by

Sex cases are a funny thing. That is, “funny” as in “strange”. In a country wherein we say that we prize the presumption of innocence, we really don’t act like we like said presumption very much.

Currently, I am handling a high profile case about child pornography. Already, the press is interested. This, of course, is natural and is the job of the media. However, I am troubled not by the fact that it is newsworthy, but the reaction of people. Any passer-by who is questioned about the matter seems to have already formulated the verdict of “guilty”. People are shocked that “this has happened”, except that a man’s good deeds have been completely disregarded because of the new accusations. Other than that, nothing else has been proven to have “happened”.

What is even more troubling is the aftermath.

I can still locate articles from 2008 when another client of mine was arrested and charged with rape involving a child. People were interested then. Well, for the last two years, we fought against the “assumption of guilt” while trying to remind everybody else that a “presumption of innocence” was rumored to still exist. Finally, two years later, my client was completely exonerated…as in “Not Guilty”. Out of curiosity last night, I cruised the internet to find mention of the fact that my client, who attempts to resurrect his life now that he has been acquitted, has been found not guilty.

Big surprise – nary a whisper.
Continue reading

by

Yesterday, as you may have read through various print and other media outlets, I had occasion to drive to North Adams, Massachusetts on a new case. As I traveled the various hours, I was reminded again and again through the radio how I was actually taking my life in my hands. This has not been a great summer so far for driving safely. The only thing that seemed to make the odds in my favor for arriving in court and then at my office in Cambridge was the fact that I was not a member of any police force.

There have been a number of incidents where officers have been struck by civilian drivers over the past month. The latest example to grace the headlines was Mathew C., 24, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). On Saturday morning, he allegedly rear-ended a state police cruiser in a highway breakdown lane. He is said to have had a blood-alcohol level over twice the legal limit. Police also claim that he admitted at the scene to having had “too much” to drink.

I guess that would seemgly slam the lid shut for a prosecution for, among other things, drunk driving.

This was the fifth such crash in recent weeks. This time, the police say, the driver didn’t brake at all before slamming his car into the cruiser.
Continue reading

by

The Supreme Judicial Court has overturned Joann Sliech-Brodeur’s Massachusetts first-degree murder conviction. Sliech-Brodeur was convicted of killing her husband Joseph Brodeur, who was stabbed 34 times with a kitchen knife and may have sustained blunt force head trauma from a “pry bar” on July 28, 2004.

During Sliech-Brodeur’s criminal defense trial, the defense claimed that Sliech-Brodeur’s long-standing mental issues were made worse by Brodeur’s intentions to divorce her. A psychologist who testified on her behalf said that Sliech-Brodeur doesn’t remember stabbing her husband.

In February 2006, a jury rejected Sliech-Brodeur’s defense that she was not responsible for stabbing her husband because she was mentally ill. The then 61-year-old woman was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Now, however, the state’s highest court is saying that the discovery process that took place during the trial violated criminal procedure rules (including the state’s limitations on discovery in insanity cases) and prejudiced the West Springfield woman’s Massachusetts murder case. The court says that the psychiatric expert for the prosecution was given information he should not have obtained and that the defense should not have had to give prosecutors statements and notes she had made for her own psychiatric expert.

Finding that Sliech-Brodeur was “unconstitutionally forced to help the state convict her,” the court is ordering a new trial.

SJC overturns murder conviction for West Springfield woman, Boston.com, July 19, 2010
Mass. court orders new trial in husband’s death, Boston Herald, July 19, 2010
Woman guilty of first-degree murder in husband’s death, Mass Live, February 24, 2006

Related Web Resources:
Murder, Cornell University Law School
General Laws of Massachusetts
Continue reading

by

The criminal trial of Vernon Thompson on two counts of Massachusetts rape is now under way. Thompson, 40 is accused of sexually assaulting a Newton teenager while he was a psychiatric patient at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in Jamaica Plain in 2008.

He is accused of taking the girl, then 14, to an area of the hospital where there were no security cameras and sexually assaulting her. His Boston criminal defense lawyer is asking jurors to remember that the defendant was a mental health patient when the allegedMassachusetts sexual crime happened. She also noted that because of his diminished mental capacity, he was incapable of understanding his actions or conforming to the law.

Diminished Mental Capacity Defense
Due to mental illness, a psychological disorder, or other health issues, some people who’ve committed a crimes lack the capacity to understand that their actions constituted a criminal act. Evidence of diminished capacity can be presented to a jury as part of the defense as they consider whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of a crime.

Massachusetts is zealous when it comes to pursuing people charged with sexual crimes and it is important that you are represented by a Boston criminal defense lawyer that can secure the best outcome possible for your case. A conviction as a sex offender can land you in prison for years, place you on the Massachusetts sex offender registry for life, and likely have serious repercussions on your career and personal life.

Girl, 16, testifies at rape case, Boston.com, July 14, 2010
Hospital Rape Case To Begin, WCVB, July 6, 2010 Continue reading

by

Ayanna Woodhouse is charged with Boston aggravated assault and battery and manslaughter in the death of a six-month-old fetus. The 25-year-old woman was indicted on Friday by a Suffolk County Grand Jury. They rendered their decision after hearing testimony from medical experts who said that under normal circumstances the baby could have lived outside the womb. At her arraignment on Monday, she pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges.

According to authorities, the Wellesley woman punched and kicked a pregnant woman during a brawl in April at Tulip Nail, a Boston nail salon. Following the incident, the fetus was delivered by emergency C-section but died. According to the medical examiner, the placenta became detached from the uterus. Woodhouse is related to the baby’s father.

Woodhouse’s Boston criminal defense lawyer says that it is unclear who began the fight. Per a Boston police report, after the two women left the salon the pregnant woman followed Woodhouse in her car and they reportedly continued their dispute. According to the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office, there was not enough evidence to establish that any intent to kill was involved. Massachusetts is one of the US states that will pursue homicides of unborn children who could have otherwise survive outside the womb.

A conviction for Massachusetts manslaughter can land a defendant in prison for up to 20 years. This is a serious criminal charge and in many cases the accused never intended to harm the victim.

Wellesley woman pleads not guilty to harming fetus, Boston.com, July 12, 2010
Woman indicted in death of fetus, Boston Herald, July 12, 2010

Related Web Resource:
Fetal Homicide State Laws, National Conference of State Legislature Continue reading

by

Usually, the “Attorney Sam’s Take” postings take place on Fridays. However, this past week, I was finishing a jury trial and so could not post in a timely manner. I did not feel I could not simply shelve this subject, though, because we may have solved a problem plaguing the criminal justice system…in Boston and beyond.

As you have probably, heard, the ten alleged Russian agents recently rounded up in the Boston area and other parts of the Northeast, have pleaded guilty at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Most of the defendants admitted that they are Russian citizens and are agents working for the Russian Federation.

The sentence?

Well, a swap has been arranged. The Russian Federation will receive the spies in their custody and in turn will release four individuals claimed to be connected to American intelligence agencies, according to the United States Department of Justice.

In a Department of Justice press release, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “This was an extraordinary case, developed through years of work by investigators, intelligence lawyers, and prosecutors, and the agreement we reached today provides a successful resolution for the United States and its interests.”

Everybody is excited about this solution.
Continue reading

by

Can a baseball bat be considered a dangerous weapon in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? As a Boston attorney for longer than I am in the mood to admit, I have seen cases where a pen, a box and even a shoe is considered a dangerous weapon by the law. So, it should be no surprise that a baseball bat, ball or even a glove can be considered dangerous weapons.

It is a lesson learned the hard was for 18-year-old Buzzards Bay resident Daniel M. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), if he did not know it beforehand. Currently, he is being held on $5,000 bail after he allegedly beat a family member with an aluminum baseball bat.

Yes, that would make this a case of domestic violence.

The Defendant was arraigned in Falmouth District Court Tuesday morning after being arrested for allegedly hitting the 43-year-old man (hereinafter, the “Unnamed Complainant”) in the head with the bat at around 12:15 a.m. yesterday outside a Buzzards Bay home.

According to law enforcement, the Defendant struck the Unnamed Complainant with the bat after the latter attempted to leave after the two had had an argument.

When the investigating authorities arrived, they found the Unnamed Complainant lying in the driveway, unconscious and bleeding from the head, Bourne police said. He was taken by MedFlight helicopter to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston early yesterday morning, according to Bourne police.
Continue reading

by

Today’s posting on the Boston criminal lawyer blog does not really involve Boston.

It does involve criminal law, though. As well as show business.

You may have heard snippets over the past months of Lindsay Lohan and her difficulties with the law. One such difficulty has been showing up in court for such incidentals such as probation violation hearings.

Finally, it would seem that the court had enough.

Yesterday, a Los Angeles judge found Ms. Lohan in violation of her probation. The actress was sentenced to 90 days in jail. The hearing revolved around a missed court date in May. Ms. Lohan had claimed that the reason she had missed the court date was that she had lost her passport at the Cannes Film Festival and was unable to travel back to the states to attend the court date.

I hate when that happens, don’t you?
Continue reading

by

Massachusetts had more than its fair share of crimes this past holiday weekend. There were shootings in the Boston area, one homicide and, as one would expect from such a weekend, plenty of vehicular crimes. Criminal Defense attorneys will be needed.

For example, one Massachusetts woman was arrested this weekend in Salem, N.H., after police said she stole purses and led them on a harrowing chase with her 12-year-old daughter in the car.

This would be Maria M., 36, of Lawrence (hereinafter, “Mother Defendant”). She is said to have targeted customers at the Christmas Tree Shops, Target, and Market Basket in the area. According to the authorities, she would reach for purses left in shopping carts while the women looked away and “larcenied” her financial cares away.

According to witnesses, Mother Defendant brought a “young girl”, presumably her daughter, along for the July 4th festivities, as she liberated items from said purses.

Once the police spotted the described car, along with the occupants matching the description, they tried to pull her over.

This did not go too smoothly.
Continue reading

by

This weekend, we have been celebrating the birth of our country. Even a Boston criminal defense attorney recognizes the importance in that. In the meantime, the Cambridge couple (hereinafter, the “Defendants”) who were among 10 people arrested in three cities last week as part of an alleged Russian spy ring have been arraigned in Federal Court and await an opportunity to make bail and recover their freedom.

Good luck.

The government says that the Defendants were sent to live in the United States under false identities to hobnob in spheres of influence, an idea one civil liberties lawyer called laughable given their jobs as a software company executive and a real estate agent.

“These so-called spies really had a racket,” said Harvey Silverglate, author of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. “The idea that they were going to pick up useful intelligence in the circles they were moving in is absurd. They have defrauded the Russian intelligence agencies and gotten a decade of free support in exchange for no useful information.”

As Attorney Silverglate also points out, unless the investigation the FBI conducted over nearly a decade yields more damning evidence than what has so far been released, the people most harmed by the whole affair, Silverglate said, may turn out to be the American taxpayers.
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 © 2025, Altman & Altman LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design