Sunday’s Boston Herald, along with several other local newspapers, focused on a particular aspect of a recent Framingham murder case. In the Herald, the headline read, “Suspect in Framingham stabbing has long police record”. While said record is normally inadmissible in court (except under certain circumstance) it is, for now, a noteworthy part of the story as far as the public is concerned. It is yet another illustration of what the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has long been warning Massachusetts readers, particularly the young among us. Namely, the errors one makes in the past, even while a juvenile, can greatly affect our future in terms of criminal justice.
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.
Continue reading