In Massachusetts, the stepfather of 14-year-old Haleigh Poutre was sentenced to 12 – 15 years in state prison for his role in a near fatal 2005 beating that left the girl in a coma and with a permanent brain injury. Jason Strickland, 34, was convicted of two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault and battery on a child with substantial injury, and one count of assault and battery. He was acquitted of one count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Strickland and his late wife Holli had adopted Haleigh from Allison Avrett, who is Holli’s sister. Avrett signed over her parental rights to the couple because she was suffering from mental health issues and drug abuse.

Massachusetts prosecutors charged the couple with beating the then 11-year-old. Only Strickland’s case was tried in court, however, as Holli later died, along with her grandmother, in a suicide-murder.

During the trial, Strickland said he noticed that Haleigh had a number of wounds on her body, but he believed Holli when she told him that Haleigh’s wounds were self-inflicted. Over a period of five years, the girl’s doctors, state social workers, and therapists also believed Holli’s explanation and dismissed concerns expressed by teachers and neighbors that Haleigh was the victim of abuse.

While the jury believed that Strickland wasn’t there during the last beating, they believe he allowed the abuse to happen when he left Haleigh alone with Holli. Strickland’s criminal defense attorney is appealing the jury’s criminal verdict. Strickland’s mother, Bobbi says her son is being used as a scapegoat-especially as social workers and doctors also missed signs that Haleigh was an abuse victim.

Haleigh now lives in a Boston rehabilitation home. Her beating injuries placed her at the center of a Massachusetts right-to-die case when state child welfare officials sought to remove her feeding tube when it did not seem like she would recover from her coma. Not long after, Haleigh began to show signs of improvement.

Stepdad Jason Strickland gets 12-15 years in Haleigh Poutre case, Boston Herald, December 18, 2008
Jason Strickland Convicted of Beating Stepdaughter, CBS3, November 26, 2008

Related Web Resource:

Haleigh Poutre, USA Today
The General Laws of Massachusetts
Continue reading

Let the games begin! As local as Boston and as distant as the globe will reach! The adventure of pointing fingers and looking for bodies to blame, as expected, has begun. Defense Attorneys for everybody! Everybody pays!

Bernard Madoff (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), talking in 2001 about what fed the Internet bubble said “You had a lot of novice investors who got into the market looking for easy money, without any regard to the fundamentals. These stocks were running on fumes.”

You would almost think that the Defendant did not have a lot of faith in investors, regulatory agencies such as the Security Exchange Commission and the market in general, wouldn’t you?

Well, I guess now we know why. He, himself, was apparently engaged in a huge fraud and getting away with it.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple of weeks, you have heard that the Defendant is accused of devestated the international economic world, when it was already reeling, through what is alleged to be a fifty billion dollar scam, the largest such fraud in history. For more background information, you may want to check out Tuesday’s blog, entitled, Boston Is Hit, Along With The Rest Of The Country, By Financial Guru And His Use Of A Boston-Originated Method Of Fraud (The Madoff Nightmare Part One.

The question of what to do next appears to be a nasty little thing for which there is no clear answer. Therefore, filling that vacuum, we move to other, and perhaps more lucrative, questions. The questions include such topics as how any scam of this size could remain a secret for so long, who was involved, who else is out there doing similar things and, of course, who got off easy.

In short, the questions are “Who else can we blame?” and perhaps more importantly, “Who else can help finance the cleanup?”

Hey, it’s what we do.
Continue reading

In Massachusetts, Plainville investigators are seeking to charge a 19-year-old man with purchasing alcohol as a minor and procuring alcohol for a minor. According to Plainville Police Lt. Jim Alfred, Brian Zuzick is alleged to have asked a 21-year-old North Attleboro friend to buy alcohol for Zuzick’s sister Paige and 17-year-old Taylor Meyer. Zuzick is accused of giving each of the girls a bottle of rum on October 17.

Meyer’s body was found in a swampy area in the woods in Norfolk on October 20, three days after her disappearance following a post-Homecoming game party at the abandoned Norfolk airport. Investigators say she drowned.

If Zuzick is convicted, he could be ordered to pay a $2,000 fine, have his license suspended for 180 days, and spend a year in prison. In October, Christopher Moran, 18, pleaded not guilty to charges that he brought alcohol to the party where Meyer was last seen. Police are continuing to investigate the circumstances that lead to Meyer’s death.

Last month, at least 13 of Meyer’s schoolmates, all underage teens, were arraigned in Wrentham District Court for their attendance at a drinking party at a local home. Police say they found alcoholic beverages and marijuana at the event.

If you have been arrested for an alcohol-related criminal offense in Massachusetts, you should speak to a Boston criminal defense lawyer about your case. Massachusetts has strict laws about buying alcohol or serving it to minors. It is also illegal for Massachusetts minors to buy or drink alcohol.

Criminal charges sought in teen’s death, Boston.com, December 17, 2008
Teen Arrested In Taylor Meyer Probe, WBZ, October 30, 2008
Laws Related to Alcohol, MIT Continue reading

This holiday season, so many religions and traditions call for gift-giving. Sometimes, those gifts are a big surprise. One gentleman from out of state has been given a surprise gift from the government because of the gifts he has given throughout the country, including the Boston area, big time. The gift he received is the need of a criminal defense attorney. The wide-spread gift he gave? Well, that would be the gift of financial ruin.

You already know his name. It is Bernard Madoff (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). He is a 70-year-old former chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market, who has now been awarded the country’s bracelets of shame. Last Thursday, he taken out of his house by United States marshals and charged with securities fraud by federal authorities.

Ironically, the Defendant’s gift of restraints and forced government housing was connected to charity and gift work throughout the nation. His actions have apparently brought about the destruction and near-destruction of various charities and philanthropies throughout the country. That’s right….that means fewer gifts for the under-privileged. It also means the same thing for victims of every financial level because they all have one thing in common now. They have been victims of white collar crime in a big way to the tune of approximately fifty billion dollars.

Such a loss is kind of hard to swallow, especially in such difficult economic times. Actually, it was the market’s recent crash that finally brought the Defendant’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme to light. The Defendant himself is said to have “come clean”. He has admitted that his money management operations were “all just one big lie” and “a giant Ponzi scheme.” .

You may be unfamilier with the term “Ponzi scheme”. For those so uninitiated, it is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high profits to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. It is named after Charles Ponzi who apparently introduced the scheme to the United States in the early 1900’s from…of all places…Boston. Because the invested capital is not earning a sufficient return on its own, Ponzi schemes usually eventually collapse under their own weight.

So much for a “I never thought it could happen…” , or, perhaps more formally, “Whodathunkit” defense.
Continue reading

Good Monday morning to you, Boston and environs. I hope you are free, recovered from last week’s ice storms and ready to begin a new week. Hopefully you are greeting another week without the need for a criminal defense attorney.

Yet.

Unfortunately, there will be no “regular” blog today. This is primarily because of the story I am basing a rather longer-than-usual blog on that is simply not finished by the time I need to be in court today.

Taghi T., 28, of Boston, (hereinafter, “Defendant 1”) was awaiting his mail on Wednesday. He did not realize that a criminal defense attorney would need to be involved.

Apparently, he should have.

Law Enforcement had intercepted the parcel and when Defendant 1 went to UPS in downtown Boston to claim it, he received the Commonwealth Bracelets of Shame instead. You see, the postal workers were really police officers. The package had a bit of marihuana in it…a “bit” being defined here as 10 pounds worth. And you know how the police are…always suspicious. For some reason they suspected there might be more goodies to be found, so they decided to search his Boston home.

They turned out to be right. They found a large amount of materials typically found in any healthy drug operation, according to Suffolk County prosecutors. Well, that is, if you consider 800 grams of cocaine, another 15 pounds of marijuana, more than 200 prescription pills, $25,235 in cash and various drug paraphernalia such as scales, cutting agents, and bags a “large amount”.

The Commonwealth does, incidently.

And so it was that Defendant 1 found himself before a Boston court facing various drug charges such as cocaine trafficking and drug possession.

But, hey, that’s the “big city”, right? If you are talking about Massachusetts, Beantown is the “big leagues”! The urban Mecca! What do you expect?
Continue reading

The Boston Herald reports about what are generally considered a couple of those “dirty little secrets” about the Justice System. They involve rather inconvenient truths that are particularly disconcerting, and so tend to be ignored, in the criminal justice arena.

And by the way….they are probably truths you have even suspected at times.

The first one is that, sometimes, police officers overdo it when it comes to force.

The other one is a bit more complicated, but I have faith in you that you can follow it.

Ready?

Step 1- Sometimes, people lie while under oath.

Step 2-Police officers are people
Step 3- Sometimes police officers lie while under oath.

No, this does not mean all police officers and it does not mean this happens in every case. I can tell you from experience, however, that I have experienced cases wherein police officers did not feel overly burdened by the boundaries of the truth.

Usually, these instances go without any penalty to the officer, although it is the crime of perjury just as when one of us “regular people” do it.

Not this time, though.
Continue reading

Reports say that robberies are on the rise. I suppose that is not a big surprise, given the economic downturn we are dealing with.

Some of the attempts do have some entertainment value, though.
For example, let’s begin with such an attempt from earlier this very week. We turn to Lowell, Massachusetts. There, we find a peaceful scene. A grandmother and her 8-year-old grandson inside their home. Enjoying the day, perhaps happy that the snow from Sunday had stopped. Norman Rockwell type of scene.

Suddenly, there is a knock at the door.

End of peaceful scene.

Grandmother and Grandson were suddenly terrorized. A man and woman burst into the home, demanding money. Actually, they were more specific than that. With masks on, Grandmother tells us, “They kept wanting $1,000. They kept saying, ‘You got $1,000!”

Grandmother explained to them that she didn’t have that much money in the house.

The duo did not belie her. They demanded her purse, which she told them was in another room.

“So when he went for my pocketbook, I told my grandson run and get the police,” she said.

The 8-year-old did as Grandmother told him. He bolted from the house and ran about 100 yards to a gas station, screaming for help.

“I ran in there. I told them to call 911, because people in my house wanted money,” said the grandson.

Right after the child ran out, the couple fled without getting any money. They apparently sought to get away, but, naturally, ran in the same direction as the boy.
Continue reading

Maybe we are taking the wrong approach when a juvenile brings a gun to school. After all, especially after the rash of teen-aged rampages at schools, where people were murdered, we have taken the child/gun combination very seriously. Maybe this has been a mistake.

Perhaps we should embrace it! Maybe make Uzi Firing 101 a required high school course. Actually, perhaps that is starting too little and too late. The answer may be to have each homeroom class in grade school assigned an actual tank and the kids can take turns practicing on it. I realize it may pose a bit of a problem with home-schooled kids. Tanks are big. Not all homes can accommodate one. But all kids deserve a full education. Perhaps the home-schooled kids, and kids too young for school, can be allowed to “skate by” with bazookas!

“Ok”, you yell as you back-hand your computer monitor. “Sam’s finally gone over the deep end!”

Really?

Well, perhaps you can explain to me the “brain trust” targeted by a new indictment that just got handed down in Hampden Superior Court. I warn you in advance, though, it is not a funny story.

The incident happened on October 26, 2008 at Massachusetts’ Westfield Sportsman’s Club (hereinafter, “Club Defendant”). There, men go to “be men” and boys go to be…the same as men, I guess. After all, if a man can handle a cute little uzi sub-machine gun, can’t a young child? And, after all, what does age matter? If a teenager can do it….then an 8 year old can, right?

Now, I could ask “why would you want them to?”, but instead of asking a question, I will simply answer. The answer is, “Well, not really.”

But, then, I guess hind-sight is 20/20 and, after all, I have the benefit of knowing what happened. How could anyone prior have even considered the possibility that giving an 8 year old little boy an Uzi to fire was a bad idea?

Well, they are considering it now; the boy is dead.
Continue reading

Happy Monday. How did you start your weekend? I hear a lot of people went shopping. At Altman & Altman, LLP., we moved our offices next door.

In Fitchburg, Massachusetts, a gentleman had a high speed chase with an officer.

As usual, he did not win. He did, however, manage to injure a police officer, which successfully gained him membership into the infamous “Hey, I’ll Bet I Can Make This Worse” Club.

Of course, according to authorities, James T., 36 of Templeton (hereinafter, “Defendant 1”) had not exactly been the pillar of good judgment before the chase. There had already been a little matter of that warrant out for his arrest in connection with the robbery of the Fitchburg Savings Bank in Parkhill Plaza in April 2007.

Last Friday, police say that Detective Perry Pappas saw Defendant1 come out of a Marshall Street house around 1 p.m. and get into a black Saturn driven by a woman. The Detective followed the Saturn in an unmarked cruiser through city streets, and called for marked cruisers to help him with the arrest.

So far, so good.

Marked cruisers arrived around the intersection of Blossom and Crescent Streets. They signaled for the driver of the Saturn to stop.

That did not go over so well.

The Saturn did not stop. Instead, it drove along several more streets in the Fitchburg State College area and then hit another car at Pearl Street and Myrtle Avenue; that car, in turn, struck the cruiser driven by Police Officer Michael Rochette, police said.

The female driver of the Saturn was arrested at the scene and was taken to Leominster Hospital. Officer Rochette and three people in the car his cruiser collided with were taken to Leominster Hospital with what police said are non-life-threatening injuries.

Defendant 1, however, was not done yet.
Continue reading

Contact Information