Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), the Commonwealth’s highest court , situated in Boston, has rejected a motion by Calvin C., convicted in the 2005 Bourneside murders,(hereinafter, the “Defendant”) to stay his appeal so that he could seek a new trial based on evidence he said showed he was framed.

The Defendant is currently serving four consecutive life terms for killing four men in Dorchester.

The claim, as represented by the Defendant’s lawyer before the SJC, is that the Suffolk district attorney’s office had for over a year withheld information that potentially cast doubt on his guilt. This is known as “exculpatory evidence” which the prosecution is to deliver to the defense immediately upon discovering it.

On August 13th, prosecutors apparently provided the Defendant’s a February 2009 affidavit from an inmate asserting that another gentleman, who pleaded guilty to acting as an accessory to the murders, confessed that he was the real killer. Said gentleman was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

On Friday, the Supreme Judicial Court denied the Defendant’s motion for the stay on his appeal without offering an explanation or calling for a hearing. The Defendant had previously appealed the 2008 conviction, arguing that the trial judge in the case wrongly dismissed the one juror who believed the Defendant was not guilty of the murders. The Court of Appeals is still considering that appeal

Continue reading "A Boston Criminal Attorney Discusses SJC’s Ruling In Murder Appeal Motion (Part One)" »

The Death Penalty has long been a controversial issue. Nowhere is that more true than in good ol’ Massachusetts. You see, the Commonwealth, like most states, has two criminal justice systems running through it – state and federal. The crime of murder, which often carries capital punishment sentences, is usually handled in state court. In state court, there is no death penalty. However, in federal court, there is.

Depending on the circumstances, however, some murders are handled in federal court. Gary S. (hereinafter, the "Defendant") got his murder and carjacking convictions in federal court.

The sentence? Ah, well, there is the rub.

The Defendant, originally of Abington, was convicted for his violent felonies seven years ago. The events apparently took place back in 2001. Now, seven years after a federal jury recommended the Defendant be sentenced to death for the crimes committed during a weeklong series of killings in two states, lawyers for the Defendant plan to argue in court today that he should get a new trial.

Continue reading "MA Convicted Car-Jacker And Murderer Fights Conviction, Blaming Lawyers In Federal Court" »

As a Boston-area criminal defense attorney, I face many “There but for the grace of G-d go I” moments. As I have often discussed in these postings, I am constantly presented with lives that have been ruined by very bad moments. Such moments can change an otherwise on-track life into something of a living nightmare. Some people choose such moments on a regular basis. For others, dealing with the debris of one such moment is enough to last a life-time.

Last week, I side-stepped one such moment.

I was appearing on a murder case at Suffolk Superior Court which involved a shooting. As it turned out, the next door session had a murder trial of its own in which the jury was deliberating. Ironically, the subject matter of that case was related to my case. I waited awhile in case the verdict came, but it did not.

It came the next day instead. I wasn’t there, but I learned in the papers that the verdicts were guilty. But, as it turned out, the verdicts were the least of the excitement the court experienced.

Moments after the defendants were denounced by the deceased’s family for their “animalistic’’ actions in a victim impact statement, the courtroom exploded into a melee between said victims and families of the four men convicted of murdering the 16-year-old on a Dorchester street in 2007.

After being given the mandatory sentence for second-degree murder (life with the possibility of parole after serving 15 years) one of the convicted lads protested his innocence,

The clerk then announced that the men were sentenced to prison for their “natural life.’’
One of the defendants’ relatives shouted out, “What do you mean ‘natural life?’ ’’

Continue reading "Assault And Disorderly Conduct Charges Result From Boston Courtroom Murder Trial Sentencing" »

There were a few fireworks yesterday in Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn, Massachusetts. Attorneys argued over the topics of the defense attorney’s proposed summation. The Judge agreed with the Commonwealth and overruled the objections voiced by the defense.

The setting was Commonwealth v. John Odgren. The charge is Murder in the First Degree. We discussed this matter at the onset of the trial. Young Mr. Odgren, 19, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) now awaits a jury’s verdict in his stabbing of another youth to death in school.

The Defendant admitted to the stabbing. However, the defense is that he was not criminally responsible for the homicide because he was insane.

The debate was what the jury could be told about the result should they return a verdict that he was not guilty by reason of said insanity. The defense attorney wanted to be able to argue to the jury that, if they returned such a verdict, that the Defendant would not simply be freed to go out and kill again. This, of course, is a common misunderstanding of the law, and one that can cost a mentally handicapped person liberty-by way of state prison- for the rest of said person’s life.

Continue reading "Dilemma Of A Boston Criminal Defense Attorney In A Murder Trial" »

The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has often warned you that you want to have an experienced criminal defense attorney advise and, if necessary, defend you if you find yourself to be a target or a criminal defendant. I have given you many reasons for this. Today’s story reveals one more.

Sometimes, the law, as applied by the courts, is wrong. This is the stuff about which appeals are made. So, in short, you want to have an attorney who not only knows what the law is...but what it should be.

Our case in point is a recent group of rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In the rulings, at least eight Plymouth County cases were overturned pursuant to the United States. Supreme Court ruling last summer that it wasn’t enough to use lab analysis paperwork as evidence – the chemists and ballistics experts (in gun cases) who did the tests have to testify, too.

Two Friday rulings by the state Supreme Judicial Court may open the door for even more of those cases to be appealed, said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz. The rulings held that even if the defense attorney didn’t formally object to the paperwork as evidence or questioned whether the items tested were drugs, the case can still be tossed out.

Continue reading "United States And Massachusetts Supreme Courts Agree, Drug/Gun Cases Are Overturned And Prosecuting Attorneys Are Worried" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court will be conducting a hearing on February 10th to determine whether a new trial should be granted to Corey R. (hereinafter,the “Defendant”) for the 2001 killing of a school counselor, the Reverend Theodore N. Brown. This time, it is the prosecuting attorney who is pursuing the appeal.

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.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Hears New trial Motion In Murder case " »

The issue of Search and Seizure is in the news again today. While the case itself is not based in Boston, it is of interest to lawyers, police officials and drivers anywhere. Why? Because it involves the United States Supreme Court, which seems split on the subject.

The case actually hails from Virginia and the conviction of Joseph A.M.H.,Jr (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) for drunk driving. It seems that the Defendant was pulled over by the police before they saw him break any traffic laws. That conviction has been overturned on appeal by Virginia’s Supreme Court.

And that is the issue. Did the police have the right to pull over the Defendant before they saw him commit any crimes?

Continue reading "Drunk Driving Case Ignites Legal Fight On Search And Seizure" »