their boss reflecting how they have made a decision not to prosecute a certain matter and calling them “soft on crime”. Fear that the allegation is that they did not penalize a defendant enough.
And, of course, that fear I hear almost every day and keep repeating back to you. The fear of, “What if I cut him loose and he goes out and kills someone?”
My point?
You’d better be afraid too…or, at least, wary. If circumstances, or your own actions, have put you in a position where criminal allegations could potentially be brought, you want to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to advise you, look into the matter and, potentially, defend you.
After all, it may be their allegations....but it is your life.
NOTE TO READERS: As you may have noticed, some changes are being made to this site this summer. This includes this daily blog moving to a 4-day format instead of the a 5-day format. Fridays will normally be the day which will not have the new posting. Unfortunately, court schedules being what they sometimes are, as well as the priority I must place on my clients’ needs, days are sometimes missed, as was the case yesterday. However, I will continue to do my utmost to bring you an informative and, I hope, entertaining posting 4 days a week. As always, if you have a question or comment regarding the Blog or your own legal concern, please feel free to contact us as indicated at my profile which you can find here.
In the meantime, thanks for reading!
For the full article concerning today’s posting of the Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog, go to http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19885992/detail.html
]]>Among the allegations against Shine:
• He was high on cocaine when he abducted the girl.
• He got her to enter his apartment by telling her he had gerbils and guinea pigs.
• He injected her with a substance that made her drowsy.
• He bound her hands using black tape, shackled her ankles, and put tape on her mouth.
As police searched the apartment complex for the girl, Shine slit his own wrist. The girl either was let go or escaped. She did not sustain physical injuries. Police claim that Shine resisted arrest but they were able to subdue him.
Neighbors say that the Shine and the girl live near each other in Hanover Woods, a Massachusetts apartment complex.
Kidnapping
Kidnapping consists of secretly or forcibly imprisoning a person or keeping the victim confined against his or her will. This crime can comes with a maximum 10-year prison sentence in Massachusetts. A defendant convicted of kidnapping could be ordered to face a lengthier prison sentence if he or she used a dangerous weapon when committing the crime, caused serious sexual or other physical injury to the victim, kidnapped a person younger than age 16, or abducted someone for monetary gain.
Kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and kidnapping with the intent to extort money are serious criminal offenses in Massachusetts. You cannot battle these charges without the help of an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer. There may be insufficient evidence in your kidnapping case, or the alleged crime may be one involving mistaken identity or a misunderstanding. Your Massachusetts defense attorney can combat the charges that were filed against you.
DA details alleged kidnapping in Hanover, Boston.com, June 29, 2009
Girl's Horror In Hanover Kidnapping Revealed, WBZ, June 29, 2009
Related Web Resources:
The General Laws of Massachusetts
National Child Kidnapping Facts, Polly Klaas Foundation
]]> Contact Altman & Altman LLP today.]]>We have discussed how, beyond the obvious, the arrest of a juvenile student in Massachusetts can seriously effect that student’s future plans. We have also mentioned how the earliest consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney is vital in order to best attempt to prevent, or at least minimize, damage.
Of course, not all students are juveniles. Some are already adults. There are a few big differences. Remember how I wrote about the Juvenile System’s concerns being primarily rehabilitative? Well, such is not the case with adults. Further, while a juvenile’s prior record is often disregarded…no such luck for the adult.
The result of these differences?
Harsher realities.
Let’s take an example.
Last Thursday, 18-year-old Kyle R. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) had a bit of trouble with the Taunton police. It seems he is being accused of driving drunk (aka OUI). Well, maybe a little more. He also faces charges of driving so as to endanger, carrying a dangerous weapon, (a spring-loaded folding knife) and violating the terms of a juvenile operator's driving license.
“What brought the lad to the attention of the law?”, you ask.
Well, the police say it was his driving his car into a speed limit sign and a fire hydrant just after 1:00 a.m.
]]> Now, we know that The Defendant, now an adult in terms of being prosecuted, is in trouble...as any person so charged would be.But, let’s move him from Taunton and place him right in one of the many educational institutions in the Boston area. Of course, where we put his automobile accident will effect things right off.
If the accident took place on campus, the results to his status on campus would absolutely be effected. There would be some kind of hearing at the school and, very likely, he would be told he could not be on campus anymore because of the threat he presents to the school community. You see, schools tend to take things like drunk driving, illegal driving and the carrying of weapons quite seriously…especially when these things are done on the actual campus.
In other words, suspension or even expulsion could be the result even long before the criminal justice system has determined guilt or innocence. This is because, in the school setting, the accused does not possess as many rights as he does in the criminal justice system. Sometimes, the school will wait to see what the courts do. Often, they do not. In cases where a school does wait, then the determination in court will almost dictate what the school will do.
Keep in mind that, like other such entities, schools do not like to get sued. Therefore, the omnipresent concern we often hear from law enforcement, “What if he goes out and kills somebody?”, is also alive and well in the school administration.
But, there is more to be worried about if you are the Defendant and a student, isn’t there?
The Defendant is an adult now. It will be harder to seal this record and, as you know if you are a regular reader to this daily blog, expunging the record is simply not going to happen. If convicted, the Defendant will have to wait years before being able to even try to seal his record. Yes, many more years than he has before applying to graduate schools and/or his first employment.
In fact, any future plans he has will now have to be adjusted for the fact that he has the criminal conviction(s). This will include continuing his education, military service and most places of employment. It will also have to be dealt with, should he get past the continuing education issue, when facing any licensing boards that might be necessary in a chosen profession, such as law, medicine, accounting and the like, not to mention any job that requires a security clearance.
Again, if the Defendant were a juvenile, this record would not come up so easily and would not have to be addressed in all applications because of protections we give to juveniles. Part of that protection is that, except in certain circumstances (such as homicides), the finding against a juvenile is “delinquency”, not “guilty”. That will change the answer to questions like “have you ever been convicted of a crime.”
Many of the same concerns that we examined in Part One of this Attorney Sam’s Take discussion involving juveniles are even greater in terms of a student who is not a juvenile.
For example, let’s take the example of a student who is convicted of a sex offense. While even a juvenile may be forced to register with the Sex Offender Registry, such registration is not always the result. However, for an adult convicted of a sex crime, registration is an absolute reality, the only question being what level.
Other ramifications are greater for the adult student than for the juvenile. For example, guilty findings for adults also effect actions by other agencies from national agencies controlling immigration to more local agencies such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. Clearly, in this matter, should convictions result, there will be a loss of license for a certain time.
There is one final difference between the effect on an adult student as opposed to that of a juvenile student that I need to address. Namely, jurisdiction of the legal body which oversees the Defendant.
For example, the worst the Justice System is likely to find against the juvenile is a finding of “Delinquency”, as noted above, and any resulting probationary or Department of Youth Services oversight of the Defendant ends when he is no longer a juvenile.
This is not the case with the adult. The adult’s probation will extend for as long as the court says it will extend. While a juvenile must be released from DYS custody upon becoming an adult, the sentenced adult will have to serve whatever term the court has imposed.
Therefore, the more direct gifts of conviction are longer lasting and can be more pervasive for the adult. For example, the juvenile offender who attains adulthood no longer has to consult a probation officer before applying to and attending schools (whether in or out of state). Not so with the adult offender.
In any event, the fact that a defendant is a student is not often a huge help in facing criminal justice anymore. While court's like to see a defendant with a future (who will hopefully not become a repeat offender), the addage of "Boys will be boys" is not longer an active principle in the criminal justice system.
Of course, every case is different to some degree, and it is impossible to render an exhaustive treatise on the subject in this short blog. The advice, however, remains the same.
If you or a loved one find themselves in the wrong end of the government’s finger of blame, it is vital that you consult an experienced defense attorney to advise as to options from the onset. That way, as you are driven through the myriad of corridors of the criminal justice maze, you can best make informed decisions, be defendant and actually have a road map.
]]>Last week, Defendant 1, the director of Tufts’ Office of Student Activities from 1996 to 2007, and Defendant 2, the budget and fiscal coordinator for the Office of Student Activities from 2001 to 2007, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of larceny in Woburn Superior Court. According to the Commonwealth, Defendant 1 had stolen $37,576 and Defendant 2 had pilfered $604,873. The two had been indicted on July 1st by a Middlesex Grand Jury for counts of larceny over $250.
Yes, those would be felony charges. Each defendant was sentenced to two years to two years and one day to be followed by five years of probation as well as full restitution of the funds they have admitted to stealing.
“These two employees abused the access that they were given by the University to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars that was meant to help students,” District Attorney Leone said. “We want to thank Tufts University for referring this case to our office as soon as they uncovered this scheme and then working cooperatively with us to conduct a full investigation.”
Over a time period from 2001 to 2007, Defendant1 apparently transferred $63,500 to her personal line of credit, $91,000 to her personal checking account and also withdrew $174,908 in cash. In total, she stole $372,576 from the University through this scheme.
In case you are wondering, no, she was not authorized to take or spend any of this money by the University.
During the investigation, auditors also discovered that Defendant2 stole $604,873 from University student activity accounts in a separate scheme. Auditors discovered that Defendant2 wrote himself a check from a University account in the amount of $100,000. He then deposited that check into an account he opened in his name, and used the money to pay credit card bills.
Defendant2 also opened numerous credit cards in his name and in the name of Tufts University. He would then use the cards to purchase personal items and then pay the credit cards with checks drawn from the Tufts University student activity account. From October 2005 to September 2007, Defendant2 is alleged to have used Tufts money to purchase high-priced items and trips.
Defendant1 was indicted by a Middlesex Grand Jury on July 1, 2008, on three counts of larceny over $250. Defendant2 was also indicted on July 1 on two counts of larceny over $250. At their arraignments on August 8, 2008, they were both released on personal recognizance.
As indicated above, they are to be released no morel
This case has been chosen to discuss with you today for two reasons. First of all, it is a good follow-up to yesterday’s story in delivering the message that one does not always see an investigation coming and that folks one does not usually expect to see with the last name “Defendant” often find themselves with said title. Also, it brings us back to the college issues to be examined tomorrow as this daily Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog offers up the second part of our discussion about students and ramifications of being convicted, or even accused, of a crime.
In this case, though, there are a couple of items that make the defendants stand out.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that, particularly with the types of white collar cases in the news (which often reflects, if not dictates, the mindset of prosecutors) Defendants 1 and 2 had no idea that they might get caught.
What the defendants did is actually embezzlement. Especially given the setting, it is an especially sensitive area because of the “abuse of trust” aspect. Further, there could have been little misunderstanding as to whether there would be a “paper trail” for the authorities to follow. Of course, the matter is made even worse given the apparent greed and long-standing schemes involved.
I find that in many such cases, while an initial white collar crime has occurred, there begins a suspicion by investigators that any surrounding questionable financial discrepancies are immediately suspected as part of the already suspected schemes. In such cases, questionable decisions which are not necessarily criminal, or even intentional, are assumed to be both criminal and intentional.
It is not clear whether the defendants “cooperated” with the investigation. It is quite common, however, in such cases, for investigators to contact the targets of their investigation, giving them a “chance” to “come clean” with them. The promise is that, in return, the officers will do what they can to “go easy” on them. Most often, however, this is the proverbial smoke being blown in order to entice the unsuspecting to help them make their prosecutorial case stronger.
In fact, it will be the prosecutor, not the detectives, who decide what punishments to seek. Further, confessing to crimes does not tend to dissuade the Commonwealth from prosecuting.
In certain instances, the accused have more to lose than simply a few years in prison. Often the entire future is at risk. While it is unknown if the defendants in today’s posting were actually students, their futures upon their release are now in question…to be optimistic. This is particularly true if they were seeking a career in finance, politics or any other position of trust…particularly if that trust involves money.
There is no indication that either of these defendants had any criminal record. Many people believe that if a defendant facing nonviolent charges such as these has no prior record, the most they are looking at in terms of criminal justice ramifications, is a “slap on the wrist” and a short term of probation. As one can see from this story, such is not necessarily the case.
In fact, it seldom is in today’s criminal justice system.
As one example, look at the sentence they are getting in a plea bargain; imagine what the sentence would be if found guilty after after a trial!
Today, it is even more important than ever to be careful. This primarily means to be careful not to do the wrong-doing in the first place. However, it also means that, failing that (or being suspected of failing that), consult someone who can advise you as early as possible as to any pending investigation.
Yes, that would be an experienced criminal defense attorney.
But then, you knew that already, didn’t you?
For the full articles concerning today’s posting of the Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog, go to http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/news/police_and_fire/x998781965/Former-employees-plead-guilty-to-stealing-nearly-1M-from-Tufts
]]>A stay-way order has also been issued that prevents the former couple from coming within 50 yards of one another—unless it is an industry event; in these situations, the two of them must make sure the distance between them is at least 10 feet.
If Brown had refused the plea agreement and was convicted of criminal threats and felony assault, he could have ended up serving up to five years in prison. The 20-year-old singer was arrested last February for allegedly threatening and beating Rihanna during an altercation prior to the Grammy Awards. The singer is accused of trying to push his then-girlfriend out of a car, shoving her head against a window, punching her, and biting her ear.
While some people are questioning whether Brown’s punishment is too lenient for the crime, the Los Angeles Times reports that his sentence is in line with what other first-time offenders pleading guilty to the same crime will usually receive. Former deputy district attorney Dimitry Gorin says he has negotiated similar plea agreements for other defendants and that Brown's sentence is not a light one.
Gorin noted that even if Brown were ordered to serve jail time, the Los Angeles County jail is so overcrowded that the singer would likely have served just a “fraction” of his jail sentence. District attorney spokesperson Sandi Gibbons says that Browns’ plea agreement was not “special treatment” and that Rihanna approved of the deal.
Settlement reached in Chris Brown's alleged beating of Rihanna, Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2009
Chris Brown Pleads Guilty in Deal, The New York Times, June 22, 2009
Related Web Resources:
Massachusetts Law About Domestic Violence
Group Reports Massachusetts 15 Domestic Violence Homicides to Date for 2009, Bostoncriminallawyerblog.com, June 7, 2009
Domestic Violence Overview, Justia
]]> Domestic Violence ArrestsAfter all, the Defendant had been something of a celebrity. Now in his 60’s, he had had helped found a gay rights group in Provincetown in the early 1990’s. In 1989, he helped form the Provincetown chapter of ACT UP, a group that described itself as diverse and nonpartisan, and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis. He also served on a working group to combat hate crimes.
And now?
Now he has been convicted in the cyber-crime of possessing and distributing child pornography.
To make the charges against him seem even more unlikely, they are not even the result of a local investigation. In fact, it was not even initiated within the United States.
]]> The investigation began in 2006. It was the Swiss police that contacted the United States immigration authorities with a list of computer users who were believed to be trading child pornography with a Swiss man, Laurent Boson, according to court records. They had monitored Mr. Boson’s internet activities between March 15, 2006, and June 6, 2006. They arrested him on June 19, 2006. That arrest yielded more information, including a list of computer users who had apparently traded with Boson,U.S. authorities linked a computer e-mail account and an Internet computer address to the Defendant.
On April 5, 2007, a grand jury in the U.S. District Court in Burlington indicted the Defendant on charges of transporting four images in June 2006 and owning computer materials that contain images of child pornography in March 2007. Two further indictments, on Oct. 2, 2008, and April 16, expanded the charges against him.
And so it was that the Defendant entered a guilty plea in U.S. District Court in Burlington, Vt., on June 8th, admitting he e-mailed a picture of a prepubescent female being sexually abused by a male, according to court records as well as to sending 34 images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct via the Internet and of doing so in a home that he co-owns in Braintree, Vt.
The Defendant will be sentenced in Burlington in October. Meanwhile, he is confined to his home except for approved activities like work or school, with his whereabouts monitored by radio frequency. He is not allowed to use a computer, own pornography and cannot travel outside Vermont or Massachusetts.
“Hey, Sam”, you begin this morning, “Did you move to Vermont last week? I thought this was the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog”.
Well, it is…and, no, I have not left the Commonwealth. The crime charged here is being prosecuted in federal court. While certain laws and rules differ in the federal system from state to state, what is illegal actually does not. In other words, this same prosecution could happen tomorrow right here in United States District Court in Boston.
“Why is it a federal crime if it happened in Vermont?”
When a crime otherwise prosecutable by state authorities involves more than one state, or is committed between countries, the federal government has jurisdiction. In this case, the federal authorities were the ones contacted by the Swiss authorities and so they conducted the investigation and prosecution against the Defendant.
It should be noted that this was not simply a case where the Defendant is said to have simply possessed the child pornography. Yes, that would be a crime as well, although more likely to simply be prosecuted in state court. However, he was also charged with the “trafficking” of the images, which simply means transferring them through the internet. This is what makes it federal.
There is no indication that the Defendant has a prior criminal record. In fact, he would seem to have been something quite to the contrary – a social activist who spent his time trying to fight for equal rights, making life better for others.
Unfortunately, such good deeds are no cloak of Teflon when it comes to criminal investigation into activities which some people do not even realize are illegal. There have even been cases where the defendants do not know that the images they possess are of underage people. However, the mere possession of said images, not to mention the trading of them, is illegal and treated quite seriously. The list of surprising defendants convicted for such crimes is surprising. It includes people who have lived varied crime-free lives such as a California well known radio talk show host from KGO-radio to various local and national celebrities.
Surprising or not, ignorance of the law is not a defense. These people have had to pay stiff criminal penalties.
So, the message is the same, if there is any clue that an investigation into any of your activities is afoot, or if you are unsure if what you are doing is legal, it is best to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to advise and, if necessary, protect you.
For the full article concerning today’s posting of the Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog, go to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/NEWS/906230316/-1/NEWSMAP
]]>The man accused of the homicide in this case is 19-year-old Dan G. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). He is charged with Murder in the First Degree in connection with a fatal stabbing in Framingham which is said to have occurred on June 14th. While one would imagine the circumstances surrounding the attack would be the focal point of the public’s interest in the matter, said facts now seem to have taken a back seat to the Defendant’s criminal history. Yes, this would include his juvenile history which, of course, is usually considered “sealed” and inadmissible against him.
The Defendant is currently being held without bail. Part of the reason for this may well be his present circumstances. After all, Murder 1 is considered the most serious of crimes and, in fact, carries a sentence of Life without the possibility of parole in the Commonwealth. Further, the Defendant’s own statement, not surprisingly, does not help his situation. He is reported as saying that he does not remember stabbing the victim, but does recall standing over him holding a bloody knife.
The Defendant’s familiarity with knives, remembered by him or not, has now become of interest to the public. That familiarity, of course, is intimately entwined with his prior criminal record. For example, on April 7th, he is said to have used a knife to threaten a group of teenagers he claims were about to fight one of his friends. While you might see that as self-defense, or the defense of another, the Commonwealth did not see it that way. Law enforcement, no great fan of knife-waving “vigilante” protectors, arrested the Defendant and charged him with assault with a dangerous weapon.
It likely did not help that the friend the Defendant had been trying to protect went public with the notion that the Defendant was “intimidating”, which is why he had enlisted his aid in the first place.
]]> During the Defendant’s booking in that case, the police noticed that the Defendant had a previously inflicted knife wound himself. This provided more fuel to the fire of suspicion regarding the Defendant’s past...which is now being used in his present circumstances as well.But, that is, of course, not all.
The Commonwealth has also announced its belief that the Defendant is a “gang member’ as he is said to be an admitted member of “Folk Nation”. According to the FBI, Folk Nation is a national conglomerate made up of smaller street gangs that share information and offer protection to each other.
In any event, the Defendant pleaded guilty on May 28th to not only the charges of the ABDW of April 7th, but also another pending case in which he was also found with a knife. It was a matter in which he is said to have disturbed a school assembly and then resisted arrest. In return for his plea of guilty in both cases, he was given a suspended sentence. In other words, he would be on probation and, failing that, he would have to serve the previously suspended sentence.
Of course, innuendo about juvenile crimes, membership to national gangs and previously suffered knife wounds aside, that probationary term is more than likely now about to have an abrupt ending. In light of the recent murder case, the Department of Probation is seeking to show that the Defendant has violated probation and so should be incarcerated. The Defendant’s probation surrender hearing is currently scheduled for July 28th. Should the court find that the Defendant had indeed violated probation (which would be rather hard to do given that the very arrest in the homicide case is such a violation) the sentence of 1 ½ years in jail would be imposed.
Of course, in the meantime, the Defendant is likely to be held without bail pending the murder case anyway, so I would predict a rather swift resolution to the probation surrender.
Rest assured, the Defendant is in enough trouble given the present charges alone.
The arrest for murder, whether or not he is eventually convicted, is considered a violation of probation according to the laws of the Commonwealth. Further, simply being charged with pre-meditated murder could not be more definitional of being “in trouble”.
However, exacerbating that situation are the surrounding facts and innuendo of the Defendant’s past. Had this murder charge occurred later in time, he would likely be facing the same problem…except, perhaps, for the probation surrender. Simply put, the past is never forgotten nor forgiven by the Criminal Justice System.
I am often faced with clients’ misunderstanding of this reality. While investigating the size of the odds piled against them, I ask about any prior criminal cases.
I am usually told that there are none.
“Ok, so you have never been arrested?”, I ask as a follow-up.
“Oh, sure I have. But those cases have been taken care of.”
“What do you mean?”
“I pleaded guilty and served the sentence already.”
Many people seem to think that if prior cases have been resolved, they no longer exist to pop up again in the future. This belief is incorrect.
“But, Sam”, you ask, “Surely that is the case with a juvenile record, isn’t it?”
Nope. The Commonwealth still has access to those records as well. Therefore, the mistakes you made as a youth, in terms of criminal justice, are still alive and kicking in terms of being used against you in the future.
Notice that there do not seem to be allegations in this case that the Defendant committed the murder because of a gang affiliation, in connection with protecting his friend in the past, as part of disrupting a school assembly or even because of his being stabbed in the past. Therefore, there can be no other relevance of his past to this case other than the argument of “Where there is smoke, there is fire”.
This “Fire” element of criminal justice is but one reason that any involvement with law enforcement cannot be treated by the accused as anything other than deadly serious. Any prior perceived criminal activity can come back to haunt in many areas, not the least of which, are future suspicion and criminal charges.
Now, there are safeguards in the system to presumably protect against the unduly prejudicial use of these prior cases. For example, at trial, said prior cases are not admissible to show a propensity to commit crimes. In other words, the Commonwealth may not seek to introduce a prior record to support the argument, “Well, folks, he did it before, he probably did it again”. That would not be consistent with our laws regarding the presumption of innocence.
Of course, as I have long argued, that presumption exists more during a criminal trial than before it. Until then, there tends to be more of an assumption of guilt…and the touting of a prior criminal record, or past knife wounds or who one associates with is considered fair game.
Unfortunately, though, trial juries tend to be made up of those same people who, while in the general public, are treated to publicity of a person’s prior record, whether it contains fact or innuendo. These are the same people who are asked to be fair, open-minded and to forget anything they learned in terms of pre-trial publicity while sitting in Judgment.
Tell me, what does your mind picture when I tell you to absolutely not think of pink elephants?
NOTE TO READERS: Regretfully, due primarily to a rather intense court schedule, I was unable to post this otherwise daily criminal law blog. As such, the second part of "A Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Discusses Student Arrests And The Resulting Effects On A Student’s Future" will be posted in our weekly “Attorney Sam’s Take” Discussion this coming Thursday.
For the full articles concerning today’s posting of the Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog, go to http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x413663331/Framingham-stabbing-suspect-has-extensive-rap-sheet and http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_06_21_Suspect_in_Framingham_stabbing_has_long_police_record/srvc=home&position=recent
The 25-year-old, who worked at a Bank of America branch in Peabody, is accused of getting bank customers’ personal information and account data and selling the stolen information to people that then made unauthorized withdrawals—ranging from $2,800 to $31,800—from the accounts. At least $270,000 was taken out of these accounts without the bank customers’ authorization.
If convicted, Gautreaux could be ordered to pay a $1 million fine for each bank fraud count and serve up to 30 years in prison, in addition to supervised release for five years. A conviction for access device fraud could lead to a 10-year prison sentence, a $250,000 fine, and probationary release. A conviction for the aggravated identity theft charges could lead to additional sentencing.
Bank of America clients that were defrauded included those from Greater Boston, Magnolia, North Shore, and the Merrimack Valley.
Access Device Fraud: This term can refer to fraud crimes involving the use of access device numbers, such as ATM pin numbers, debit card codes, long-distances access codes, and computer passwords.
Bank Fraud: Can refer to fraud crimes that involve obtaining assets, funds, securities or money that is held or owned by a financial institution.
Aggravated Identity Theft: Involves using a stolen identity to commit a crime.
Our Boston criminal defense lawyers are amazed at how many times people are charged with white collar crimes that are a result of a simple misunderstanding or the wrong person being targeted as a “fall guy.”
Man, 25, indicted for ID theft, bank fraud, GloucesterTimes.com, June 5, 2009
Peabody bank teller accused of stealing customer IDs, Boston Herald, June 5, 2009
Related Web Resources:
Financial Crimes Division, United States Secret Service
White Collar Crimes Overview, Justia
]]> You are entitled to the best defense. Contact our Boston white collar crimes law firm to discuss your case.There is a lot to say, so this week’s Discussion is a two-parter, which will continue into and conclude tomorrow, Friday, June 12th.
How many times have you read about a youth getting arrested and thought, “Well, it’s a kid. A juvenile. What can they do to a kid…spank him?”
Well, no. Spanking has been off the criminal justice books for many a decade.
However, the myth that juvenile offenders cannot be damaged by the justice system, although widely believed, is not really true. Most kids, of course, do not realize that. This is why many ongoing criminal enterprises, such as drug traffickers, are often able to use juveniles to do the “dirty work” of street selling. They convince the young eager entrepreneur that “the law” cannot really touch him/her and so, while the chance for money is high, the accompanying risk is low.
]]> This, however, is not true.Juvenile Court, while perhaps not as severe as regular adult court, and the youth’s involvement with it, can damage that youth for life. This is particularly true in the case of a student who seeks to have an academic future.
First of all, understand that not every crime allegedly committed by a juvenile will be handled as a juvenile offense. Some violent crimes, usually homicide cases, can be treated in the adult halls of justice, complete with the youth being brought to trial as if he were an adult. That’s right…that can include adult sentences as well.
How severe?
Well, in some jurisdictions, such as federal court, even death. In jurisdictions which do not allow the death penalty, life imprisonment.
Severe enough for you?
Fortunately, these cases are not the norm. More typically, a juvenile facing allegations of criminal activity is treated to the not-so-warm-yet-alittle-warmer hands of Juvenile Court.
The chief difference between adult and juvenile court is rationale underlying each.
While rehabilitation is but a part of the stated goals of adult court’s criminal sentences, it is considered the cornerstone in Juvenile Court. Of course, this cornerstone is usually meted out in a “tough love” fashion. Further, it does not mean that the highest sentence a Juvenile Court can render is a severe reprimand and detention. No, the youth facing justice in Juvenile Court can face incarceration.
Incarceration in the juvenile setting is not in regular jail. While incarceration in adult matters is handled by the Department of Corrections, youthful offenders are housed by the Department of Youth Services, or “DYS”. In many ways, the “time inside” is different. But make no mistake…it is incarceration.
Of course, being sent to DYS is the heaviest type of sentence that can be handed down by juvenile court and DYS’ jurisdiction over the youth ends when he becomes of age.
Of course, other aspects of the sentence, such as, in sexual assault cases, registration with the Sex Offender Regtistry (SORB) does not necessarily end at that magic age.
Other than the sentence passed down by the court, there are other, sometimes longer lasting, ramifications that can be faced by the juvenile offender.
These have less to do with DYS and more to do with the defendant’s lifestyle and future.
Especially, the student’s academic future.
Schools will know, at least so long as the defendant is a juvenile, about any criminal involvement. Obviously, that can have an effect on admission to various schools. If the defendant has goals of a future in certain professions, those goals can be thwarted by what academic path she has to take. Therefore, a student who perhaps has always gotten excellent grades and does extremely well on standardized testing and, aside from some youthful indiscretions (varying in seriousness), may no longer be acceptable to certain private schools and colleges because of said indiscretions.
Writing “Hey, I would have gone to more prestigious schools had it not been for that little issue of gun-toting” will not generally help too much by way of explanation on later applications.
Naturally, one’s academic path can also effect one’s later career or employment opportunities in the same way.
Along those lines, we examined a very recent cases wherein college students, and even a high school student, was not allowed to graduate as scheduled because of some infraction…or, in the case of Harvard University, suspected infraction assumed because of a friendship with a friend of a suspected criminal. Clearly, not graduating, or not graduating on time, brings its own ramifications and blemishes to the future goals of a student.
Often, a school will suspend or even expel as student because of criminal involvement, or suspicions of same. This, too, does not actually empower later applications as one's school record generally follows the youth.
Depending on the criminal activity, other agencies, such as the Registry of Motor Vehicles and Department of Immigration (where applicable) may have a reaction to the indiscretion as well.
Suffice to say that the old adage of “Boys will be boys” does not protect such a “boy” very much anymore. While age will bring about some “break” in terms of criminal justice, it is not a valid defense to various crimes…and hardly of use in the regular world in many cases.
We often comfort the younger among us with the offering of, “Hey, you have your whole life ahead of you”. Sometimes, however, we forget that while that is true… that thought can make an already frightening situation even more scary.
“Why?”, you ask.
Because it is an even longer road through which a youth’s path may be tainted, limited or even curtailed, as a result of a mistake which has brought him or her to the attention of the authorities.
Lest we forget, not all students are juveniles. The Boston area is full of colleges, universities and graduate schools. Involvement in the criminal justice system can be particularly hard on the adult student in trouble.
With even more serious last effects.
And that is what we will discuss tomorrow, in Part Two of this blog.
You see, the Defendant was arrested at the site of the graduation before she could actually receive her high school diploma.
Police Officer Sean Lowe was working a paid uniform detail for the graduation when a commotion erupted as more than 300 cap-and-gown clad graduating students lined up to walk across the stage. According to law enforcement, the Defendant, dressed in her black graduation gown, was shouting obscenities while pacing back and forth and crying.
And why was she crying?
Well, apparently, CRLS Principal Christopher Saheed and John Silva, the security director at the high school, had told the Defendant that she would not be allowed to walk across the stage with her class. Perhaps determined not to ruin the day, the Defendant is said to have threatened that she would walk across the stage anyway and that she would slap any officer who got in her way, according to police reports.
Yes, that would be “slap” as in “assault and battery”.
]]> And why was the Defendant barred from walking across the stage in the first place?“No comment,” said schools spokesperson Justin Martin when asked that particular question. However, one thing that we do know is that the Defendant had been on the list of students to graduate from CRLS this year, according to a list provided by the Cambridge Public Schools.
According to the police, the Defendant had appeared disappointed initially, but did not try to enter the graduation as the rest of her class filed into the ceremony.
However, soon thereafter, the temptation perhaps becoming too great, she walked directly behind the graduation stage and paced back and forth. She then allegedly threatend to disturb the ceremony by walking across the graduation stage or by slapping a school administrator.
Police officers say they tried to calm the Defendant but were unsuccessful in the attempt. She allegedly called them obscene names and officers said they decided to arrest her to prevent any disruption to the graduation ceremony, according to police reports.
The Defendant was charged with breech of the peace and threatening to commit a crime.
As of the writing of this blog, we still do not know what twisted and vicious abominations the 17-year-old Defendant must have done to necessitate the enforced punishment that she not walk on the stage with the rest of her class. It does not appear like the police were aware of what it was…so it looks like it was not something terribly illegal. It cannot be that she had not earned her diploma, because according to the school, she was scheduled to graduate.
This mystery aside, however, the fact remains that those in authority had mandated that she not follow her class onto that stage.
“Hmmmm. Doesn’t seem fair, does it, Sam?”
No. From what we are told, it does not seem fair.
“So, darn it, maybe she was correct in trying to enforce her rights! I mean, where would our civil rights be today if nobody ever took the chance and insisted on their rights?”
Well, interesting point. But then, I am not sure that the right to graduate under these circumstances quite matches the rights to which you refer. While the punishment for whatever infraction the Defendant was initially guilty of may turn out to be overly harsh, those in the position of authority did levy that punishment and had the power to do so. Further, they had the police present to ensure that the punishment was carried out.
Committing additional infractions, not to mention actual crimes, is not generally the best way to fight this type of adversity.
Which brings us to what today’s posting has to do with you.
From time to time, we all find ourselves in situations which appear to be unfair.
Sometimes, they are actually unfair and something can be done afterwards to attempt to “make us whole” for the unjust action. While one’s high school graduation is an important and memorable event, and not one easily able to be repaired, sometimes we have to bite the proverbial bullet and accept the unfairness if only to attack it another day.
In this case, it appears clear that it did not matter what the Defendant did. She was not going to be allowed to follow her class upon that stage. It reminds me of a motorist who has just been pulled over and knows that he has had one small drink. The officer has already opined that the driver is under the influence of alcohol. He know that it is a matter of minutes before the officer advises him that he is being placed under arrest. The motorist may think the treatment unfair. Perhaps it is unfair. Or, consider the soon-to-be domestic violence defendant who has let the police into his/her home because a neighbor called the police as a result of a screaming argument. Maybe there had been a physical act, such as pushing the spouse with a shoeless foot. Nobody is injured. In fact, nobody is even angry anymore. But suddenly the officer announces that, because he had to come to the domestic disturbance, “somebody is going to jail”.
By the way, neither of these scenarios is unusual and reflect cases I have handled.
Now, either of those people who are about to be offered the Commonwealth Bracelets of Shame could simply try to out-talk, out-run or even out-fight the officer. It is, after all, an approach that we have discussed many times in this daily blog.
As you know, this approach generally fails and only ends up resulting in more serious criminal charges.
Fairness, in terms of criminal justice, is in the eyes of the beholder. In other words, your view of what is fair may not carry the day. At least, at the moment that decision is made. The important thing, though, is that you do not want to make the situation worse.
The answer? Simple. When it is clear that the arrest is being made, or that the authorities are not about to change their mind as to what they will allow you to do (such as stepping on that stage), it makes no sense to threaten, insult or otherwise challenge them. Politely accept it so that you can get through the situation as unscathed as possible and, perhaps, fight back another day.
No, I do not mean “fight back” as in “get your buddies and storm the police station". I mean to get an experienced lawyer and be as protected as possible in righting the wrong you believe you have been served.
But then, you’ve heard that advice on this blog before, haven’t you?
NOTE TO READER: Tomorrow's weekly Boston Criminal Lawyer's Blog Discussion Will, as you might have predicted, involve the effects of the criminal justice system on Massachusetts Students.
The full article of this story can be found at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x124621921/Student-arrested-before-she-can-get-her-diploma-at-graduation-ceremony
You see, the Defendant had a little trouble in Provincetown. According to law enforcement, he approached two women in the after midnight hours in front of the Post Office Café’ and Cabaret on Commercial Street, using slurs to refer to men he assumed to be gay. He apparently followed up his impressive verbiage by pushing one of the women through a window, breaking the window and causing minor injuries to the women necessitating stitches. He is also accused of punching the women in the stomach and calling them “faggots”. According to reports, both women required medical attention.
He now faces various assault charges in connection to what has been called an anti-gay attack on the woman.
The Defendant did not make it too far after the assault, however. An angry mob reportedly formed around him as he was being arrested.
The Defendant, who had been visiting with his mother who lived near the crime scene, had apparently been drinking. In fact, authorities say that he had been ejected from the Vixen nightclub before the attack.
Would it surprise you to hear that the arrest did not go too smoothly? By the time he got to Orleans District Court, he not only faced the felony hate-crime assault charges, but also charges of resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. He has been accused of spitting at one officer and kicking another.
]]> Rounding out his visit to the criminal justice system, the Defendant also faces charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (to wit: the window), wanton destruction of property worth more than $250 and disorderly conduct according to the police.The defendant’s attorney has offered the explanation that it was not really his client’s fault. He blamed the overuse of alcohol for actions that he called "completely out of character."
Maybe. But then again, voluntary intoxication is not a defense for assault under Massachusetts law.
Attorney Sam’s Take:
We have discussed the issue of voluntary intoxication before. It does not matter whether said intoxication is because of drugs or alcohol. Generally, it is not a defense to crime. The exception to this is a crime that requires “specific intent” and the defense is that the accused was not in condition to form that intent. But, “Man, I got so wasted last night I did not know what I was doing”, does not reach the mark in assault and battery cases.
We no longer live in a society in which one’s actions are all that matter. The surrounding circumstances of a crime, especially violent crimes, are not only taken into account, but also raise the offense itself to a higher level.
While it is still legal to be anti-gay, anti-Semitic or racist, if such feelings form the rationale for an illegal act, the matter is given special attention. It is a similar situation to domestic violence cases where an assault in the home is treated more seriously than an assault occurring on the street between two virtual strangers.
You may agree with this development or disagree with it. But it exists and you ignore it at your peril.
“Hey, Sam”, you call out. “This may surprise you, but my friends and I don’t go out to clubs and beat up people because of their race, religion or sexual preference. Why are you telling me this?”
Because the other realities of the criminal justice system are still in effect too. In other words, the sensitivity to these bias issues, together with the “what if he goes out and kills somebody” approach to crime which seems to motivate the Commonwealth quite often, make for very precarious surrounding circumstances.
Sometimes, people do get into a fight. Sometimes people do say very ugly things in anger. And sometimes people are standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
For example, what if the Defendant had been bouncing around from ejection to ejection with a couple of pals who watched his tantrums and either did nothing to stop him or perhaps even, in their drunken stupor, chuckled. They would likely be charged with being part of the action. What if the Defendant was having an argument with someone, even a friend, over money and that friend had a different skin color. What if, in the heat of anger, and alcohol, a physical fight ensued between them, during which he let fly with a racial epitaph? In such an example, the fight, or, if you like, attack, had nothing to do with race. I suggest to you that the matter wold be prosecuted as a hate crime.
Therefore, the message is to be wary. Of course, I do not recommend going out and getting into fights or any situation remotely like it. However, there are consequences about which you might not be aware.
Yesterday, the daily Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog discussed an aspect of the recent murder at Harvard University. Of course, there is no allegation of it being a hate crime, but it did help to make the same point. There is little to no evidence, at least that has been revealed, to connect the Accused with the murder. Yet, she is still being penalized by not being able to graduate.
Various circumstances, like being in college, carry with them potential dangers about which most people are unaware. This is why I keep warning you that if you suspect you may be in one of those circumstances, and the long shadow of criminal justice may be approaching, the best thing you can do is to pro-actively contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who can best advise and protect you.
Yes, I know it’s a drag to do that.
But, then again, most people find that being incarcerated or having their future plans dashed against the bars of a jail cell pretty much of a drag too.
The full articles of this story can be found at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19573338/detail.html, http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_05_25_Man_faces_hate_rap_in_Provincetown/ and http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid85939.asp
He also contended that there is no way that Dr. James A. Chu, the psychiatrist for the prosecution, could have properly diagnosed his client after just one 2 ½ hour session. The defense noted that its own mental health experts, who were trained in forensics and had evaluated dozens of defendants in the past, met with Rockefeller 14 times for a total of 28 hours.
Rockefeller had pleaded not guilty to the kidnapping charge by reason of insanity after he abducted his daughter on July 27 during a supervised visit. They traveled to Maryland and he was arrested six days after they disappeared. His daughter Reigh was found unharmed. He is also is charged with assault and giving police a false name.
Rockefeller’s Massachusetts kidnapping case has drawn national attention in part because of his interesting backstory. His real name is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter and he reportedly has used five different aliases over the years, including pretending to belong to the famous Rockefeller family.
He later married Sandra Boss, who is Reigh’s mother. Boss says she never doubted her husband’s personal history until she hired a private investigator when they got a divorce in 2007. Rockefeller’s attorney claims that Rockefeller "went over the edge" after Boss filed for divorce and he lost custody of his daughter. Rockefeller believes his daughter was using telepathy to tell him that she needed to be saved.
'Clark Rockefeller' kidnapping case goes to jury, Google/AP, June 8, 2009
Defense closing: Rockefeller not 'playing with a full deck', Boston.com, June 8, 2009
Related Web Resources:
Clark Rockefeller Case Timeline, Boston.com
Massachusetts Laws, Justia
]]> Altman & Altman is a well-respected and recognized Boston criminal defense law firm that represents clients throughout the state. Our Massachusetts defense lawyers would be happy to speak with you about your case. ]]>