Nahant Alleged Fenway Thief Faces Charges In Massachusetts And New York

Most of you are no doubt familier with the song, “Take Me Out To The Ball Game“. Well, today’s blog is about someone who thought it would be better if they offered that the ball game would come to others…piece by piece.

Nahant resident Jamie Pritchard Holland, 32, (hereinafter, “Suffolk Defendant”), now faces charges in both Massachusetts and New York. He is charged literally stealing home plate…and just about anything else he could get his hands on at Fenway Park. This would allegedly include an autograph of Red Sox legend Johnny Pesky under false pretenses.

According to law enforcement in both states, Suffolk Defendant attempted to sell the items in New York.

Apparently, he posed as the father of a sick child and convinced an auction house to sell the items to help him pay medical bills.

As you might have guessed, baseball memorabilia he had…a sick child he did not.

Suffolk Defendant has now been charged in connection with the Boston thefts in both the Commonwealth and the Big Apple. In New York, he faces charges associated with the possession of the stolen items.

Ironically, the charges are pending in both Suffolk County in Massachusetts as well as Suffolk County in New York. Hence his title in this blog.

The Red Sox declined to comment, citing the ongoing Boston criminal investigation.

The criminal defense attorney assigned to represent Suffolk Defendant by the court has argued that he cannot be charged with the same crime in both states and that authorities must decide who is going to prosecute him for the stolen goods. She also claims that the case against Suffolk Defendant is a weak one, no matter who prosecutes it. She cites that the state must prove that Suffolk Defendant had to have known the material was stolen in order to be convicted.

Well, right…and wrong on both counts.

Attorney Sam’s Take On MA Larceny And Possession Of Stolen Property

No, I have not suddenly become indecisive.

Suffolk Attorney’s lawyer is generally correct on her points. From what I read about the case, however those arguments may not apply here.

For example, it is true that two jurisdictions cannot prosecute someone for the exact same crime. That would be double jeapardy. However, in these cases, each state seems to be prosecuting for the crimes allegedly committed in their jurisdiction.

Suffolk Defendant is charged with the actual theft in Massachusets. He is charged with the possession of the items in New York. These are different charges.

Do not misunderstand, however. Suffolk Defendant can be prosecuted for stolen items possessed in Massachusetts and also be be charged in New York for possessing those same items in New York. Further, if it is alleged that he stole some of the items in Massachusetts and some in New York, he can be prodsectued for those stolen in the Commonwealth in Massachusetts court and those stolen in the Apple in New York.

The point that the possession of stolen items must be knowing is equally true. This is the crux of the issue in these cases. However, her argument that, “”I have a vague recollection that someone gave him the property and said, ‘See what you can do with it,’ “, is less than convincing.

“Vague recollections” tend not to be terribly persuasive…particularly when it comes to items as unusual and special as these were. One would expect the lawyer’s faint memory to based upon her client’s alleged memory issues.

Further, the allegation is also that he fraudulently got the auction house to sell the items and got autographs.

So, while there may well be ways, both legally and factually, for the defense to prevail in these cases…those arguments do not seem to be the correct ones.

If you would like to discuss potential strategies in connection with a criminal case with an and would like said attorney to be me, please feel free to call me at 617-492-3000 to arrange a free initial consultation.

To view the article upon which this blog is based, please go to

In the meantime, have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

NOTE TO READERS: Due to demands of the “good fight”, this week was short in terms of this daily criminal log blog. Yes, it is still meant to be daily, Monday thru Friday. Sorry about that. Thanks for reading, S.B.G.

Contact Information