by

Welcome back everybody! I hope you had a great Labor Day Weekend. A particular welcome back to the student’s returning to schools in the Boston area. As you kids may have heard, and I will discuss in more detail tomorrow, there are new laws and procedures in place to deal with the problem of bullying. Be careful…certain overzealous (to be generous) criminal justice politicians have indicted kids for that. In the meantime, let me give you an idea of what else is going on in the criminal justice atmosphere.

You may have heard that Boston has been in an uproar over the murder of a pizza delivery man last week. Well, it would appear that the suspects turn out to be, perhaps, around your age. Two Boston high school students and a 20-year-old have been charged with the murder in which the driver was viciously stabbed to death. According to authorities, they then fled in his car.

The apparent prize for the young alleged killers? The theft of around $100 and a box of pizza.

So, you might want to be careful in terms of part-time jobs you seek to help pay for school…especially you college kids.
Continue reading

by

SPECIAL SATURDAY EDITION

This has been a bad stretch for the Boston area in terms of homicides. Police believe they have solved the 43rd murder this year as compared to 38 killings last year at this time. The pizza delivery killing was the fifth murder in Boston in the last week.

By way of update on the pizza delivery murder,Boston police have arrested three people in connection with the slaying of 58-year-old Richel N., (hereinafter, the “Deceased”), the Domino’s pizza delivery man who was stabbed to death while making a delivery in Hyde Park early Thursday morning. According to authorities, he was lured to a vacant house, where two men and a woman allegedly robbed and stabbed him.

After the Deceased was stabbed, the three allegedly drove off in his Subaru Legacy, which was recovered Thursday at church parking lot on River Street. Police sources said investigators found “a lot of evidence” in the vehicle and detectives worked around the clock to make the arrests.

Two days ago, the news featured another piece of evidence which may well have helped in the investigation. Maria C., a Hyde Park woman, (hereinafter, the “Witness”) indicated that she feared that she unknowingly aided the Deceased’s killers. She indicated that at around the time the call to Dominoes was apparently made, she lent her cell phone to a woman. While the Witness states that she did not hear who the woman spoke with, she fears that the call was to the Deceased’s shop.
Continue reading

by

This daily criminal law blog has been short-ciruited today due to internet failure. However, it will reappear tomorrow (yes, even though it is Saturday) with the planned discussion of murder investigations, witnesses and pizza delivery.

Oh, yes. And do we mean by “truth” in the criminal justice system?

Until then…beware of Hurricaine Earle!

by

Yesterday, we discussed the mechanics of this matter. Basically, we addressed the difference between a criminal appeal and a motion for a new trial as well as why it may have made sense for the defense attorney, prosecutor and SJC to take the action that they did. I should point out, by the way, that although this is a murder case, it does not change the procedures we discussed yesterday.

The case involved the December. 13, 2005, killings of four men in a basement in the Boston area. It had been dubbed the city’s worst shooting in 10 years.

The Defendant was convicted by a jury of killing Jason Bachiller, 21; Jihad Chankhour, 22; Edwin “E.J.” Duncan, 21; and Christopher Vieira, 19. Prosecutors said that he shot the men because he wanted a 9mm Glock pistol Vieira legally owned. According to them, and, it would appear, the jury, the Defendant took the gun from Vieira, shot him, then turned the gun on the three others as they tried to run away.

The Defendant was convicted and sentenced to consecutive life sentences. As discussed on Monday’s blog, the Commonwealth does not have a death penalty, so that is as tough as sentences get.
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

A 24-year-old Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawful wiretap and breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony. Daniel G. Richards was arrested on Sunday.

Richards is accused of breaking into another student’s dorm room and videotaping her without her consent. The female student reported the incident last July after discovering a video recording device in her room. She claimed that someone broke in.

Richards, who has been suspended indefinitely from the school and was ordered to move out of his dorm, is scheduled to appear in court for a pre-trial hearing at the end of next month.

In Massachusetts, a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony can land a defendant in jail for up to 20 years. Other consequences can include suspension from school, loss of scholarship opportunities, having your applications for professional licenses denied, denial of US citizenship if you are an immigrant, loss of career opportunities, and the revocation of certain civil rights.

There are ways to combat a breaking and entering charge.

Other kinds of Massachusetts breaking and entering offenses:
• Breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor
• Breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony • Entering without breaking in the nighttime • Entry without breaking into a dwelling in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony
Seminary student charged with secretly filming classmate, Boston Herald, August 31, 2010
Theological student charged with videotaping female student, WBZ, August 31, 2010

Related Web Resource:
General Laws of Massachusetts
Continue reading

by

It would appear that Boston-Based Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office is on the trail of what it believes to be an upcoming white collar criminal prosecution. The target is Representative Brian P. Wallace of South Boston (hereinafter, the “Target”). It has been alleged that he violated fund-raising laws.

A spokesman for Attorney General Coakley confirmed that her office is investigating the Target , a Democrat, based on a recent finding from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance
A May 14 letter from the campaign finance office cites evidence of several misdemeanor campaign violations by the Target, his wife and others involved with his campaign.

One would expect that any prosecution will use the Target’s retirement as evidence of “Consciousness of guilt”. You see, he acknowledged knowledge that campaign finance officials were investigating him when he announced his retirement in March. However, he explained at the time that, “…[t]here is nothing nefarious there. This certainly played no part in my decision.”

He said he was retiring because he wanted to spend more time with his family and on his writing.

Well, let’s hope for the Target’s sake that he has unquestionably become “Captain Familyman” and, by the time of trial, is the picture of the prolific writer.
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

The Massachusetts criminal defense team for Gary Lee Sampson is scheduled to appear in court on Monday to argue that their client should get a new trial. Sampson, who a federal judge sentenced to death in 2003 for the murder of three people, contends that his constitutional rights were violated because his trial lawyers at the time were ineffective.

Sampson’s new defense team is accusing his old one of failing to fully depict to the jury the entire extent of Sampson’s traumatic brain injuries and mental illness. They believe that the evidence might have caused the jury to recommend a less harsh sentence for Sampson. If executed, Sampson would be the first person in 63 years to be put to death for a Massachusetts crime.

Sampson fatally stabbed 69-year-old Philip McCloskey 24 times on July 24, 2001 after the latter had picked up the hitchhiker in Weymouth. Sampson also carjacked the victim’s car. A few days later, Sampson fatally stabbed 19-year-old Jonathan Rizzo, a driver who picked him up in Plymouth. It would be just another three days before Sampson would strangle 58-year-old Robert Whitney.

Sampson later pleaded guilty to all three murders. A federal jury in Boston made the recommendation that he put to death and US Chief District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf ordered that Sampson be executed in New Hampshire, which has a state capital murder law. Massachusetts does not have a state death penalty.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Sampson’s death sentence. Later, the US Supreme Court decided not to hear his appeal. Now, prosecutors for the US Attorney’s office say that they intend to fight Sampson’s motion.

Prosecutors seek to dismiss Gary Lee Sampson’s appeal, Boston Herald, August 29, 2010
Lawyers for convicted killer in carjacking murder spree seek new trial, The Boston Globe, August 29, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Sampson Timeline, The Patriot Ledger, High Beam Research, July 24, 2002
Read the 1st Circuit Opinion for this Case, Justia Continue reading

by

The state Supreme Judicial Court will likely issue a ruling in the next few weeks on Christopher McCowen’s appeal to have his Massachusetts murder and rape convictions in the slaying of fashion writer Christa Worthington overturned. McCowen’s criminal defense team is arguing that it was wrong to allow the a substitute pathologist to testify about findings in an autopsy that another doctor had performed and they are now citing a recent SJC ruling that overturned the murder conviction of Eric J. Durand for the fatal beating of Brendon Camara, his girlfriend’s 4-year-old son, on similar grounds.

McCowen was convicted in 2006 for Worthington’s Truro, Massachusetts rape and murder. The 46-year-old Vassar-educated writer and Truro resident was found stabbed to death in her home in January 2002. Her 2 ½ year old daughter was with her, unharmed but hugging her mom’s body and smeared in blood.

In 2005, Police charged McCowen, who was the trash collector for Worthington’s residence, with the slaying. Even though McCowen agreed to let police test his DNA soon after the murder, it would be two years before the authorities would collect his DNA and another year before it was matched to the crime.

A little over a year after McCowen’s 2006 conviction for Massachusetts murder and rape, Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary A. Nickerson held a public hearing during which time he interviewed jury members about allegations of racial bias. McCowen is black. The allegations formed the basis for McCowen’s criminal defense lawyer’s request for a new trial, but the judge would go on to turn down the motion. McCowen’s Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys have challenged this ruling.

Cape and Islands prosecutor Julia K. Holler, who represented the state in McCowen’s appeal, says that while it was wrong for a pathologist other than the one that conducted the autopsy to testify in McCowen’s criminal case, because McCowen’s criminal defense lawyer did not object to a criminal trial the state’s highest court has to limit its review to whether the testimony created a “substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.” This is a higher legal standard than what was applied to Durand’s appeal and one which Holler claims that McCowen’s conviction case does not meet.

SJC ruling hovers over 2002 Cape slaying case, Boston.com, August 28, 2010
Conviction reversed in Mass. boy’s beating death, Boston Herald, August 20, 2010
SJC hears Christopher McCowen appeal, Cape Cod Online, May 7, 2010
Related Web Resources:
The General Laws of Massachusetts

Murder on the Cape: A tale of love and death, Boston.com, January 20, 2002 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