Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

by

On Friday, I told you that there were two decisions handed down by Boston’s Supreme Judicial Court that I wanted to address with you. The first, having to do with a murder conviction, had to do with jury bias. The second has to do with the topic of DNA and the statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving rape and other sex crimes.

It also has to do with hypocrisy.

The SJC has now ruled that prosecutors can indict suspects known only by their DNA profiles and bring them to “”justice years later when police identify who the genetic material belongs to, even if the statutes of limitation have lapsed.

This was a big decision and is being regarded by many as the next logical step in our evolving criminal justice system of the 21st century. It is the first decision of its kind in Massachusetts. The Court concluded that a DNA profile is an “indelible ‘bar code’ that labels an individual’s identity with nearly irrefutable precision.” As such, it can serve as the identity of the person indicted, even though the charging document lists the unknown defendant as “John Doe”.

The ruling is consistent with the state of the law in several other states.

You see, the issue here is the statute of limitations applicable to various matters. Said statute sets a time bar, similar to civil matters, within which a case can be brought against a particular defendant. Every crime has a statute of limitations except in cases of murder. There is no statute of limitations on murder.
Continue reading

by

The attorneys in the Chuck Turner corruption case are expected to make opening statements today, Already, however, issues have arisen which cast doubt on Mr. Turner’s ability to have a fair trial. In other words, from the defense’ view, should there be a conviction, appeal issues have already begun to present themselves..

Last week, we discussed the government’s witness who no longer wishes to be a witness in the white collar criminal case
As the week went on, jury selection began.

As you know, the purpose of jury selection is to pose various questions to prospective jurors to weed out those who cannot be fair and impartial to both the defendant and the government. One of the areas in which the court inquires is whether or not the prospective jurors already have heard anything about the case prior to the trial. This is because the jury is supposed to limit their consideration of the facts to the evidence as presented at trial.

As you also know, every fact that exists about a matter, or that was reported in the press, is not necessarily admissible at trial.

Well, it would appear that many of the prospective jurors in the Turner case already knew something of this case prior to coming to federal court to potentially sit on it. Some knew the basic outline of the federal corruption case, others barely anything at all.

But one thing was engraved on the minds of many: the explosive photographs of former state senator Dianne Wilkerson and Turner allegedly taking bribes in 2007 and 2008
In particular, several prospective jurors mentioned a widely disseminated picture of Wilkerson stuffing 10 $100 bills into her bra at No. 9 Park, a posh restaurant near the State House.

Game over for said potential jurors? Not quite.
Continue reading

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

Contact Information
Cambridge, MA
Main Office
675 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617.206.1920Fax: 617.491.3299Toll Free: 800.481.6199
Boston, MA
1 State St
Suite 2
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617.547.1205Toll Free: 800.481.6199
Needham, MA
250 First Avenue 2nd Floo
Needham, MA 02494
Phone: 781.675.2329Toll Free: 800.481.6199

Some Select Cases are referred to other attorneys for principal responsibility

By publishing this information on this Website, the Boston, Massachusetts law firm of Altman & Altman LLP is not claiming to represent any clients or cases mentioned here. The content provided is designed to inform readers and is not intended as legal advice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Altman & Altman LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design