Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

July 31, 2012

MASSACHUSETTS RAPE ACCUSATIONS AND PRIVACY RIGHTS

Attorney Sam returns to you today on the heels of a fairly long jury trial. I tell you this for two reasons. The first is by way of explanation as to why there were no blogs posted by me last week and yesterday’s blog is being posted today. As you know, my first responsibility must be to my clients and trial, which is basically war in the criminal justice trenches, takes a great deal of attention.

The second reason I share my recent battles is to tell you that the relationship between trial and discovery is ever-fresh in my mind.

We left off discussing what the Commonwealth can do to prevent the defense from getting discovery.

We have discussed the “why”. Now the “how”.

You might think, given our presumption of innocence and all, that the defendant’s right to a fair trial would be sacrosanct when it comes to preparing for and even conducting the trial. Well, the truth is that the defendant’s rights are not all that is considered. Weighed against that, rather heavily I might add, are the rights of other witnesses, particularly the complainant.

“You mentioned this last time, Sam. You wrote about the Commonwealth’s concern for the complainant’s safety.”

Yes, but that is not the only concern. You see, at least until we are defendants, we all have certain rights to privacy. This is a right of the complainant’s that can often prohibit a defendant’s right to discovery and, at times, a fair trial.
Continue reading

July 21, 2012

IS YOUR BOSTON CRIMINAL LAWYER ABLE TO BE READY FOR YOUR TRIAL?

by Samuel Goldberg

You probably do not need an Attorney Sam’s Take to tell you that, for trial, preparation is necessary. In fact, it is vital.

Nor should you need an experienced Boston criminal lawyer to tell you that the preparation for trial begins at inception of the case. After all, the defense is already behind the eight ball. This is because the prosecution knew that it was bringing the charges, knew about whatever investigation was going on, has spoken to its witnesses and has written up all of its reports. It knows with those reports say. The defense does not until the reports are given over.

In felony cases, there is also the grand jury minutes. As we have discussed, prosecutors put witnesses in front of a grand jury to get an indictment. Therefore, the prosecutors know what was said in the grand jury. The defense does not know until the grand jury minutes are handed over. In fact, in many cases, the defense does not even know who testified before the grand jury until those documents are handed over in discovery.

Earlier in the week, we discussed a matter in which it seemed that witnesses for the prosecution were actually some nice folks who dodged the bullet of prosecution by cooperating with the prosecution. Otherwise they might have been defendants. The defense was seeking documents which would reflect what, if any, deals were made with these witnesses which convinced them to join the “good guys”. After all, it was clearly evident that these witnesses were given some kind of a deal because they were given immunity from prosecution. So the question the game what were the details of the deal?

Obviously, an important question.

iIt would seem a simple deduction, then, that this information would be promptly given over to the defense so that the defense may investigate the statments made and the motivation of these prosecution witnesses.

Only fair, right?.

In the land of Fairytale Justice, where the prosecution is simply looking to find and express the truth, there would be no question as to whether the prosecutors would give this information over right away.

in my quarter century of experience in criminal law, I have not yet found any courthouse located in the jurisdiction of Fairytale Justice. I have handled cases in many other jurisdictions, however. All of these seem to be rooted in the strange world of Reality.
Continue reading

July 18, 2012

MASSACHUSETTS WHITE COLLAR CASE PRESENTS BATTLES ABOUT IMMUNITY AND GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

by Samuel Goldberg

You have probably heard the old saying, “Hey, it’s only business”. The adage used to be used when one person got the better of a “friend” in business. No matter how ugly any deception would be, the rationalization was, “It isn’t personal…it’s just business“.

Usually the person on the winning end had an easier time accepting the notion than the losing party.

Today’s story reflects on a new version that you might be hearing soon. It would go, “Hey, it’s not personal…it’s just liberty.”

It would be particularly useful when trusted comrades turn on each other when facing the long end of the prosecutorial gun armed with years of potential incarceration.

Today’s case in point involves former Probation Commissioner John “Jack” O’Brien and two of his “most trusted lieutenants”. They have apparently struck a deal with the prosecution in which they have been granted immunity from prosecution in return for their testimony at trial. Against said former pal..

Trials in both Massachusetts state and federal court.

You see, O’Brien, who retired as commissioner in 2010, pleaded not guilty last September to bribery and conspiracy charges in connection with the 2005 fundraiser for Cahill he’s accused of stocking with probation employees in exchange for his wife’s Lottery job. The event is said to have brought in more than $11,000 for Cahill. In March, it was announced that O’Brien had been indicted on RICO conspiracy and mail fraud charges by a federal grand jury for currying favor with legislators in exchange for keeping their department’s budget flush with state money.

In these types of cases, former friends can make important witnesses. In this case, said friends are Edward P. Ryan, O’Brien’s liaison to legislators, and Francis M. Wall his deputy commissioner.
Continue reading

July 16, 2012

ATTORNEY SAM’S TAKE ON MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES, AND OTHER CRIMINAL LIABILITIES

by Samuel Goldberg

When we left off last week, the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog was discussing what other charges, and what other potential defendants, might exist in the continuing debacle of the Penn. State sexual assault scandal.

First, an admission about which you know. I do not practice in the state of Pennsylvania. I am a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer. Therefore, since Massachusetts and federal law are the areas in which I practice, let’s theoretically move Penn State to Massachusetts for purposes of today’s blog.

We have examined many instances wherein the prosecution decides that a criminal matter is so bad, or, at least, news worthy, that one defendant is not enough. Because things do not usually happen in a vacuum, the theory of “being our brother’s keeper” is often given prosecutorial teeth in such instances. While in the past, blame for allowing an environment in which the criminal actions could take place with impunity was dealt with in civil litigation.

However, as we have also discussed, those days are in the past.

When dealt with in civil litigation, the bedrock of negligence cases is a duty owed to someone…usually, the alleged victim. This is not to say that the theory of negligence is the only potential basis for civil cases, but let’s limit it to that for this posting. After all, this is not the Boston Civil Lawyer Blog, it is the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog. Besides, the good folks at Altman & Altman, LLP. Have a number of civil law related blogs.

In a situation such as Sandusky’s crimes, clearly a duty was owed to the kids who were brought onto campus. Said duty would be even clearer if the victims were actually students of the University. In any event, when reports were made about observations made of potential sexual assaults, certain people in charge had the responsibility under the law to try to, at the very least, prevent it from happening again.
Continue reading

July 14, 2012

ATTORNEY SAM’S TAKE ON THE PENN. STATE REPORT ABOUT THE SANDUSKY SEXUAL ASSAULT SCANDAL

by Samuel Goldberg

The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has been discussing many instances wherein matters which used to be handled without the threat of imprisonment are now pulled into the criminal courts. Whether they should or not, of course, depends on your point of view. I don’t think many people will shed tears with this one, though, as it ripens to fruition.

According to the new investigation, Penn State University’s top officials, including head football coach Joe Paterno, failed to protect the children who were sexually abused by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

“Hey, Sam, don’t you mean ‘alleged’?”

Well, after a rather large amount of evidence, fairly lame defense and jury verdicts of “guilty”, I am willing to go out on a limb here and leave that particular word out. This is not to say I have any inside knowledge as to Sandusky’s guilt or innocence. I do not.

In the meantime, Sandusky remains a guest of the state awaiting sentencing on 45 charges of sexually abusing 10 boys over a period of 15 years. Soon enough, he will be sentenced. So, his part in this story is pretty well over. Now, it is the question of who else has the proverbial blood on their hands.

According to the investigation, there is enough of said blood to go around.

In a letter accompanying the release of the report Thursday morning, former FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that, “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized…” The officials “…never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest.”

The translation of this being that there was never any concern until after the curtain of deniability was ripped away by public exposure.

Not that they didn’t try to keep it concealed even then…
Continue reading

July 12, 2012

20 TARGETS ARRESTED IN LARGE THREE-YEAR DRUG INVESTIGATION NOW HEAD TO BOSTON’S FEDERAL COURT FOR DETENTION HEARINGS

by Samuel Goldberg

It would appear that it is that time again…time for a new fancy named police operation. This time, the target is the drug trade. This time it yielded at least 20 defendants. This time, it was “Operation Rodeo”. Here is Attorney Sam’s take on it.

Operation Rodeo was a three-year-long probe into alleged drug trafficking which is said to have stretched from Springfield to Lawrence. According to law enforcement, this criminal investigation was sparked by the discovery of $2.7 million in a tractor-trailer. The operation was spearheaded by the Drug Enforcement Administrating (“DEA”). It targeted 39 individuals all together. On Monday, 20 of those targeted were arrested. They are expected to all have appeared in Boston’s federal court today and tomorrow.

The 97-page affidavit which was filed with the court indicates that this was a multi-pronged investigation which targeted alleged stash houses and drug dens in Lawrence, Haverhill, Springfield, Billerica and Charlestown. Law Enforcement adds that the probe’s primary target, Julio Vincente, moved massive amounts of cocaine and heroin throughout Eastern Massachusetts using these locations. The alleged drug conspiracy was not limited to Massachusetts, but also involved other locations, such as Rhode Island and Mexico.

According to Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley, this was the Hub’s biggest drug takedown in the last decade.

You may be wondering how such an investigation happens.

According to the affidavit filed with the court, DEA agents used a series of wiretaps, which apparently brought them to a restaurant owner, whom they claim to be a middleman, who was allegedly shipping cocaine from Mexico and distributing them to other dealers. The wiretap came into being when, in June, 2009, when state police tailed another unidentified target, who brought two “heavily weighted” suitcases to a Woburn hotel, where police later stopped a tractor-trailer with Florida plates and found $2,714,440. Said target, whose name has been redacted by law enforcement, led police to a “stash location” in Methuen where police found another soon-to-be defendant and, in various seizures, more than $1.1 million in alleged drug proceeds.

The complex investigation grew to identify runners and other dealers, leading to a series of traffic stops that produced 24 kilos in a van out of New York in July 2011, 400 grams in a December 2011 stop and another 130 kilos in another stop in June, the affidavit reads.

Each of the 20 defendants arrested face charges of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilos of cocaine and a kilo or more of heroin.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Search, Seizure And Drug Conspiracies

“

How do all these alleged conspirators get caught like this? It must be true that criminals are not very bright.”

July 10, 2012

Raid Targets Alleged Drug Ring in Boston Area

by Altman & Altman

Juan Guzman, accused of running a multimillion-dollar drug ring from behind bars, has been arrested along with his sister and about a dozen others accused of being connected to the operation. On Monday, 100 Boston police officers and FBI agents moved in just after dawn in about twelve different locations across Boston, Milton and Canton. In doing so, they dismantled one of the largest drug investigations in Boston in over a decade.

Authorities seized about $500,000 and a large amount of cocaine, the exact quantity of which is still being calculated. Officials have described the organization as “highly organized” and “violent,” linking them to a number of incidents-including a triple homicide that occurred in 2010-within the Boston area.
Continue reading

July 9, 2012

MBTA TRUCK COLLIDES WITH MOVIE TRUCK OUTSIDE ROXBURY MUNICIPAL COURT-CRIMINAL CHARGES TO FOLLOW?

by Samuel Goldberg

No, the upcoming Sandra Bullock new movie, filmed in Boston, is not, “The
Trouble With Parked Trucks”. It was an accident.

This morning’s vehicular incident outside Roxbury Municipal Court brings certain
criminal justice issues to mind. well, at least to my mind. I suppose that
grants me enough reason to give you Attorney Sam’s take on it.

The MBTA bus smashed into the movie production truck while the latter was parked
outside the courthouse.

There were approximately 20 people on board the Route 28 bus. 15 people
were examined by emergency medical personnel and 4 were placed on back boards.
At least four ambulances were dispatched to the scene.

Normally, parked vehicles have the “right of way” I believe. Given that people
were injured, you may be sure that some personal injury lawsuits will be
forthcoming. Given that one of the vehicles was parked at the time, a criminal
investigation and criminal charges may well be brought as well.

It has not been a particularly good month thus far for vehicular tragedies. For
example, one very young girl was killed on route 1 in Saugus recently.

Massachusetts is not alone, however. In Bottineau, North Dakota, there was such
a tragic accident this past Sunday.
Continue reading

July 6, 2012

ATTORNEY SAM’S TAKE ON THE REMAINDER OF MASSACHUSETTS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

by Samuel Goldberg

It is impossible to tell you all you need to know about Massachusetts domestic violence cases in just three short blogs. Perhaps I will write a book on the subject (solicitations anyone?). However, here are a few other tidbits that most people do not consider which this Boston criminal lawyer things you should know:

Clearly, if, in a “lover’s spat”, one such lover physically assaults another, that is a crime which should be reported. However, many people these days seem to think that calling the police and embellishing a bit is a neat way to win an argument. “After all”, they figure, “tomorrow morning I will tell the police and the court to forget about it.”

Hopefully by now, you have gotten the message that it does not work that way. If there is no legal marriage between the accused and accuser, then there is no spousal privilege. This means that the Commonwealth, which now has decided that what you originally said took place is the truth will not be detoured simply because you have changed your mind. As if they have blinders on, the original statement was the truth and if the complainant is changing that narrative, then she must be lying now. In any event, the Commonwealth will proceed to trial and force you onto the stand.

“What if I change my story to the truth on the stand?”

You will likely be threatened with a host of crimes ranging from intimidation of a witness to perjury.

“Well, what should I do if I am in that position?”

My advice is that you should contact an experienced attorney to help you out of it. And, by the way, I would not suggest doing it again.

Of course, if you have kids living with you and your beloved, then you have two nightmares to deal with. There is the criminal prosecution as well as the investigation, services and hearings of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). Because there are kids living at a scene wherein the Commonwealth believes violence took place, they will launch into action out of a stated desire to save the child. However, like their prosecutorial counterparts, they will likely believe the original allegations as well. In fact, should you tell them that the allegations were not true during the investigation, they may actually indicate that such an opinion may be grounds to take additional action which could lead to the removal of the child at the home.

“What if I didn’t make the allegations, but the child, or someone else, did and I know it is not true?”

July 4, 2012

ATTORNEY SAM’S TAKE ON THE CONTINUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

by Samuel Goldberg

Hello and happy July 4th! I hope you are enjoying the celebration of liberty.

In celebration of the festivities, the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog is discussing one instance where a number of people lose their freedoms and both they and, often, their complainants are shocked about the process.

On Monday, we began discussing Massachusetts domestic violence cases. When we left off, our fantasy couple, Lilly and Lou Loud had had a rather loud verbal argument which the neighbors overheard. The neighbors called the police. Police came, the Louds denied that anything violent was going on and Lou ended up with criminal charges nonetheless. That is where we left off.

The question on the table was what was likely to happen next in today’s Commonwealth criminal justice system.

We established that Lou was going to be going to arraignment and have the criminal charge entered onto his criminal record.

“Sam, you established that Lou was not entitled to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. Is there any way to prevent the arraignment so that the charge does not get entered upon his record?”

He does not have an absolute right to the hearing. However, as in the case with comic book heroes, when they are looking certain death in the eyes and it seems like the end, “There’s just one chance! If I can just…!”

I am constantly surprised that more criminal defense lawyers do not even make an attempt to save their client’s record at this point. I do. You see, in our scenario, Lilly Loud is on her husband’s side. She has been saying all along that no crime was committed.

“So, she can just stand up in court, explain it all to the judge and the arraignment will not take place?”