Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

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" »

Today, the news comes from just outside of Boston. It is a white collar fraud case that graces our blog and signals the need for a criminal defense attorney. Actually, to avoid conflict of interest problems…make that two defense attorneys.

The complainant hails from Cambridge and she alleges that she was scammed out of thousands of dollars by Kathy Y., 48 of Medford (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). As a result, both the Defendant and a 17 year old, allegedly her daughter, were arrested on October 21st and are now charged with larceny over $250 and conspiracy. Larceny over $250 is a felony charge.

The actual complainant was brought to the attention of law enforcement by her mother who explained that her daughter, 28, (hereinafter, the “Complainant”) suffers from a severe mental disability that prevents her from being able to work or provide for herself. She said her daughter was duped out of about $6,000 from a woman claiming to be a psychic. The psychic was later identified as the Defendant.

According to law enforcement, the Complainant had been approached by the Defendant, who had claimed to be a psychic named “Theresa” who read the Complainant’s palm for $25 in Porter Square. After the palm reading, the two exchanged phone numbers. Later that evening, the Defendant is said to have called the Complainant and offered to help her love life for $1,000 up front. When the Complainant explained that she did not know how to get the money from the bank, the Defendant graciously guided her in the effort. A few days later, the Complainant got the money and the two agreed to meet. When they met, the Defendant had another woman with her, who turned out to be the above-referenced 17 year old.

Continue reading "Boston Area Psychic Is Arrested For Theft And Fraud" »

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" »

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling that places limits on when police officers can search a suspect's motor vehicle right after making an arrest if they don't have a warrant. With their 5-4 decision, the justices determined that police must have a warrant to search the auto if the person is locked up in the cruiser and is not a threat to the officers. Warrantless searches, however, can still take place if the passenger compartment of the car was within reach of the suspect or there is reason to believe that there is evidence in the car pertaining to the crime that resulted in the arrest.

The decision supports an Arizona high court's ruling in favor of a man whose car was searched while he was handcuffed and seated in the back of a police car. During the search, police discovered drugs in his vehicle.

Rodney Joseph Gant had been arrested for driving on a suspended license. While the trial court said the drug evidence could be used against him, the Arizona appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers had already secured the scene and their lives weren’t in danger when they searched his car without a warrant—even though there was no need to worry that the evidence wouldn’t be preserved.

In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that there have been way too many cases involving people who have done nothing more than commit a traffic violation who have had their constitutional rights violated because of the way warrantless searches were conducted.

Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent, however, said the ruling turns over a police practice that allows the warrentless searches of cars right after an arrest, which can be important when it is not clear whether the person under arrest was able to get out evidence or a weapon from the vehicle. He says the new ruling also makes it hard for police to figure out when a motor vehicle is concealing criminal evidence.

Police instructors and prosecutors have expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision. Civil liberties groups, however, have maintained that police regularly invade people’s privacy when they conduct warrantless searches even though suspects hadn’t been able to access their motor vehicles.

Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches, Boston.com/AP, April 21, 2009

Arizona v. Gant, Oyez.org

Related Web Resource:
The Constitution of the United States of America

Continue reading "Supreme Court Limits When Police Officers Can Search A Suspect's Car Without A Warrant " »