This is an emergency mini-blog Attorney Sam’s Take to advise you of a breaking story. It is a story of an offense we do not discuss very often, but as students return to school, we may be hearing it much more.
The offense is plagiarism.
Harvard University is investigating some 125 undergraduates who have been accused of collaborating on a spring take-home final exam in the largest cheating scandal in recent memory to hit the Ivy League.
This Boston crime is an interesting take on what is usually known as a “drug deal gone bad”. Instead, the closest thing to a narcotic was a syringe and the deal involved alcohol.
Jose Soler, 47, of Hyde Park (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) was one part of the alleged ill-fated agreement. On the other side were two underage kids who were rather thirsty.
Thirsty for alcohol, that is.
According to law enforcement, the kids offered the Defendant $25 to buy them alcohol. $20 was for the actual booze and $5 was to be for the Defendant’s trouble. The Defendant agreed.
When the Defendant came out of the Forest Hills Liquor Market, however, he was empty-handed.
The kids demanded their money back. Police say that the Defendant refused to comply. He did, however, give them back $3…perhaps for their trouble.
The kids apparently put up a fuss.
Continue reading
Today’s story comes to us from the Cape. Barnstable, to be exact.
It is a story of theft. Grand larceny theft. Felony theft.
Arthur Souza, 52, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is a Barnstable gentleman who has been indicted for stealing valuable books from several Cape Cod libraries. He faces various counts of larceny.
Before you accuse the Commonwealth of being anti-education, these books were allegedly not for reading.
The Commonwealth alleges that the Defendant stole the books and sold them to a Chatham antiques dealer. The dealer, in turn, sold them on the auction website eBay. Some of the books are apparently valued at hundreds of dollars, thereby breaking the $250 barrier between petite larceny (misdemeanor) and grand larceny (felony).
According to law enforcement, the Defendant stole the books from the Harwich, Brewster, Barnstable, Yarmouth and Chatham libraries.
The allegations came to light when one librarian tipped off other libraries after she got a call from a man who spotted a book bearing the library’s markings on eBay.
Attorney Sam’s Take On Massachusetts Crimes Of Theft
Stealing something is illegal. It is theft. It is larceny.
“What if it is just a piece of junk?”
Yesterday, we discussed modern technology and how it helps the Commonwealth in its endless pursuit of….well…..you, if you happen to have a Massachusetts outstanding warrant.
When we left off, the question was posed of whether or not someone who is out of state, or out of country, can address an outstanding warrant without physically showing up in the Massachusetts courthouse from which it was ordered.
The answer is, as it is with most things in the criminal justice system, it depends.
In fact, this opens us to a discussion of the other side of the coin…how modern technology can actually help the defense…assuming the particular defense attorney knows how to use it.
Attorney Sam’s Take On Ways In Which We Use Technology To Help Our Clients
Today, it is easier than ever to represent clients who are either in another state or even another country. Naturally, it is no longer a hassle calling long distance numbers any longer. That is not news.
For years, sending faxes has been commonplace. However, technology has taken us further than that.
The telephone, of course, is no longer the only ways in which we are able to keep in close touch with far away clients. There is email. There is texting. There are programs like “Skype”. We routinely use devices to keep in close touch with clients wherever those clients may be. Need a document? Well, we can either fax it or scan it into the computer and email it. No problem.
“Well, back to the issue of the outstanding warrant, Sam. It is great that you can talk to me if I am out of the country, but can you resolve the outstanding warrant without my having to come back to the States and risk being arrested at Customs?”
It’s likely that, at this moment, there is a man sitting in prison, craving sound legal advice, and thinking to himself, “Maybe I shouldn’t have been trafficking heroin on Interstate 93 … with illegal tints.”
A routine traffic stop by Trooper Daniel Dorion, triggered by overly tinted windows, became an incredible discovery. In Andover, Massachusetts on Saturday, August 18, 2012, at around 5pm, Dorion pulled over a blue Chrysler Voyager. The vehicle’s windows made it impossible for the trooper to see who was driving the car. Dorion explained this to the motorist.
The driver’s response?
He had no idea how dark his windows were.
“Too dark,” would have sufficed as a reply.
The Massachusetts tint law has been in effect since 1985. Windows must allow more than 35% of light in all sedans, vans, and SUVs. Non-reflecting tint is allowed on the top six inches of the windshield. The windows of the Chrysler in question completely blacked out the interior.
Upon request, the motorist submitted his identification. A license? Of course not. Who needs that when being pulled over? Instead, he provided a Maine State ID that identified him as Francis Rosario Caraballo. He also produced an identification card from Puerto Rico that appeared counterfeit to Trooper Dorion. The trooper then asked about the woman sitting in the passenger seat.
The driver’s response?
He had no idea who the woman in the car with him was.
The motorist said he had merely been ordered to pick the woman up from Jamaica Plain and Continue reading
Through my various Attorney Sam Take blogs, I have tried to inform you of the realities of the criminal justice system. For the most part, I have concentrated on the participants, policies and statute involved. You should know, however, that what those participants do, and how criminal statutes are enforced, have changed over recent years due to technology.
We have discussed that modern technology has made it easier for law enforcement to share information regarding crimes and the people who allegedly commit them. As a case is pending, a person’s CORI is updated and so outside agency’s can access the information. Further, when someone is convicted of a crime, that conviction is also reflected in the CORI. Through the computers, it is easier for that information to haunt you.
Likewise, if you are convicted of an offense which can effect your driver’s license, the Registry of Motor Vehciles is notified through the same system and so takes whatever action it decides to make.
However, it does not end there.
I am often contacted by people who decided at some point not to join in the festivities of their court dates at some point. Sometimes, they stay local and hope to fade into the wood work. Often, they leave the Commonwealth, or even the country, in expectatuion that the court has bigger fish to fry than them and so will simply dismiss the case. They are wrong.
While there may be bigger fish…the criminal justice hook in you remains.
When you do not appear for a court date, a default warrant is issued in your name. This is an arrest warrant which, at some point, will come back to haunt you. Maybe the police will come a-knockin’ at the worst possible time. Sometimes you will be stopped for some motor vehcile infraction and then the warrant comes up and you find yourself arrested and brought back to court.
The same is true if you try to get or renew a driver’s license. Whether you are in the Commonwealth or in another state, the Massachusetts outstanding warrant is likely to come up and you will, at the very least, be denied the license.
Most people understand that this will happen if they stay local. They seem to think that, by leaving the state, the defeault warrant cannot touch them.
Again, this is a misconception.
Continue reading
You have no doubt been following the case of the 26-year-old lad shot and killed by Boston police officers earlier this week. His name has now been revealed by his apparent stepfather as Burrell Ramsey-White. We will simply refer to him as the “Deceased”.
As you probably already know, the Deceased was being pursued by the Boston officers on Tuesday night. According to law enforcement, the officers “followed” the Deceased into the South End. There, the Deceased is alleged to have run from a traffic stop, refused to drop a gun and then pointed it at officers. The officers say they fired a single round into the Deceased’s chest and he died.
Some folks, however, have their doubts.
“No doubt. My son’s not a gun-toter,” said Paul Sheffield, who identified himself as the Deceased’s step-father.
Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis (he of “I don’t know what happened, but I can tell it was gang related” fame from last week) said that he didn’t have details of what prompted the traffic stop which began the confrontation between officers and the Deceased. However, he was able to add that the Deceased had been at a Roslindale house party on Canterbury Street earlier this month where 34-year-old Jemald Allen was shot and killed. Now, Commissioner Davis says he “can’t say” if the Deceased had been involved in that shooting, but, you know…just sayin’…
Well, Mr. Sheffield feels that he can say that the Deceased had nothing to do with that shooting. However, he claims that the police were really investigating the Deceased for that murder. “They followed him and they chased him,” he claimed.
Hmm. Need more dirt of suspicion thrown onto the Deceased which Commissioner Davis “can’t say” means anything?
No problem.
Davis also announced that the Cadillac the Deceased had been driving had been used by a different man who had been arrested Saturday night on Maxwell Street on charges including heroin possession. The police are investigating whether there is any connection between the men.
Yes, that must be important to understand while figuring out why the police shot the Deceased.
Continue reading
Andrew J. Myers is in a great deal of trouble.
He lives in Worcester County’s Whitinsville Village
He leads a Boy Scout troop, teaches in the Northbridge school system and has served on its school committee.
He is a 34-year-old attorney who is hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”.
The Defendant appeared for his initial appearance in Boston’s United States District Court today. He was arrested at his home and brought to the federal court. He has been charged with possessing child pornography and for allegedly enticing children into performing sex acts over the Internet.
The investigation involved both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as the Larimer County sheriff’s office in Colorado. The authorities in Colorado contacted the Northbridge police concerning a complaint that a 12-year-old boy in Colorado had been communicating via e-mail and Skype with a 33-year-old man. The man, they said, was identified as “Myers”. Assistance was sought in the investigation and so local authorities complied.
So did federal authorities.
Continue reading
A Massachusetts Administrative Judge, Cheryl Jacques (hereinafter, thru “Defendant”), should be a bit relieved today. West Newton District Court Judge Dyanne J. Klein has allowed a motion made by the prosecution to dismiss the criminal charges against her. In fact,
The Defendant’s attorney announced, “I know that Judge Jacques is gratified that this is behind her…The Pack ‘N Play case as a criminal matter is over. It never should have been in criminal courts to begin with. It’s too ridiculous for words.”
You may be wondering what this case was all about. The criminal charge of larceny (theft) by false pretense had been brought against the Defendant. The complainant, Tracey Christopher, a 39-year-old woman from Sudbury, sought the criminal charge, claiming that the Defendant deceived her when selling her a used all-purpose baby playpen on Craigslist for $75.
The crux of the criminal action was that Ms. Christopher complained that she did not receive all that was due her in the purchase. A vibrating device designed to calm babies was apparently missing.
Continue reading
Well, the bad news from Boston’s law enforcement is that, despite all the information and conclusion of “gang activity” in connection with the killings of three females a little over a week ago…nobody has been arrested. On the other hand, Boston can now turn to the city of Cambridge as the latest media-worthy example of criminal repetition.
The matter(s) come from the campus of Harvard University. The school is scrambling to increase its security after two separate rapes were reported within the same week.
As one might imagine, the rapes are on the minds of those on campus, from students to tourists.
The first rape allegedly took place on August 10th as the woman entered the yard through Johnston Gate. Then, four days later, another woman reported being raped in the area of Oxford and Kirkland streets, near the school’s science center.
There is now a noticeable police presence on the campus, from cruisers to plainclothes officers, to uniformed officers and security guards.
The August 10th incident “was the first stranger rape we reported in over 12 years,” said Steven Catalano, public information officer for the Harvard University Police Department, referring to a sexual assault by someone unknown to the victim. He also reported that “We’re in the preliminary stages of the investigation, but the suspect descriptions do not match.”
Continue reading
Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog