by

Massachusetts schools and law enforcement, like many across the country, are dealing with concerns of another school shooting. In the aftermath of the Connecticut mass murder, such concern is reasonable. Are overreactions based upon rumors understandable? Is it necessary?

A couple of years ago, we had a very public tragedy happen. A young girl, a troubled young girl, committed suicide. The cause was laid at the feet of other kids. This was a great tragedy. As a result, we overreacted and ended up with new anti-bullying law that proved to do nothing other than ruin those other kids lives. This was, and is, usually our reaction. Over reaction. In these overreactions, our weapon of choice is the criminal justice system.

Attorneys Sam’s Take got involved. We discussed the matter in fairly unpopular terms because we held an unpopular opinion.

Well, Here we go again.

Yesterday, we discussed a recent matter involving threats against schools. Of course, these rumored threats are not what one would call a tragedy. The tragedies we are afraid of, many of which have happened, the actual violent acts of unspeakable proportion. One such tragedy, the worst yet at least around here, is the one which took place in Connecticut a couple of weeks ago.
Continue reading

by

Today’s Attorney Sam’s Take introduces a concept that law enforcement officials and I regularly discussed back when I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn, NY, hundreds of years ago.

The concept is that of enacting a new statute proclaiming certain activities punishable as “felony stupidity”. It is, however a story which reflects where we are as a society at the moment.

Especially when it comes to new cyber-crimes.

Worcester police are investiginvest what is being called a “hit list” with the names of 200 city high school students on it. Of course, as this is being investigated, there are cyber breadcrumbs to be found along the way.

Take what happenned at South High Shool last week for example. They took a 15-year-old young lady into custody. She has been charged with two counts of being an accessory before the fact. The police admit, however, that there is no “imminent threat” at the school.

Well, except for the young lady, that is, who now has markings on her CORI.

Apparently, one of the complaints that sparked the investigation was parents alerating law enforcement about a series of social media messages. One of these thretening messages, which led to the above-mentioned arrest, was that the teen asked in a tweet if someone would “please” spray her high school with bullets.
Continue reading

by

Whether it is gun possession, assault with a dangerous weapon (to wit: a firearm) or use of a gun in a drug trafficking case…the rules for Massachusetts gun charges are about to change..

The aftermath of last week’s tragic Connecticut shootings have brought the issue of gun-related crime to the forefront again. This time, however, it seems clear that federal and state laws will be changed as a result. Further, the approach by law enforcement is likely to be even tougher in crimes in which firearms are used.

Firearms have become an omnipresent part of our society. While people differ as to the merits of gun control legislation, nobody is in favor of violent crime…particularly when guns are used in the furtherance of that violence.

It will come as no surprise to any regular reader of Attorney Sam’s Take that our criminal statutes, as well as how they are enforced, are often effected by current events. Horrific tragedies such as the Newtown killings pull at our heartstrings with the force of a sledge hammer. The media gives voice to our cries for a solution to ensure that it never happens again. In response, our political leaders, both in and out of law enforcement, either try to solve the problem…or, at least, appear as if they are trying to solve it.

Quite often, it is the latter, as in the case of our yet-existing waste of political action regarding anti-bullying.

This time? Well, that remains to be seen. However, you may be sure that the Commonwealth is going to do all it can to seem ever-aggressive when it comes to firearms.

“You mean in terms of gun control?”

Continue reading

by

The short answer, as any daily reader of Attorney Sam’s Take knows, is “of course he can”. All he has to do is be found guilty after a trial. He has accomplished that task.

The next question, of course, is what the basis of the appeal will be. That is when it becomes alittle trickier.

As you may recall, the appeal of a criminal conviction cannot simply be “the jury got it wrong”. The issue must be an issue of law, not simply fact. The jury was the judge of the facts and the appeals courts give great deference to trial juries. This makes sense, of course, because the jury saw, as well as heard, the evidence. The jurors were in the best position to judge things like credibility. The closest a defendant can come to claiming that the verdict was wrong as a basis of an appeal is to say that there was no way, as a matter of law, that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty.

This, of course, is a very high standard and so is not generally a chosen issue for appeal.

“Sam, you say “a chosen issue” as opposed to “the chosen issue”. Can there be more than one issue raised on one appeal?

Yes. You can basically raise as many issues as you want. However, there are tactical decisions in choosing which issues and how many. For example, there is a limit in the length of the brief. This, of course, can be changed in a given case by submitting a motion for permission to hand in a longer brief. In doing so, of course, the court, when reading the brief, is likely to wonder if all this extra length was necessary.

“Why should I care if the court is second-guessing my attorney’s need to hand in a longer brief?”
Continue reading

by

Well, it had to end sometime.

Boston’s Dwayne Moore has been found guilty of various murder charges stemming back to the so-called “Mattapan Massacre” back in September, 2010. This was the case where Mr. Moore was accused of being a part of a drug-related robbery which ended up being a blood bath. Four murder charges to be exact. he was also convicted of some other charges, as well as acquitted of a few others, but when you are looking at four life sentences without parole, those tend to dim by comparison.

At least one of those acquittals, though, are interesting fodder for us to discuss. However, we will get to that in a moment.

Mr. Moore was found guilty on Monday and sentenced on Tuesday.

Victims said this does not heal their broken hearts.. “September 28, 2010. That was the day my life changed forever,” said Ebony Flonory, whose sister and nephew were murdered. “At least we’ll have a little peace and to know that the people who did this will pay for it,” said Patricia Washum, whose friend was murdered.

Meanwhile, not all of the human drama was on the Commonwealth’s side. For example, courthouse officers had to drag away Moore’s mother, outside the sentencing, who was apparently upset when a photographer took her picture.

Defense attorneys vowed to appeal and claimed that the prosecutors got the wrong man convicted. They further recharge that the state’s star witness, Kimani Washington, got away with murder. During trial, defense counsel described Washington as a “snake oil salesman” who himself committed the crimes. Washington admitted participating in the robbery, but said he left before the shootings.

Of course, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley. Seems satisfied with his decision.
“Washington was a participant in this robbery and he is going to pay a very heavy price for that,” he said. In fact, Washington is to serve 16 to 18 years.

In an unfortunate comparison by the judge, which reminds us that timing is everything, His Honor drew a parallel between the victims in Newtown, Conneticuit and the youngest victim in Mattapan, saying the 2-year-old boy was just as innocent, his death just as tragic.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Problematic Criminal Cases And Appeals

In any criminal case, when the verdict is guilty, unusual occurrences that occur trial will likely lead to appeal issues. Certain issues come to mind automatically. On the other hand, some seem to have already taken care of themselves.
Continue reading

by

Part Two: The Search

On Friday, we began the tale of two gents who went from routine Massachusetts traffic stop to a whole mess of legal trouble.

You see, Blake Balway and Michael Scanlan (hereinafter, collectively, the “Defendants”) had been stopped while driving. Neither had valid driver’s licenses. Therefore, in accordance with police procedure, the officers decided to impound the truck until someone with a license could come and get it.

Impoundment meant an inventory search. It was the product, or products, of that search that changed the vehicle to impounded truck to piece of evidence.

Wellesley police Lieutenant Marie Cleary tells us that, “Officer Cunningham located a container in the vehicle that had a glass pipe, which he recognized as those used to smoke illegal drugs.” And, of course, where there is smoke, law enforcement generally hopes to find fire.

Apparently, they did.

Lt. Cleary claims that officers found bags of crystal methamphetamine, more than 170 grams, which is worth an estimated $50,000.

But that was not all that they found.
Continue reading

by

Part One…The Stop

Two gents who are currently guests of the Commonwealth might be questioning the advice of Attorney Sam’s Take about not trying to escape when pulled over by law enforcement. Even when your vehicle is loaded with contraband.

I do stand by my advice, though.

The two gents were Blake Balway, 30, of Somerville and Dorchester’s Michael Scanlan, 44. According to law enforcement, their vehicle was stopped pursuant to a routine traffic stop..

Officer Christopher Cunningham says that he was patrolling the Washington Street area of Wellesley in his cruiser on Wednesday afternoon. Cunningham apparently noticed a blue pickup truck in front of him repeatedly hitting the brakes. The pickup truck then turned onto Grantland Road, allegedly without signaling first. Since the road is a dead end, the officer decided to wait for the truck to turn around.

The officer then stopped the truck. According to the officer, the driver volunteered telling him that he did not have a driver’s license in his possession. The passenger is said to have volunteered the same information about himself. Interestingly, the officer says that each of the gents claimed to have the other’s name.

Not that it mattered much…after a check, the officer determined that both of them had had their licenses suspended.
Continue reading

by

Are Massachusetts prosecutors no longer prosecuting illegal drug cases?

There are some people in Massachusetts who seem to believe that their difficulties obtaining and using marijuana are about to become a thing of the past. They see the recent decriminalization of pot and actual legalization of medicinal marijuana to have simplified their lives.

Unfortunately, things do not really work that way. At least, not in the criminal justice system. In fact, the new laws (once they are both finalized) are likely to set many people up for disaster and complicate the situation.

At least, unless you understand the issues.

Attorney Sam’s Take will be following the development of these issues and post several blogs on this subject matter so that we may not only alert you, our readers, but also so we can best represent our clients. There are many types of folks who simply, for medical or other reasons, want to imbibe in marihuana…if they can do so legally. At least, they want to know whether doing so places them at risk.

We plan to be at the forefront of the issue…aiding our clients in setting up all that must be set in order for them to obtain medical marijuana and helping them illuminate the risks.

One major question, of course, will be how one gets a dispensary license and a prescription card. Another will be what one can do with otherwise-legally obtained marijuana at home and in the street. For example, can you share it with a sick friend who is in pain?
Continue reading

by

My last Attorney Sam’s Take discussed two new cases. One involved a physician who has been indicted for receiving and possessing child pornography. While the charges in his case no doubt bring shock and horror to those who know him, it seems to be nothing out of the ordinary as far as these types of cases tend to go.

At the very least, it pales when compared to the discoveries about Mr. David Anderson (hereinafter, the “Defendant”). The Defendant’s situation has a number of unusual twists that will, no doubt, end up as elements for various criminal charges.

Of course, one of the questions will be where the charges are prosecuted.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Potential Criminal Charges And Jurisdictions In Sex Crimes Cases

The Defendant could well find himself prosecuted in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. This is why both cases are likely to remain pending for awhile. Massachusetts does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute for the crimes in Connecticut, and visa versa.
Continue reading

by

Well, Tuesday’s Boston Herald was not exactly complimentary to the medical profession on Tuesday as far as criminal justice goes. At least two reports of sex offenses were reflected therein. Of course, that was not the only profession so tarnished. In fact, it would appear that the news is full of such allegations from sports figures to teachers to…well…just about every profession.

For example, take the case of Boston’s Children’s Hospital’s own Dr. Richard J. Keller. This 56-year-old Andover resident has been a much respected physician specializing in pediatric cancer. Unfortunately, he has now also been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of receiving and possessing child pornography.

While the indictment is new, the charges really are not. He was arrested back in September and has apparently consented to be held without bail pending trial. He is also said to have struck a voluntary agreement with the state Board of Registration in Medicine to cease practicing medicine.

According to the seven-page indictment, authorities say Keller was into watching videos of young boys severely mistreated.

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth’s neighbor, Connecticut , apparently has an interesting kinda-sorta medical man in custody in connection with a more…creative…sex crime.

Actually, “kinda-sorta” in this case means “not at all”.

And that is the problem. Well, At least PART OF the problem.

Mr. David E. Anderson, 44, is now an involuntary guest of the state, held on $500,000 cash bail here in Massachusetts. Mr. Anderson is a resident of Newton, Connecticut, but apparently had an affinity for Massachusetts women. He is accused of luring women to his Salisbury beach location, passing himself off as a doctor and performing invasive examinations.

While secretly video-taping the examinations, of course.
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