by

Today, the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog finishes its three-part series on the mind-numbing issues surrounding the killing of unarmed Trayvon Martin (“Shot”) by George Zimmerman (the “Shooter”) in Florida.

Yesterday we concentrated on what Florida law enforcement must consider in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest the Shooter for any crime whatsoever. The fact that it was as close a call as it apparently is might have surprised some people.

Today we tackle what may be the most emotional issue of the whole thing. Certainly, it is the most explosive issue.

Was the killing of Shot a hate crime?

Not surprisingly, various news outlets report that opinions differ on the Shot killing by racial lines. Maybe. It is also clear that various political figures, including those who simply like to incite despite the fact that they have very-little-to-no credibility left have been quite vocal about this being a racial killing.

One would imagine that, as they decide how their criminal investigation will end, they need to decide whether probable cause exists that, if the Shooter committed any crime, was it racially motivated.

What do you think?

Attorney Sam’s Take On Hate Crimes

As you have seen, so-called “Hate Crimes” prosecutions seem to be on the rise throughout the country. Just recently, in New Jersey, a young man was found guilty by a jury of what the prosecution argued was a hate crime which led to the death of another young man.

This despite the fact that the prosecutor argued that the state was not holding the defendant in that case responsible for the death.

The argument was that the defendant did this hate crime because of his feelings about gay people because his roommate was, indeed, gay. The evidence, the prosecution argued, was various statements the defendant had made about whether or not he was comfortable having a gay roommate.
Continue reading

by

Hey…good news! If charged in the shooting death of unarmed Trayvon Martin (“Shot”), George Zimmerman (the “Shooter”) will voluntarily turn himself in! This was announced yesterday by his attorney.

For those of you out there who thought that this was a big step in solving the mind-bending issue of whether or not there was probable cause to arrest the Shooter, it wasn’t. It basically translates to, “Hey, you don’t have to come to get me and embarrass me buy cuffing me and dragging me into court”.

It is basically something I try to do for all of my clients as a Boston criminal lawyer when they are wise enough to retain me before the arrest actually comes. As discussed in the past, it not only helps with the upcoming bail hearing and trial, but it also creates less of a disruption in one’s life than being unexpectedly cuffed at home or at work and dragged into a cruiser.

But I digress.

We left off yesterday wondering whether or not there was probable cause to arrest the Shooter for…anything.

The answer might surprise you!

Attorney Sam’s Take On Probable Cause And What We Know

Yesterday, I discussed how probable cause is treated here in the Commonwealth. Here, it is quite a low standard. Further, “self-defense” is a defense that may be brought by the defendant…at trial. Generally, while the prosecution might be willing to entertain a plea deal for, say, manslaughter in such cases, the fact that this will be the defense seldom prevents actual charges being pressed in the first place.

However, Florida may be alittle different. After all, they do have laws which give greater protection to those who “stand their ground” when attacked as opposed to Massachusetts where one has the duty to try and flee (especially if the incident does not take place in his home). So, let’s check in with some applicable laws from Florida’s statutes…
Continue reading

by

The evidence seems to keep piling up for poor ol’ George Zimmerman (hereinafter, the “Shooter”) and, yet, there is still no law enforcement action about it. This man is getting benefits of the doubt that my clients would kill for.

No pun intended.

Let’s check in on the latest in the Trayvon Martin (hereinafter,”Shot”). See if you can find the missing piece of legal common sense before I reveal it.

As you know by now, on February 26,2012, the Shooter fired his gun into Shot, killing him.

According to the Shooter, he was on “patrol” on a neighborhood watch “detail” when he spied Shot walking around in the area. Apparently believing he had developed a keen sense in people-reading, the Shooter could just tell Shot did not belong in that area. Therefore, he was clearly a threat.

The Shooter called the police and reported the strange-seeming Shot. The police told him that they would handle it and not to follow him. And so, naturally, the Shooter followed him.

There was finally a confrontation between the two. The Shooter says that he kept asking Shot what he was doing there and Shot kept asking him why he was following him. The Shooter says that Shot assaulted him, without a weapon, and so the Shooter shot him. Dead.

Shot is no longer around to give his version of the facts. However, in this case, there is an unusual amount of independent evidence. No, I am not talking about the scores of people who knew Shot and insist that he would never attack anyone. I am not even talking about the myriad of politicians and publicity-seekers who are grabbing the spotlight to weigh in on a criminal matter about which they know little. I am referring to actual witnesses who heard what the shooting take place. I am talking about recordings which reflect what took place. And I am talking about pictures and video which do not seem to reflect what the Shooter claims took place.
Continue reading

by

There has been another attack in Cambridge.

The most recent assault involved a woman in her 20’s. She was attacked near the intersection of Ellery and Harvard Streets. Just one day earlier, and only three blocks away, another woman around the same age was knocked unconscious at the intersection of Kirkland and Trowbridge. The thief robbed her of her iPhone and purse.

Apparently, the attacks occurred at night when the women were walking alone. They were also both wearing headphones.

The police opine that the women were less alert to their surroundings because of their wearing of the blaring headphones. Further, they say that such earbuds alert potential thieves looking for high-priced electronics to steal.

Police are warning women walking alone at night not to be wearing headphones and to be aware of their surroundings.

Police also say they cannot be sure if the incidents involve the same attacker, but the victims’ descriptions are similar, to wit: a light skinned black or white man in his 30’s.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Being Careful Out There

This story, which led the news Wednesday morning, reminded me of two other fine, albeit somewhat old, pieces of media. Both were from television.
Continue reading

by

…So, I was talking with Dan Rea last night on WBZ, radio 1030 a.m. No, I was not a scheduled guest this time. I was simply a caller. I really could not help it. The subject matter, and the discussion of it, drew me out.

Mr. Rea and his callers were discussing the case of Onyango Obama, hereinafter, the “Defendant”. He is the half-brother of the president’s late father. It seems he was arrested in Framingham last August for Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol and associated crimes. Law enforcement claimed Obama made a rolling stop at a stop sign and nearly caused his cruiser to crash into the Defendant’s SUV. Then, the Defendant showed the poor judgment of agreeing to blow on the breathalyzer, which resulted in a finding of .14 blood alcohol. The legal limit for driving is .08 in the Commonwealth.

On Tuesday morning, the Defendant resolved the criminal matter by admitting that there were sufficient facts to find him guilty and received a Continuance Without A Finding. By agreeing to this result, the Defendant avoids pleading guilty to drunk driving and the charge will be dismissed, if he stays out of trouble for one year. There are various other incidental penalties, including the loss of his driver’s license for 45 days and he must $1,000 in fines and fees.

“By admitting to sufficient facts today to operating under the influence and failure to yield at an intersection, the defendant has admitted responsibility for the essence of the crime he committed and has now been held accountable for his actions,” District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement.

Of course, this OUI matter brought other problems to the Defendant’s doorstep. For example, it caught the attention of immigration investigators who claim he violated a 1992 order to return to Kenya.
Continue reading

by

Hmm… I wonder if you see a connection between two stories in yesterday’s news.

First of all, it seems that the number of Massachusetts prison inmates granted parole has dropped significantly this past year. You may recall that, during this year, the state Parole Board was overhauled in the wake of a paroled gentleman murdering a Woburn police officer after release.

According to prisoner advocacy groups, the number of inmates released on parole in 2011 was 435. In 2010, the number was 1,028.

Meanwhile, the new board is having problems of its own. It is dealing with a backlog which it conveniently blames on the prior Parole Board.

An example of the result of this backlog? Well, some inmates were actually granted parole by the parole board since last April. The only problem is that none of these inmates, nor their families, have been advised of that fact.

Don’t worry…the Board does not play favorites. Those whose pleas for parole were rejected have also not been so notified.

Prisoner advocates say the delays, coupled with stricter standards for releasing other inmates on parole, have contributed heavily to a 58 percent drop in the number of inmates who are released under parole supervision putting upward pressure on the state prison population.

“The total effect is more people in prison overall, and fewer people released under supervision,” said James R. Pingeon of Prisoners’ Legal Services, a group that provides representation to inmates. “It’s doubly bad.”

Now, the Parole Board chairman, recently-former Assistant District Attorney Josh Wall, defends his agency’s performance, arguing that the new board is simply being more careful while coping with a shortage of resources.

He attributed the delays in notifying inmates about their parole requests to a backlog of cases left by the previous board, more rigorous scrutiny of parole applications, and a staff shortage.
Continue reading

by

As the dust settles on last week’s verdicts, and non-verdicts, in the Mattapan Massacre Matter, we have had a few days to calm down and reflect. Assumptions abounded as the week came to a close last week and conclusions were drawn by many.

Hey, I got caught up in it too.

On Thursday, I was questioned on both WBZ, am, and WBUR, fm’s show “Radio Boston”. The latter interview you can hear here if you wish.

As you may recall, my assumption was, when we found out there was one hold-out juror, that the hold-out wanted an acquittal. Then, when I learned that the returned verdicts were all acquittals, I assumed that the hold-out was for convictions (which tends to be rare). As it turns out, the lone juror was indeed for acquittals. The jurors were basically torn between the defendants.

“So, is there anything we can glean from that?”

To some degree, yes. The jury seems to have not totally rejected Mr. Washington’s (hereinafter, the Witness”) testimony. However, most of the jurors were ready to use his testimony to help convict Mr. Moore (the defendant who received the mistrials).

The reactions to the jury verdict ranged from anguish to jubilation. Then, “experts” like us weighed in to read minds and foretell the future. Finally, some people declared that the trial’s results showed us that the system works.

In one respect, I would suggest that the proposition that the system “worked” is undeniable. Whether you agree with the results or not, it is clear that the jurors put thought into their votes. They took the time to dissect the evidence and, instead of delivering results in one fell swoop, they concentrated on each count. Finally, it would appear, that they stuck to their guns once they had come to a decision.

One thing that was remarkable, I thought, was when the jury came back at the end of the day Wednesday. It was clear that the judge was not going to send them back to deliberate if they continued to indicate that they were deadlocked. She asked them to think about it and get back to her if they thought it was any point to return the next day to try and continue.

I was sure that this was it. The end was coming by the end of the afternoon.

Instead, the jury panel decided to try some more.
Continue reading

by

I was walking down the street yesterday, thinking about the Mattapan Massacre case and wondering if the judge was going to discharge the jury by the end of the day. Suddenly, I looked across the street and happened to notice somebody who seemed odd.

You know what I mean? The type of guy you can’t really put your finger on what is “wrong”…but you just know that something is.. For example, he looked like he had headphones on and he was bobbing his head back and forth. That might have been ok…but his head was not really bobbing to any type of beat I had ever heard before.

He was dressed in clothes that might make it very difficult to identify him. He was wearing a “hoodie” sweatshirt and dark jeans. His hands were in his pockets as he walked.

The guy also looked out of place. I knew this neighborhood and it was a very affluent area. Most of the folks who live there are white. I could not tell what race this guy was…but his skin did seem darker and…like I say…he did not look “right”.

Naturally, I called the police from my cell phone. They said that they would look into it. However, I didn’t see any cops around at the time and so I couldn’t be sure they would get there before the guy disappeared.

The police told me not to follow him.

I followed him.

Finally, he turned to me and confronted me. He asked me why I was following him.

I asked him what he was doing here.

He repeated his question and I repeated mine.

This kid clearly had an attitude.

I tried to frighten him into submission. I shoved him a little. Not too much, but enough to show him that I meant business.

The jerk looked like he was about to strike back.

So, I shot him.

In self-defense.

He died.

You don’t suppose that somebody is going to charge me with any crime do you?

What do you mean “homicide“?
Continue reading

by

Well, more information came out regarding the presently hanging jury in the Manhattan Massacre murder matter.

Yesterday, when I posted the Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, I was unaware of the breakdown of the split in the jury panel. Word has it that there is one lone juror who is holding out from the rest of them in the remaining criminal charges.

So what happens now?

“Sam, isn’t this that situation like in the movie 12 Angry Men, where one lone juror is the holdout for “not guilty” and, finally, one by one, all the other jurors come see things his way?”

In Movieland, yes. In reality, probably not.

“So what then? The other jurors come and beat him into submission?”

No, not that either. We would see another criminal case coming out of that…bullying to say the least.

“Do we know what the problem is…what the jurors are arguing about?”

We do apparently. Yesterday, the jury indicated that it might help the deadlock if the judge were to give them, again, the definition of “reasonable doubt”. Therefore, I would imagine that the definition of reasonable doubt is the hang-up.

“

Well does that tell us anything?”

Yes, I think it does.

Obviously, either one or eleven jurors, to some degree, believe the case as the Commonwealth presented it. The remainder is not convinced enough. That remainder are saying that the defendants’ guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hence, there is a disagreement in the jury room as to what “reasonable doubt” means
The debate as to what reasonable doubt means is not new. It is a bit of a confusing standard and it is kind of “squishy” in definition. It is not exact. It boils down to a doubt to which you can attach a reason. Of course, that reason has to be a reasonable reason.

For this case, let me give you a couple of examples. In my opinion, it would be unreasonable for the reasonable doubt to be that the government’s witness is a involved in a conspiracy lead by aliens from another planet who wish to take over the earth and the railroading of the defendants is merely a step in said scheme.. A reasonable doubt would be not believing the witness because he’s a liar and a rat and the physical evidence contradicts what he says.

Of course, that’s just my opinion.

I doubt that the issue here is an extra terrestrial conspiracy. My guess is that it involves the Commonwealth’s chief witness in the issues that we’ve discussed over the last couple of weeks.

“Given your experience, if you had to guess, what do you think is going on here?”

Continue reading

by

Last week, the jury in the Mattapan Massacre Murder Matter began its deliberations.

Yesterday, they announced that they had reached a decision. Sort of.

The jury charged with deciding the case against the two men accused in the 2010 Mattapan massacre (hereinafter, the “Defendants”) has reached a verdict on 10 of the 19 charges submitted to it. However, they claim to be deadlocked on the remaining 9. According to the Commonwealth, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Christine McEvoy sent the jury home for the rest of the day, but they are to return this morning. The judge is likely to give the jurors additional jury instructions that are reserved for this type of situation.

The verdicts that have been decided have been sealed and not published.

You must know the story of the Mattapan Massacre by now. The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog spent a great deal of time on it last week. Basically, it is called one of the worst homicides in the city’s recent history. In what is described as a drug deal gone sour, four people were killed on September 28, 2010. Two of these people were a mother and her 2-year-old son. A Fifth person was shot and seriously injured.

The Commonwealth’s star witness was a gentleman (hereinafter, the “Gentleman”) who admitted to being one of three guys, the Defendants being the other two, who went to rob the victims who ended up being shot. He claimed to have left , though, before the shooting began. The Commonwealth made a deal with the Gentleman to testify for it against the Defendants in return for a deal which saved him from facing life in prison without the chance for parole. Of course, other evidence in the case , including physical evidence, seemed to refute the Gentleman’s testimony…but that did not seem to disturb the Commonwealth.

After all, the Gentleman said he was not there for the shooting…and, heck almighty man, why would he fib? He may have even promised…!

Of course, that is a dead horse that we kicked pretty well during the trial.

While the jury have not asked any questions, they did request a printed copy of Judge Christine McEvoy’s legal instructions for deliberations.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Mistrials And Mixed Verdicts

Ok, first of all, what do we know about yesterday’s jury development?
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