Upon Murray's release after posting bail, the 56-year-old cardiologist will not be allowed to leave the country.
Murray was Jackson’s personal physician when he died. According to officials, the performer died after Murray gave him propofol and two other sedatives to treat his chronic insomnia.
The criminal complaint against Murray accuses him of unlawfully killing Michael Joseph Jackson, albeit with out malice, and of acting “without due caution and circumspection.”
The coroner had ruled the singer’s death a homicide caused by acute intoxication by propofol and other sedatives. The autopsy report released today says that Jackson was administered a powerful anesthetic at a dose equal to what would be given during a major operation and that medical standards were not met.
Murray maintains he did not do anything that should have killed Jackson. His criminal defense attorney is vowing that he and his client will “fight like hell.” If convicted, Murray faces a maximum four years in prison.
Michael Jackson died at age 50 on June 25, 2009.
High profile criminal cases, especially one involving a beloved victim, can prove challenging for the defendant, who may have the court of public opinion against him/her.
Michael Jackson's doctor pleads not guilty, Yahoo/AP, February 8, 2010
Conrad Murray: Michael Jackson case and celebrities' doctors, The Christian Science Monitor, February 5, 2010
Related Web Resources:
Propofol, Drugs.com
Michael Jackson Autopsy Report, The Smoking Gun
]]> An experienced Boston felony defense attorney can make sure that your civil rights are upheld, you get a fair trial, and you receive the most aggressive, solid defense possible.]]>This week, we begin with assault of a different kind. Here, no person was assaulted.
It was a wall.
No, it was not a drunk driving case, where an inebriated driver believed that the traffic laws allowed “Straight On Red”...even if straight ahead was a stone wall.
This was just a regular corridor wall. Inside, not outside.
You see, the Defendant had had an argument with a student. He was then asked to leave the school and the police were contacted. He left. For awhile. Then, he returned, temper a-blazing.
Entering the school, the Defendant allegedly opened the office door with such force, the door knob punctured a hole in the wall, said police. He was then told to leave again. Before doing so, he began to pound out a new exit in the wall with his fists.
Then he went home where he was finally confronted by the Newton Police who awarded his boxing prowess with the Commonwealth’s Bracelets Of Shame and charges for destruction of property and intimidating a witness.
As we have discussed in the past, intimidation of a witness is a very broad statute and can cover a number of scenarios. Here, it is unlikely that it refers to the opposite or adjoining walls, but probably to whoever was the lucky observer to the Defendant’s return to the school.
Obviously, assault is to a living being as destruction of property is to an inanimate object.
Once again, we have a situation where a student has let his temper get the best of him.
Perhaps in the “old days”, we took into account pressures and judgment impairments of youth. Not any more, though. Now, the police are called in as quickly as if the offending party were a grown man.
In this case, the Defendant has been unlucky enough to have made it to adulthood as far as the courts are concerned. Therefore, there will be no juvenile proceeding where the main interest is in helping the youth. Instead, he is just like any other adult defendant. Because of his age, however, he faces great risk to his future in terms of an adult criminal record. Perhaps he has an experienced attorney who will seek out the possibilities of working out the matter so that such a criminal record does not come into being...or , perhaps is able to resolve the matter so that any such record may be sealed in short order.
Maybe.
When it is your or your child’s turn...will you?
Should you find yourself facing such a sensitive scenario and wish to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original story upon which this story is based, please go to http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2010/02/newton_student_arrested_after.html
]]>Prosecutors say that both men assaulted a girl from the under-14 Medford girls soccer league that they were coaching. The alleged Massachusetts sexual assault crimes began taking place in 2003 and the last incident is said to have occurred during the summer of 2004.
The alleged victim, who was then 13 to 14 years of age, told police that she and Lau were sexually involved with each other for over a year. She claims that Heinz sexually assaulted her twice.
Lau was indicted on four counts of child rape by force and Heinz was indicted on one count of child rape by force. Both men have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The two men were arrested last December. They are on pre-trial release and have been ordered not to have contact with children under age 16 unless these interactions are supervised. They also cannot coach or officiate any activities involving kids younger than 16.
Massachusetts Rape Charges
Allegations of rape are very serious—especially if the alleged victim is younger than 16. The state of Massachusetts does not consider an adult having sex with someone younger than 16 to ever be a consensual act and criminal charges can be filed against the adult. Punishments may be even more serious when violence or abuse is involved.
You have the right to an experienced Boston sex crimes lawyer who can defend you against all charges and protect your rights. Even if you are not guilty of committing any crime, your life can be irrevocably altered when you are accuse of rape.
Former Medford soccer coaches indicted on rape charges, Boston.com, February 5, 2010
Roger Lau, Thomas Heinz Accused Of Teen Soccer Child Rape, Huffington Post, December 22, 2009
Related Web Resource:
Massachusetts Law About Sex
It may be that Dr. Conrad Murray,( hereinafter, the “Defendant”) the doctor who administered the fatal dose of Propofol to Michael Jackson and now is to face homicide charges is a reader! Well, if not, at least he is being similarly advised.
According to law enforcement, his attorneys have been in contact with the L.A. County District Attorney's Office to surrender on charges of involuntary manslaughter . Apparently, the plan is that the prosecutor will file the charges with the court and then immediately notify the Defendant’s lawyers. They will then bring the Defendant downtown to court to surrender to a judge.
What happens next is anybody’s guess. He could be arrested and held. He could be simply arraigned. There is one sticking point, though. It would appear that this is not the Defendant’s only legal problem at the moment. Apparently, there is a case against him in Las Vegas brought by a medical imaging company for non-payment of fees. There is currently a default judgment against the Defendant in that matter.
Of course, today’s blog is not really about the Defendant or the Jacksons. It is about you.
It is better to be coming in to answer charges as soon as possible and, most importantly, voluntarily. Otherwise, it gives the prosecutor the argument that you should be held on high bail because you are unlikely to return to court on your own.
Yes, I know that you know that you will come back. I understand that you are presumed innocent. Of course you feel it is ridiculous that they are making such a big thing out of it.
But understand...it is a big thing to you as well. It is your liberty.
Sometimes, in cases where you have defaulted a long time ago, it can take awhile to work out your planned return to the temple of justice. This is especially true when your default occurred a long time ago. It is still worth going through an attorney in these instances . Otherwise, while you will have the good argument that you returned on your own, you may well be held until the court and the Commonwealth dig up their old file on you to figure out what to do with you. Further, you want an experienced criminal defense attorney on hand to explain to the court where you have been and what happened.
Contrary to some self-help approaches I have seen tried in court, "I dunno" and "I was scared to come back" are not good arguments.
If there is a default or arrest warrant currently pending with your name on it and you wish to discuss it 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 story upon which this story is based, please go to http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/03/michael-jackson-doctor-ready-to-surrender/?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmz.com%2F2010%2F02%2F03%2Fmichael-jackson-doctor-ready-to-surrender%2F#ixzz0ef1Jj9rU
]]>The homicide victim this time was a Revere Police Officer Daniel T (hereinafter, the “Deceased”). The killing took place in 2007. Now, in 2010, Robert I., 22, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) has been found guilty of second-degree murder by a Suffolk Superior Court jury.
But the controversy has not ended there. People are questioning the city’s police department as a result of how the shooting had occurred.
The Commonwealth contends that the Defendant was a member of the “Bloods” street gang. It also contends that the Defendant shot the Deceased above his right eye believing he was a gang rival.
The Deceased, described by witnesses as intoxicated, began taunting Co-Defendant, using gang signals and slurs. Co-Defendant did not take to kindly to this. He left and returned with the Defendant and three others…all wearing masks over their faces.
According to the Commonwealth, the Deceased approached the group and the Defendant fired.
While it was the Defendant’s freedom which was at risk, the trial cast an unflattering light on the Revere Police Department, revealing how the officers took firearms qualifications tests and then drank for hours that night, at one point cracking beers open while driving in a truck. They drank shots of liquor and more beer at a nearby bar, before lugging bottles of Bud Light to the bleachers behind the high school.
The prosecutor was critical of these actions during his opening and closing statements, calling them shocking and outrageous. The defense attorney repeatedly highlighted the officers' drinking that night as he tried to poke holes in the prosecution's argument that his client fired first.
District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose office had sought a first-degree murder conviction, said, "We are very satisfied with the today's verdict. ... It was based on the evidence and very reasonable.''
The Defendant, convicted of 2nd degree murder, faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years. Co-Defendant was convicted of being an accessory after the fact for helping to dismantle the handgun used to shoot Deceased.
Gang violence is nothing to play with…one would imagine any police officer would know this. However, when one drinks, one’s judgment tends to get cloudy.
The Commonwealth is frankly lucky that it got the convictions that it did. Under the circumstances, it would be difficult, at best, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was the actual shooter and that he was not acting in self-defense. After all, it would appear that the Deceased’s friends were loaded (one apparently fled the scene) and none of the Defendant’s witnesses were likely to testify in aid of the Deceased.
We give police officers guns because they are supposed to show professional judgment and protect themselves and us with them. The instant credibility that courts and juries usually give police officers is something I have written about many times in this blog. However, the reality is that police officers are human beings with human foibles. The Deceased’s foibles cost him his life. They also cost the Commonwealth a 1st degree murder conviction.
You, however, cannot depend on this. I have many clients who feel that if they just explain to a jury that the police officer bringing charges against them are either lying or mistaken, they will be instantly acquitted.
This assumption has very little relationship to reality.
Think on this...if the Deceased's freinds were noit police officers, but regular civilians like you and me...don't you think there would be charges brought for OUI and/or disorderly conduct?
The fact is that police officers are presumed correct and truthful…not by law, but by human conditioning. And, while you may be presumed innocent by law, you are usually assumed guilty by that same conditioning.
Take any fact scenario brought against you by the Commonwealth extremely seriously. Your liberty and future are at risk.
Should you find yourself or someone you care about to be facing charges and wish to discuss the matter with me, please feel free to call me at (617)492-3000.
For the full article upon which today’s blog is based, go to http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/iacoviello_verd.html
Tomorrow: Michael Jackson Returns To The News
]]>The 16-year-old lad (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) was charged with assaulting the teacher on Friday after a metal box full of marijuana was allegedly confiscated from him at school, police said.
According to the Commonwealth, a teacher caught the Defendant in a school bathroom with the box in a, and took him into an office, where he was told his parents would be contacted. As the Defendant was being escorted to another school office, police said, he allegedly grabbed a different teacher's hand in an attempt to retrieve the box. The teacher was not injured.
Police say that the box contained five packages of marijuana.
Further disciplinary action is left to the discretion of the principal, Superintendent James Marini said.
We have discussed in the past the seriousness of juvenile crimes.
First of all, particularly when they take place on school property, they are incidents which must be addressed not only in court, but also at the school. For example, a juvenile can be suspended or expelled because of such events. Such a result will play havoc with the student’s school record and come back to haunt in future attempts to get into school and employment.
Gone are the days of “boys will be boys”...not that assaulting teachers and trafficking in drugs was ever taken that lightly.
On the criminal justice end, once the juvenile is arraigned, the matter appears on his CORI. Depending on how the matter is resolved, it may have to stay there for 10 to 15 years before even an attempt can be made to seal it. Naturally, this also can greatly effect the juvenile’s hopes and dreams for the future.
Which is alittle ironic, given that we want to leave every opportunity in place that the juvenile will be able to move on, put his past behind him and be a successful member of society.
I am still contacted by parents who seem to think that, because their little angel is “only a kid”, or because the police told them so, that the case is a slight matter which need not be a cause for concern. It is simply not the case. Not even close.
Take it seriously. Very seriously. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at the earliest possible moment to get advice and defend the youth. If you want to discuss such a matter with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original story upon which this story is based, please go http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2010/02/newton_north_student_charged_w.html
]]>The Defendant was arrested in Brockton Saturday and charged with the murder of a man outside of a local restaurant on January 5th. A second witness of the shooting was shot in the leg and has survived. The Defendant stands accused of the shooting of both gentlemen as well as unlawful possession of a firearm.
Law enforcement has wasted no time in calling the double shooting “egregious” and “heinous.” Ignoring the usual need for lip-service on behalf of the presumption of innocence, Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz has publically declared that ““The shooter in this case is a very dangerous person. I’m glad he’s off the street”, he continued. “Brockton is safer without him on the street.”
Of course, the Defendant is not a complete stranger to charges of homicide. He was charged with the 1999 grisly death of a 14-year-old girl who had been eight months pregnant, presumably with his child. In fact, in a recorded statement to police, the Defendant described himself as a witness who had watched a friend lure her to a shallow grave , stabbed her and bludgeoned her with a rock a brick before burying her alive. The Defendant then led police to that grave. The Commonwealth charged him with being part of the conspiracy to kill the young woman. However, at trial, some five years later, he was found to be “not guilty” by a jury.
After the 2004 jury trial, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley’s office described itself as being “baffled and pained” by Bryant’s acquittal.
I guess both District Attorneys are sleeping better tonight.
You may be wondering how the Defendant could be tried for murder when he did not physically commit the murder.
Well, first of all, in fairness, the buddy whom he told the police about did not exactly agree with his version of the event; He gave the reverse scenario. However, even had that not been the case, the Defendant could have been charged as being a part of a “joint venture” to kill the victim. When one is charged with being part of such a venture, or a conspiracy, each co-conspirator can be held responsible for what everyone else in the conspiracy did. Therefore, in the earlier killing, if the jury found that, while the other gentleman did the actual killing, the Defendant was part of the plan and took a step to help forward the conspiracy, they could find him guilty of the actual murder.
I do not know what evidence the Commonwealth has against the Defendant in the second shooting, but if it turns out to be a fairly weak case, there is an argument available to the Defendant that the authorities had it “in” for him. The chief law enforcement official’s poorly chosen statement will be helpful in such a defense argument. After all, he has revealed his own bias in the matter.
It does go to show you, though, that bias does exist on the part of law enforcement officials. It is something you want to remember if you are ever sitting on a jury. You may also want to keep it in mind if you have had your own brushes with the law.
Under our system of justice, the Defendant was not guilty of the first murder. He is presumed to be innocent of the new charges. One would expect that the climate would causee a professional politician like the District Attorney to know better than to label such a person as dangerous in such short and callous order. However, the reality is that the climate may be just perfect for him to do so.
After all, as most of your fellow citizens will tell you…the Defendant with this history has got to be guilty…at least to some degree, right?
Remember this next time you are suspected of a crime and tend to think that all you have to do is show up in court and tell your side of things and the Commonwealth will simplly throw up its hands and surrender. Take any charge seriously and act accordingly. Get an experienced criminal defense attorney. Should you have a case which concerns you or a loved one, and you want to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original story upon which this story is based, please go http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/?p1=Well_Local
]]>The three men allegedly engaged in “skimming,” which involves people using bank-card readers and tiny cameras to retrieve people’s bank and pin information. The data can then be downloaded onto a card that has a magnetic strip. The card can then work as an ATM card to the victim’s bank account.
Police arrested Hristov, 28, at Citizens Bank in Quincy where he allegedly stole $500 from someone’s ATM bank account. They say he had eight re-coded Dunkin’ Donuts gift cards with him. He also has been charged over his alleged involvement in an ATM theft that took place in Milton.
Venkov, 40, is charged with aiding and abetting the identity fraud scam and also of using counterfeit bank account access codes. Police says that when they arrested Venkov he had $99,100 in cash in his car. Vladev, 36, was detained at Logan International Airport as he was attempting to leave for Germany. He pleaded not guilty to identify fraud and larceny charges.
Police found gadgets and computer equipment in a Weymouth storage unit that they believe belong to Hristov and his alleged cohorts. Authorities say there are other skimming operations in Weymouth, Roslindale, Braintree, Dorchester, and Milton.
Do not give up hope if you have been arrested for allegedly committing a Massachusetts crime. You may have been wrongly charged. There may be evidence that can prove you are not guilty. There may be criminal charges filed against you that can be reduced or dropped. Police may have gone about obtaining the evidence they have in the wrong way and that evidence may now be inadmissible. Your civil rights may have been violated during your arrest or detention.
Police break ATM skimming ring in Greater Boston, Wicked Local, January 29, 2010
Two more arrested in ATM theft case, Boston.com, January 29, 2010
Related Web Resources:
ATM fraud, a.k.a. skimming, is on the rise, ConsumerReports, January 14, 2010
Identity theft, FTC
]]> Please contact our Boston identity theft law firm to schedule your free case evaluation.]]>That’s right...first degree murder. The one with premeditation.
Correct again...Co-Defendant Dad. The one not on trial yet.
It was a stellar day for the prosecution.
]]> One witness was a Weymouth Housing Authority manager who told the jury that Co-Defendant Dad had been banned from spending overnights in the family’s home because there were allegations that included providing pornography to a minor. A former houseguest testified that the Deceased and her two siblings seemed “more timid” when Co-Defendant Dad was around. A social worker also said that he once beat his son in 2006 which started an investigation (no word of any formal charges).“What of the Defendant”, you ask? Well, while still allegedly being devoted to Co-Defendant Dad, she is the one who sought the restraining order to protect the son.
Meanwhile, Dr. Kayoko Kifuji of Tufts Medical Center, the psychiatrist for all three of the Riley children, testified and portrayed the father as a positive influence. At the request of Carolyn Riley, the doctor wrote the Weymouth Housing Authority in early 2006, requesting that Michael Riley be allowed to move back in. The doctor said the mother had told her that the children’s behavioral problems may be related to his absence.
Dr. Kifuji is the psychiatrist who had prescribed the drugs which the Defendant and Co-Defendant Dad are accused of killing their daughter with.
Prosecutors questioned how often she informally sanctioned or tolerated the occasions when the Defendant gave extra drugs to her children without the doctor’s explicit approval. Each child was on several potent drugs for bipolar and hyperactivity disorder. During her two days of testimony, the Doctor reiterated that she was aware that the Defendant had introduced the Deceased’s older sister to clonidine for the first time after taking some pills from the prescription bottle of her oldest oldest child, a boy. However, although she warned against the practice, the doctor then wrote up a prescription of clonidine for the sister, indicating that she had listened to the Defendant’s explanation for why she gave the medication, concluding, “It made sense.’’
Questioned by the defense attorney, Kifuji said that in February 2004 she had told the Defendant that she could give a half-tablet of clonidine, a sedating drug, to the older sister as needed during the day “for agitation.’’ On another occasion, she agreed that a half-tablet of clonidine could be given for help with sleep problems, but the doctor was not sure which Riley child she authorized the extra dosage for. Apparently, it was either the Deceased or her older sister. The Dr., testifying only after the government granted her immunity from prosecution, could not recall which.
I think I should remind you that the prosecution’s theory, as outlined in the opening statement of the trial, was that the Defendant and Co-Defendant Dad murder their daughter. It was all part of a pre-meditated plot in which the evil geniuses got the daughter diagnosed so that she could be drugged and, because of having the benefit of now three kids who needed such attention, make the family more money because of disability funding.
The brilliant Defendant, in order to accomplish this was able to fool any doctor, including Dr. Kifuji or investigator involved in order to perform this feat. According to the prosecution, this twisted plot was working...until the Deceased died.
This would seem to me to ruin the plot altogether, but then, I am not criminal mastermind.
Anyway, the prosecution insists that the Defendant killed the daughter with pre-meditation and was, at the very least, “indifferent” to the Deceased’s death.
In the coming days, there will be medical testimony which should prove interesting as there is a debate over what actually killed the Deceased.
So far, the evidence against the Defendant has ranged from a school nurse claiming the Defendant did not act as the nurse, apparently a scholar on the subject of human emotion which puts to shame all other physicians with doctorates who claim that people in such situations act differently, would expect to testimony on whether or not Co-Defendant Dad made his kids timid.
Oh yes...and the doctor’s two day testimony. This established that she ended up more or less agreeing to how the Defendant gave the medication ( aka murder implement) to the kids...or one of the kids...or two of the kids....or something like that. Whoever it was.
Hm. Maybe she was not so hard to trick after all.
As I mentioned on Friday, this is your criminal justice system at work. Of course, I am not witnessing the show. I just read the reviews like you do. But remember one thing. However strong or weak the Commonwealth’s case is...it could be you sitting there. You who had to get an attorney. You who loses your family.
You who faces life imprisonment without hope for parole.
If you ever find yourself facing such a situation, you want an experienced criminal defense attorney in your corner. One who cares.
Should you have a case which concerns you or a loved one, and you want to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original story upon which this story is based, please go http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/27/jurors_in_riley_trial_hear_more_about_father/
]]>But the rest of the family is.
Mark Kerrigan, Nancy’s 45-year-old brother (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) has been accused of causing the death of their father, Daniel (hereinafter, “Dad”). No, the Commonwealth does not contend that the Defendant plotted to kill Dad and then executed the plan...it was more tragic than that.
The allegations are that the Defendant wanted to use the telephone, but Dad would not let him. An argument ensued and became physical. Finally, the Defendant is said to have grabbed Dad by the neck. Dad fell to the ground. The Defendant claimed he was faking...but that opinion obviously changed when the police came.
Dad died and the Defendant, allegedly drunk and unruly, was pepper-sprayed and arrested.
The Defendant was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon on an elderly person and causing serious bodily injury. He was not charged with murder.
The Defendant has pleaded not guilty and remains in jail on $10,000 bail. He was described by his lawyer as an army veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder. He has a long history of petty crime. He had also been living at his parents' home since he was released from jail in 2007.
He spent four months in jail after a domestic assault in 2005 and has at least four drink-driving convictions. The relationship between the Defendant and his folks has not been particularly smooth. In fact, in 2008, they tried to sue him in 2008, claiming he owed them $110,000, and for caring for his dogs. The case was dismissed.
Apparently, the Defendant has also had his battles with drugs and alcohol.
A funeral mass for Daniel Kerrigan will be held Friday.
This is certainly not the first time we have seen emotional issues, drugs and alcohol at play in tragedy which spreads through a family.
The charges pending against the Defendant should be explained. At this point, he is charged with the assault and battery. This would cover the fight, including the hands around the throat of Dad. I do not know what the “dangerous weapon” is at this time, but it could be anything, such as a shoe.
It is possible, but unlikely, that this is the only charge the Defendant will face. A Grand Jury is likely to be investigating the matter, led by the district attorney, and, particularly when the coroner decides on the cause of death, additional charges will likely come.
“What’s the big mystery, Sam? It’s got to be murder, right?”
No, not necessarily. In this case, there is unlikely to be an accusation that this was the result of some kind of premeditation. In fact, not even the intended result. Assuming what the Defendant’s mother claims is correct, Dad may have had a fatal heart attack.
“So, then, no homicide charges at all for the Defendant?”
I did not say (I mean, write) that. It will likely be alleged that it was the struggle with the Defendant that brought about the heart attack which killed Dad. Depending how they charge it, the Defendant is likely to be facing some kind of manslaughter charges.
The laws regarding homicides are many and a bit complex. In terms of the actual crime charged, it can turn on things like intent and other surrounding circumstances. Was it just an accident? Was it foreseeable? These are the types of questions that are likely to be asked.
And so we get to you.
If you, or a loved one, are suddenly facing homicide allegations, you want to have an experienced criminal defense attorney to help you understand what is coming and what you are facing...not to mention how to best defend against what is coming down the road.
If you wish to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original stories upon which this story is based, please go http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/skating-star-nancy-kerrigans-brother-charged-with-assault-following-fathers-death/story-e6frf96o-1225823989183 , http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/brother_of_nanc.html and http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/27/kerrigan_family_faced_dilemma_with_adult_son/
]]>The Defendant was charged with first-degree murder, and violating the restraining orders, after allegedly stabbing and shooting to death the Deceased. He remains in critical condition after allegedly trying to kill himself as well.
“We are alleging that this is another troubling incident of domestic violence resulting in homicide, where the defendant is alleged to have fatally stabbed the victim, his ex-girlfriend, and then attempted to kill himself,” Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a press conference this afternoon at his office in Woburn.
“This is the second such incident we have in consecutive weeks, where we are alleging that a male defendant has killed his former or present female significant other, and then seemingly tried to end his own life,'' Leone said. "We must continue to find ways to stem this tide of alarming domestic violence incidents.”
It is impossible to call this story anything but tragic. However, it does highlight a part of our system which is not working very well.
The Deceased apparently had gotten two restraining orders regarding the Defendant and still the Defendant was in violation on them, given that both were found together. In truth, the story does not indicate exactly what occurred, or how the explosive confrontation took place. However, we do know that they were together, which violated the restraining orders.
While some may argue that this shows that restraining orders should be even easier to get and enforce, I would submit that the opposite may be true.
In today’s justice system, restraining orders are awarded extremely easily...and perhaps this is why they are not taken as seriously as they should be.
By cloaking a 209A hearing (proceeding to get the restraining order) as a civil proceeding, instead of criminal, we have humored ourselves into believing that, while if the order is not granted, there is danger afoot, if it is granted, even unnecessarily, it is “no harm, no foul”. Anyone acquainted with the system is aware that this is not true. While we say that the proceeding is civil in nature, the order denies Constitutional rights, goes on one’s CORI and gives the complainant a weapon to use against a defendant any time there is anger.
The request for the order is almost always allowed and it rarely matters what the defendant has to say.
The restraining order hearing should be considered to be what it is – criminal in nature and, as a result, the safeguards associated with criminal matters should be given. They should be taken seriously by the courts.
And then they must be taken seriously by the rest of society. It is difficult, however, when the orders are given, often with little to no showing, or with an abject refusal to consider evidence presented by the defendant (if the evidence is allowed in the first place) for the orders to be given the respect that is so necessary to avoid these tragic endings.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not belittling the need for the seriously watched restraining orders. Quite the opposite. It has become a game and it is much too important to everyone involved to stay that game in an intelligent legal system.
In the meantime, as always, if you are facing a 209A hearing, or allegations involving same, and wish to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original story upon which this story is based, please go http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/ex-boyfriend_ch.html
Mark, 45, has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges against him. The unemployed plumber is an Army veteran who continues to undergo Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
According to police, Mark told them his father wouldn’t let him use the phone and the two men became involved in a physical altercation. He says that after placing his arms around his dad's neck, Daniel fell to the ground.
Police who arrived at the Kerrigan home say that Daniel was lying on the ground but alive. They claim that Mark appeared intoxicated and was “belligerent.” The officers found whiskey bottles in the basement. He was arrested on charges of Massachusetts assault and battery causing serious bodily injury and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
Mark has not be charged with Massachusetts murder. Autopsy results to determine is cause of death are still pending. The criminal defense lawyer appointed to defend Mark says his client is grieving over his father.
The Kerrigan family has been in the media spotlight before. Nancy Kerrigan is a former Olympic figure skating champion who won a silver medal at the 1994 Winter Games in Lillehammer. In 1994, she was assaulted in a plot by rival Tonya Harding, who she would go on to compete against and defeat in Norway.
Allegations of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon are serious criminal charges.
Nancy Kerrigan's brother pleads not guilty to assault charge, Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2010
Nancy Kerrigan's father dies; brother charged in attack, Boston.com, January 25, 2010
Related Web Resources:
National Center for PTSD
The Nancy Kerrigan Biography, Biography.com
]]> It is so important that you speak with an experienced Boston assault and battery attorney about your legal options.]]>
You see, a Hampden Superior Court Judge granted the motion for a new trial. The Commonwealth contends the judge was wrong in allowing the motion.
The Defendant, who was 17-years-old at the time, had been convicted of second-degree murder for the December 5, 2001, stabbing death of Reverend Brown in a classroom. The trial was conducted in 2003 before the late Judge Thomas J. Curley Jr.
Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty ruled in February 2008 that the Defendant is entitled to a new trial on the basis of ineffective legal representation.
After the trial, the Defendant was sentenced to life for second-degree murder, which means he could apply for parole after serving 15 years.
Judge Moriarty, in his ruling, concluded that the Defendant “was prejudiced” when his lawyer failed to produce evidence he had promised the jury in an opening statement.
The lawyer had told the jury that they would hear from a psychologist that the Defendant “didn’t have the capacity to premeditate, to intend to kill.” However, the defense never produced such a witness.
The court ruled that the expert witness was never called because the defense attorney “was justifiably fearful” if that, if he did call the expert, the prosecutor might have used the opportunity of cross-examination to reveal a previous stabbing performed by the Defendant. However, the court ruled that the lawyer could have requested that the witness be questioned out of the jury’s hearing so that the trial judge could make a decision whether to exclude testimony about the prior stabbing by the Defendant of his mother in 1999.
Usually, in criminal appeals, it is the defendant who is appealing. This is because an acquittal cannot be appealed by the government. However, when there is an issue of law that is the controversy, and not a verdict, the government can appeal. Examples of this are suppressions of evidence due to search and seizure issues and motions like the one involved here.
Usually, matters such as what testimony will and will not be allowed are handled by a set of motions just prior t the start of the trial. They are called ‘motions in limine’. In this case, one would have expected that defense counsel got the ruling from the trial judge before the start of the trial.
This is important because the attorney in this case found himself in an extremely bad position. Apparently, he had promised the jury testimony which he was unable to deliver. In any trial, no matter which side, this is a devastating mistake. Particularly if you are the defendant in a criminal case, if you do not know you can present it...do not promise it.
It is important to remember that the defendant, at trial, need do nothing other than show up. Under the law, the defendant need produce no evidence or even question witnesses against him. Of course, this is seldom a good idea. However, it is one protection belonging to the defense that is worth exercising. If there is doubt as to whether or not you plan to produce a witness, the best practice is to shut up until you know that you will. Then, during closing arguments, the attorney can argue that, although he did not have any obligation to do so...he presented his defense witnesses. Instead, the attorney trying this case made the promise and failed to deliver. This is going to stick in the jury’s mind. He has broken his promise. He has lost credibility.
An attorney's credibility is critical.
The judge allowing the motion for a new trial also found that there was another solution...having the hearing to see what the court would allow prior to deciding whether to call the witness. While certainly not as safe as handling it during the motions in limine, this could have worked too...although if the ruling was unfavorable, the defense would have been in the same position. Once the promise was made at opening statement, the die was cast.
If you are going to trial in your criminal matter, you want a defense lawyer who is experienced in bringing matters to trial. Trying cases is an art in itself and someone who does not have the experience in doing so is unlikely to know how to best defend you and can make such mistakes as the lawyer in this case. I have been a trial lawyer since 1985. If you wish to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
To find the original story upon which this story is based, please go http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/mass_appeals_court_to_hear_req.html
Rebecca was found dead in her home on December 2006. Carolyn and her husband Michael were charged with first degree murder. Earlier this month, Carolyn’s criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the charges saying there is new medical evidence supporting the couple’s claim that their daughter died from pneumonia and not from a prescription drug overdose. A judge denied the motion. Michael’s Massachusetts homicide trial will begin after Carolyn’s trial ends.
Among the witnesses that have testified against Carolyn so far is a social worker who says that she thought Rebecca was overmedicated. Also, the principal of the Elden Johnson Early Childhood Center says she saw Carolyn and Michael laughing outside the school just one day after Rebecca’s death. Yesterday, Kelly Williams, the Rileys’ former housemate, testified that Michael would demand that Carolyn overmedicate their three kids to keep them quiet. Williams says that as the 4-year-old’s condition deteriorated, she and her boyfriend James McGonnell kept telling Carolyn and Michael to take Rebecca to the doctor but that they kept putting off the visit.
Carolyn’s defense lawyers say she is a loving mother who did what she could to raise her three kids, all of whom suffered from hyperactivity and bipolar disorders.
The grief of a parent who loses a child cannot be quantified. To be accused of murdering a son/daughter is a severe blow.
Housemate details Riley child’s final night, Boston.com, January 23, 2010
Social worker warned that Rebecca Riley, 4, was overmedicated, The Boston Globe, January 21, 2010
Riley murder trial begins in Brockton court, The Daily News Tribune, January 20, 2010
Not a hard choice to have separate Riley trials, Wicked Local, January 17, 2010
Judge denies motion to dismiss murder charges against Rileys, Wicked Local, January 12, 2010
Related Web Resources:
Parents convicted of first-degree murder, General Laws of Massachusetts
Timeline: Rebecca Riley Murder Case, MyFox Boston, December 14, 2009
]]> It is so important that the accused hire an experienced Boston homicide law firm that knows how to defend a defendant against such serious Massachusetts criminal charges.]]>A four-year-old girl is dead. Her mother, Carolyn R. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is on trial for her homicide. Dad, also charged with murder, awaits his turn next.
The purpose of an opening statement in a trial is to give the jury a roadmap of the evidence the lawyer contends it will see during the trial. In this case, the prosecuting attorney gave his opening statement, listing the evidence he expects he will show, thus proving the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the school nurse testified to begin the onslaught of critical evidence.
One of the first things described by both the prosecutor and the nurse? Well, apparently, hours after her daughter died, the Defendant and her husband appeared at the child’s preschool with a “flat” demeanor, asking to pick up her daughter’s things as well as a copy of her class photograph.
The defense attorney, on cross-examination, asked the nurse whether the mother’s lack of overt emotion might reflect her shock that her daughter had died overnight after seemingly having only a bad cold. The nurse, now becoming an expert on human emotion, replied: “Someone in shock wouldn’t be in school looking for pictures.’’
“Ok, Sam. We get it. You’re a defense attorney. Nobody’s guilty. But surely that was not all the prosecutor said in his opening statement.”
No, he also went on to further describe that school visit. For example, the Defendant was actually seen talking with her husband and there was actually laughter observed! In fact, the husband took off his hat and put it on his wife’s head!!!
“Well, it is odd behavior under the circumstances, don’t you think, Sam?”
Maybe. But then, I do not have a schemata on how people are supposed to react during such tragic and shocking moments. I will say this, though. If the Defendant were the mastermind of the brilliant scheme which the prosecutor claims, I would expect her to be smart enough not to be acting this way at this time. It tends to raise suspicion, as is now being demonstrated before that jury. I would guess that such odd behavior would actually swing in her favor…were this a different place and time.
After all, a little girl is dead. Somebody must be to blame. Otherwise, how can we sleep at night?
“What was that about the Defendant being the ‘mastermind’ of a ‘brilliant scheme’?”
Oh, well, according to the Commonwealth, the girl’s death was all part of an evil plot on the part of her parents. The state claims that the Defendant was, at least, indifferent to her daughter’s existence. The important thing was the scheme that was created to make money.
You see, the Defendant is said to have complained to people that, at times, her daughter could be vicious and out of control. The prosecutor proclaims that this was not because such a child might actually be unruly at times, but was actually a lie made up so that the child might be percribed medication. When the Defendant and her husband exaggerated her behavioral issues, they obtained a psychiatric diagnosis of bipolar and hyperactivity disorders, which paved the way for disability benefits. At the time the girl died, both parents and her two older siblings qualified for federal disability benefits, largely for psychiatric issues, totaling about $2,700 a month. Had the daughter lived and qualified, the family would receive an additional $630 a month.
So, you see, folks, these evil parents had concocted this lie about their daughter to get the federal benefits. You knoiw the type of funds we are talking about. As I am sure the prosecutor will argue at the close of the case, these are monies provided by you and me by way of taxes! Hey, she was actually defrauding us!
Of course, we can apparently dispense with the observations that the family already had some kind of mental illness in its genes and that, in order to get the medications for the daughter, they had to be smart enough to outwit her physicians.
None of these incidentals seem to bother the Commonwealth. After all, they have the school nurse’s expert opinion on how people really react to such tragedy. I am unaware at this point how many parents who'd just seen their child die this nurse has encountered in her vast experience.
“Wait a minute, Sam. What was that about medication?”
Oh yes. You see these were the weapons which allegedly killed the daughter.
The pills were clonidine, where were prescribed by a physician, apparently fooled by the Defendant's evil plot. Of course, herein does lie one piece of evidence that could reasonably aid the prosecution in its quest for a guilty verdict. Apparently, the Defendant gave the girl more than was prescribed because of her daughter’s symptoms. Smart? Certainly not. On the other hand…murder?
Well, again, given the prosecution’s theory of the homicide a couple of things do not add up here. For example, one of the expected witnesses is the girl’s physician. She is expected to deliver the bombshell of the increased medication. You may be wondering how she would know about the surreptitious increasing of medication to murder the daughter.
The Defendant told her as she was doing it.
Not very smart for an evil mastermind. You know what else isn’t very smart? Deliberately causing, or being indifferent to, your daughter’s death when the whole purpose behind the scheme it to have her qualify for federal funds to get the family more money. No daughter….no money.
By the way…by all accounts, do you know how the Defendant appears as she witnesses her own homicide trial? Passive and with no expression. Kind of like she is described on the day in question by the prosecutor and the nurse.
I wonder what scheme they figure she is hatching now.
So, as the prosecutor bangs the table and alleges, “She poisoned her own girl to death’’, you may be wondering what this has to do with you.
This is your criminal justice system. You may only have a distant relationship with it as a citizen or you may find yourself unfortunate enough to become a participant as either witness or defendant. It is easy to sit back and assume that those accused of crimes are simply guilty because…after all…why else would they be accused? We just had a prosecutor run for higher governmental office, which reminds us that being the district attorney or attorney general is a political office. Given today’s views on criminal justice, prosecutors are judged by how “tough” they are on crime. As an example, just check out my blog on Attorney General Coakley’s critics and how she handled one particular matter.
The district attorney has assistant district attorneys under him/her who handle the cases and make most of the day-to-day prosecutorial decisions.
How do you expect they get rated by their bosses?
Be aware. Think! These issues have a nasty way of worming their way into your home and changing your life.
If you find yourself in such a predicament, you need to protect yourself immediately. You want to have an experienced defense attorney at your side. Get someone who understands these and can use them to protect you, if possible. As always, if you are facing such a scenario and wish to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at 617-492-3000.
NOTE: Obviously, I did not cover all the allegations and evidence in this matter as to do so would have produced something more akin to a novella. However, to find the original stories upon which this story is based, please go to http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/20/mother_of_dead_girl_indifferent_prosecutor_says/ and http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/state/x201793731/Riley-murder-trial-begins-in-Brockton-court . The video I reference is on the latter site.
Have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!
]]>