by

Perhaps this posting should be entitled, “let’s put it this way…”. But then, I am a lawyer, so folks expect me to do things like answer a simple yes or no question with a 157 word response.

We have discussed the effects of public opinion on the criminal justice system many times. A couple of days ago, I was talking to a client about what might happen during a hearing and an old tried-but-true term leapt out of my mouth and into the telephone. By the time my brain caught up with it, I realized how descriptive it was of the judicial system, particularly when it comes to criminal justice .

And so it was that this Boston criminal lawyer rediscovered the concept of “the path of least resistance”.

In a nutshell, those five words capture the issue about which we so often speak. In this circumstance, consider public opinion to be the resistance indicated. The so-called path would be the path a case takes. Sometimes, that path is straight and well-paved. Sometimes, however, it is very windy and has many obstacles, holes, hills and other debris. This debris can be seen to slant and obscure parts of the path because of opinion, misunderstandings and prejudice. In short, the “resistence” is the media response.

After all, what can you expect from a system which places human beings in charge of finding “truth”?

Well, of course, it is more than that. Our system has developed a handicap in its search. Namely, it has certain potential threats which often inspire fear-based decisions on what “truth” is. We have discussed these many times. It is that “what if” complex involving the next day’s media accounts.

The perception of public opinion was never meant to decide criminal cases. That was supposed to be done by cool and fair-minded deliberation…not mob mentality. However, today, we are living in the era of intolerance and pre-supposing what the truth “must be”. Judges are investigated if they seem too pro-defendant (a bias on the other side is no problem). Parole Boards are disbanded and shamed if they release someone and something goes wrong. Politicians, including those involved in criminal justice, are “soft on crime” weaklings should they not show an assumption of guilt while we congratulate ourselves for having a presumption of innocence.

And so, we come to the criminal justice definition of following the path of least resistance. In other words, “What decision can I make that will not get me in trouble or even cost me my job?”

Unfortunately, it can be summed up in one word…”guilty”.
Continue reading

by

We discussed this case during its trial. You may recall the criminal trial of Mr. Dharun Ravi, 2 years of age and hereinafter, the “Defendant”.

Initially, he was accused of bullying because he used a webcam to spy on his Rutgers roommate kissing another man. Shortly after learning about the recording, the roommate, 18-year-old Tyler Clementi committed suicide.

The tragedy was met by calls for the Defendant’s hide as his “cyber-bullying” was considered responsible for the death. There were even pronouncements of ‘murder” being bandied about.

Throughout my years as a Boston Criminal Lawyer, I have warned my clients that it is not really the conclusions made at the inception of a criminal investigation or arrest that will determine the result; it is generally what happens by the time the matter gets to trial. Indeed, things changed a bit by the time the Rutgers case went to trial.

At trial, the prosecution made it clear that it was not holding the Defendant responsible for his roommate’s death. Further, the charges did not include homicide, cyber-bullying or even bullying.

Instead, now it was a hate crime. A hate crime because the Defendant invaded his roommate’s privacy in a way which intimidated him, all because of his bias against gay people. The big issue in the case? Whether or not the Defendant was indeed homophobic.

In March, the jury found the Defendant guilty. Now, the New Jersey judge has sentenced him.

The court sentenced the Defendant to 30 days in jail He also placed the Defendant on three years of probation. The judge declined imposing a stiffer prison term, which could have included up to 10 years in a stricter prison. He also did not recommend that the Defendant, a citizen of India, be deported. The Defendant was, however, also ordered to get counseling and to pay $10,000 toward a program to help victims of bias crimes.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Hate Crimes

The prosecutions of crimes that are regarded “hate crimes” underscore the fact that the j rules by which we live can and do change, depending on the circumstance.
Continue reading

by

The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has repeatedly told you that the participants of the criminal justice system…even the judges…are merely human beings. .

However, sometimes appropriate behavior for some folks is inappropriate for others.

For example,let’s say that, while driving home one evening, you saw someone who you believed to be a drunk driver plow into a tree. As the police respond to the scene, the driver gets out of his car and starts verbally accosting the tree with protests like, “Why don’t you watch where you are going?!”

Finding this behavior rather odd , you might decide to tweet or blog about the experience.

Now let’s add to the scenario that you are a Superior Court judge. Do you still think it is such a great idea to post the adventure?

In fact, it would not be. There is a standard for the behavior certain professions demand. It might seem “unjudicial” for a judge to be spouting off his or her views about such instances. Similarly, you would not expect a judge to start tweeting or blogging about behavior he witnessed attorneys engage in during court proceedings.

In a trial, be it civil or criminal, a jury is, in fact, a judge. Juries generally decide the facts-at-issue. This is why jury selection exists. While human beings do have their prejudices, it is important to do all that is possible to select those who can be fair and impartial in the case upon which they sit.
Continue reading

by

The Massachusetts jury is the subject about which we left off last week. As this week began, the subject matter has become fodder for not only the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, but also for the main media and Boston’s Appeals Court.

The immediate issue is, in some respects, a new one. Yet, the theory behind it is anything but new. However, the admonition I had given you in previous blogs comes to mind. Remember that all participants of the criminal justice system are merely human. That includes juries. When you add to the mix that people are, by nature, curious, and that most jurors try to “do justice”, the issue is inevitable.

Jurors in both civil and criminal trials are routinely told not discuss matters in which they are sitting and to avoid any publicity about said case. This is because the jurors, while still holding onto their common sense and life experience, are supposed to return a verdict based only on the evidence when was admitted in the case together with the law as the judge gives it to them.

Or, rather, their perception of those things, to be more realistic.

Anyway, in recent years, Massachusetts judges have added the existence of the internet stories and research to the laundry list of things jurors should avoid. Now, the Appeals Court has told judges that they need to do more to stop jurors from, not only researching, but also posting information about cases on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites.

The new instructions came in a recent ruling in a larceny case in which two jurors posted comments on Facebook, which then elicited sometimes derogatory responses from the jurors’ Facebook friends.

Examples?
Continue reading

by

The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog is often complaining that Constitutional rights and criminal justice incidentals like the presumption of innocence are often ignored once a person is accused of a crime. I stand by those complaints, but I often add the proviso that this tends to change somewhat when the matter goes to trial.

This is where these rights get taken a bit more seriously. Particularly after the trial if it appears something serious went wrong.

The case of Gary Lee Sampson (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) has hit the media again. The Defendant was accused, and convicted, of the murder of three people in Massachusetts and New Hampshire during a bloody killing spree.

After the jury found the Defendant guilty, it sentenced him to death. While the Death Penalty does not presently exist in Massachusetts state law, it still is very much alive in the federal justice system..

Before our government could kill the Defendant, however, a little bug in the criminal justice ointment came to light. There existed a real question as to whether the Defendant had received a fair trial.

After a hearing, Boston United States District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf found that a female juror, whom His Honor would only identify as “C”, “persistently committed perjury” when she did not disclose during jury selection that she had been a victim of domestic abuse. Had she simply been honest, Wolf said, “She would have been excused for cause.”

Today’s order affirms a decision Wolf made in October, and potentially lines Sampson up to be retried, but only to determine if he will be executed or condemned to a life behind bars.

“A second hearing to determine whether Sampson should live or die will be lengthy, expensive, and anguishing for the families of Sampson’s victims,” Wolf said. “It is, therefore, appropriate to give the First Circuit the opportunity to decide whether the decision that a second sentencing hearing is legally required is now appealable.”, Wolf wrote.

In other words, the prosecution could appeal the judge’s decision.
Continue reading

by

…And the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog begins the week with a bit of horror out of Burlington, Massachusetts.

According to authorities, Christopher Plantedosi (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) was the featured player in this particular piece of massive ugliness. He is said to have pursued his ex-girlfriend, Kristen Pulisciano, into their daughter’s bedroom and having stabbed her 34 times. The homicide was witnessed by someone who actually was not there.

The witness was someone with whom the daughter had been video chatting with on an iPad.

The details were delivered by the Commonwealth at the Defendant’s arraignment yesterday in Woburn District Court. The prosecutor explained that said witness both saw and heard portions of the attack, including Ms. Pulisciano pleading, “Chris, please stop, I love you,” and the Defendant saying, “You’re going to die.”

Ms. Pulisciano’s body was found at about 6:45 p.m. Thursday at her home on Forbes Avenue.

Prosecutor Nicole Allain gave more gruesome details. She argued that the Defendant showed up at the home at 6 p.m., while the 15-year-old-daughter was in her bedroom video chatting on an iPad with a friend. The girl heard her parents arguing in the kitchen and went to see what was wrong. Seeing her father with a knife, she asked, “What, are you trying to kill Mom?”

The cold answer was forthcoming.

The Defendant then chased Ms. Pulisciano, who fled to her daughter’s bedroom. The Defendant is said to have kicked down the door and attacked Ms. Pulisciano. The person the daughter had been video chatting with was still on the line as he plunged. It was not clear where the daughter was during the attack.

The Defendant is described as having used both a meat cleaver and a knife in the slaying, Allain said.

As background, the Commonwealth indicates that the Defendant and Ms. Pulisciano had a long-standing, live-in relationship that had recently become problematic. Over the course of their relationship, there had been prior allegations of violence made by Ms. Pulisciano against the Defendant. The Commonwealth also revealed that Ms. Pulisciano had tried to commit suicide in days prior to the attack and had been released from a mental health facility the day before the attack with prescriptions for antidepressants and sleeping pills.

Making the case just alittle more macabre, the Defendant was taken into custody at the Weston State Police barracks on Friday. At the time, he apparently had two handwritten notes describing details of the attack.

The Defendant was held without bail.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Domestic Violence, Murder And Insanity

In many ways, this seems to be the classic fact scenario which brought us to the point where we are today. I am referring to how serious any allegation, no matter how big or small, of domestic violence is treated by the Commonwealth. It is also why, in most cases, once the original complaint is made, prosecutors are extremely reluctant to drop charges when the complainant comes in and explains that she wants to withdraw the complaint.
Continue reading

by

One will never be successful in understanding the criminal justice system, be they lawyer or client, until the varying and conflicting perspectives are understood. The judge, police officer, prosecutor and defense attorney approach the same case from different viewpoints. Therefore, what is “right” to one is not necessarily “right” to the others.

It is therefore not usually a question of the somebody intentionally doing the
“wrong” thing. It is not a simple equation of good vs. bad. As such, testimony which conflicts with other testimony need not be a lie.

Ever play a game of “telephone”? We seldom witness and remember facts. We remember feelings and facts.

As much as math and I seldom get along, let’s put it thius way:

Feelings + facts = perspectives

The prosecutor assumes that the defense is guilty. After all, her witnesses, particularly police officers, said so. Police officers are held to a higher standard and so the assumption is they always live up to that standard and never lie, never mis-interpret.. They are never dishonest. The defendant, whether or not she can convince a jury, is, in fact guilty. Nothing else makes sense.

The defense attorney is charged with doing all he can, within ethical and legal guidelines, to defend the defendant. He cannot assume that the witnesses against his client are telling the truth if his client tells him that they are lying. Sure, a defense attorney has a gut reaction to that client as to how reliable he may be…but we are only human and humans tend to see what we want to see. After spending a certain amount of time in the system, one experiences instances where police officers are in fact undeniably lying. Not all. Not always. But it happens. A lot. But then, it is the officer’s word against yours…and who is going to believe you? You are a defense attorney!
Continue reading

by

He is not from Boston, but I am willing to bet that when Dominic Marrtucci (hereinafter, the “Deputy”) left home to go to work at Ohio’s Summit County Sheriff’s Office on April 10 or 11th, he did not go with the intent to do something stupid.

Or actionable, for that matter.

However, that is what he is alleged to have done. And as a result, he has lost his job.

According to pending allegations, the Deputy ordered five jail inmates to dance to a song by Usher in exchange for privileges such as using a phone or microwave, according to the sheriff’s office.

The inmates were apparently locked up in a disciplinary area. Every show needs an audience, of course, and so the Deputy is said to have invited colleagues to watch.

After the resulting internal investigation, the 35-year-old Deputy was fired this week as the show violated department policies by mistreating inmates, acting inappropriately and having a cellphone in the jail, apparently used to play the music.

According to reviews, one inmate did “the worm” as the Deputy played Usher’s “Yeah!” while another did the robot so that he could use a phone to contact relatives after a family member’s death. The internal report also claims that inmates were asked by the Deputy to do a “bump and grind” routine if they wanted a recently removed microwave returned to their unit.
Continue reading

by

Everybody is shocked. If you are a regular reader of the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, you shouldn’t be.

You know the dirty secret which everybody likes to ignore…to everybody’s detriment.

Let’s take this latest story as yet another example of said truth…

Allie, herein after referred to as “handgrip” does not want to be identified. Handgrip does, however, want to bring an allegation against law enforcement because of their handling of a Tea Party protest on the Boston Common. Specifically, handgrip is contemplating legal action against Boston police officer Vaden Scantlebury (heir after the “officer”) who was photographed with his hand around Handgrip’s throat.

Yes, Handgrip was a protester…while Handgrip could get the words out, that is. Handgrip indicates that Officer’s hand was used to push and not choke.

“He pushed me,” Handgrip explains. “I turned to him and said don’t push me. … Then he got angry. He grabbed me by the neck and then pushed me by the neck. He didn’t choke me.”

Boston police said they are scrutinizing the photo, which was taken by a 22-year-old college student, who uploaded it and other photographs of the event on the picture-sharing website Flickr.

“We need to review the totality of the circumstances and get a sense of what occurred before and after” the incident, Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said.

handgrip said Officer’s actions seemed inappropriate and the protester is considering legal action, although Handgrip was not specific.

Police arrested three people that Sunday at the Boston Common, where Tea Party activists, who had secured a permit to gather, clashed with counter-protesters, many of them representing the Occupy movement. At one point, several protesters charged the spot where Tea Party activists were speaking.

Handgrip said that He or she came to the rally to represent gays, lesbians, and transgender people.
Continue reading

by

In my last blog, I mentioned that we had an exclusive to reveal. At first, it may seem as though it has little to do with the criminal justice system. That, however, would be incorrect. I think the story to which it relates has a great deal to do with those who are supposed to be helping the blind lady hold the scales of Justice.

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, every member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee received a little gift. The gift contained a copy of the book Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision of World Peace by Peter Janney as well as a letter from Tony Lyons, the President Skyhorse Publishing, which published the book. The book is one which should and would, but for our complacency as a nation, prompt, severe and painstaking revisiting of our government and our “watchers”.

That sounds somber and too thought-provoking, especially in an election year, so, of course, that is not likely to happen. I am not running for public office, though, so I will bring the subject matter up to your attention and explain why it matters to you.

The letter contained a plea to the above recipients, as well as Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen, Jr. to open hearings regarding the 1964 murder case of Mary Pinchot Meyer.

The name of Mary Pinchot Meyer may, or may not, be familiar to you. She was a Washington artist who was also a mistress and confidante of the late President John F. Kennedy. This fact had already been established by previous publications. However, for reasons which are discoverable in the book, Mr. Janney was in a unique position to know Ms. Meyer and learn about the secrets behind her murder.

A murder, Janney’s evidence reveals, that was closely related to the murder of President Kennedy.

In fact, the painstakingly and detailed research reveals compellingly strong evidence that demonstrates the role of the CIA played in the 1964 murder of Ms. Meyer. Janney also demonstrates that Ms. was “terminated” by the CIA because of her intention to reveal what she knew about the role the Agency played in the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas eleven months earlier.

She was also about to debunk the results of the Warren Commission Report regarding the assassination and reveal , and subsequent cover- up that was then taking place.

Attorney Sam’s Take On The Presumption Of Honesty Of Our Law Enforcement Leaders

“Sam…not another book about the Kennedy assassination!”

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 © 2024, Altman & Altman LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design