Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

On a Friday night in February, 2013 RW, a 25 year old cop from Maine, and his girlfriend came to Boston for an evening on the town. They visited several bars and by the end of the night RW was quite drunk. At about 1:15AM on Saturday morning RW found himself under arrest for Assault & Battery on his girlfriend. RW retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin obtained a copy of the Boston Police 911 Call Recording. of RW's girlfriend's call to the police. On the recording she is crying and in a panic. She tells the police that RW grabbed her by the throat and pushed her head against a wall. In the background RW can be heard shouting andf swearing at her. The recording was awful. The 911 operator kept the girlfriend on the line and within 2 minutes the Boston Police arrived in person on the scene and arrested RW.

RW made no statements to the police. He was booked and subsequently released. He went home and took pictures of his neck and right hand. His neck had scratches on it and his right hand hand bite marks on it. The police report stated that the girlfriend had no visible injuries.This put the case in a very different light. The photographs and the injuries to RW raised the issue that the girlfriend had assaulted RW and thus the girlfriend had a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself and thus not to testify.

On Friday, May 3, 2013 RW and Attorney Lewin appeared in the Boston Municipal Court, Central Division (Downtown Boston). The case was called and RW and Attorney Lewin answered ready for trial. The girlfriend did not appear at Court. Attorney Lewin moved to dismiss the case and Judge ordered the case dismissed. RW was fortunate that he had taken the pictures of his injuries.

On February 28, 2013 JC, a 42 year old man had an itch that needed to be scratched. He got in his car and was driving around Dorchester and stopped at an intersection. He saw a lady of the night on the sidewalk and waived her over. She got in his car. They drove to a convenient store; she got out of the car and went in and bought some condoms. She came out of the store and got back in his car. Unbeknownst to him and her there were two undercover Boston cops who were following her as she was well known to the police. They followed JC's car and it finally pulled over on a dark street. The cops waited for several minutes and then approached JC's car. JC had his pants down; the lady had her skirt up and was performing oral sex on JC. The cops banged on the window and told JC and the lady to get dressed. The two got dressed and at the officers' directions exited the car. The lady told the cops that she was a good businessperson and she wanted to give JC back his $40 for unfinished business. JC told the cops that she could keep it, but it was $100 not $40. The lady, having a lengthy criminal record for prostitution, was arrested. JC, having no criminal record, was let go but was told he would receive a notice to go to Court. Subsequently JC received a Notice of Hearing on an Application for Criminal Complaint for Offering Money for Sex from Dorchester District Court. JC retained Attorney Robert Lewin.

Recently the Boston Police have been cracking down on online prostitution and they (and the DA's Office and the Court) have taken a harsher approach in the online prostitution cases. This case was an old-fashioned prostitution case. Attorney Lewin contacted the Boston Police and prior to the Clerk-Magistrate's hearing Attorney Lewin spoke directly to the officer who arrested the lady and applied for the criminal complaint against JC.After 42 years of practicing criminal law Attorney Lewin knows what the cops want to hear and what they do not want to hear. After speaking with Attorney Lewin the police agreed not to push for a criminal complaint to issue against JC; instead they agreed to ask the Clerk to continue the hearing for four months at which time the application for criminal complaint would be dismissed. On April 29, 2013 in the afternoon JC and Attorney Lewin and the Officer appeared at Dorchester District Court for the Clerk-Magistrate hearing. Attorney Lewin explained to the Clerk that the police and the Defense had reached an agreement; the Clerk heard from Attorney Lewin and the Officer and the Clerk adopted the agreement that the parties had reached. The Clerk continued the hearing until August 30, 2013 and ordered that if JC was in no further trouble then he need not appear in Court and the application would be dismissed on that date. As a result of this disposition JC will not have to return to court, he will not have to appear before a Judge, he will not be charged, and he has no criminal record. It doesn't get much better.

JC, a 28 year old laborer from Lawrence, MA lost two fingertips in an industrial saw accident in May of 2012. His doctors prescribed percocette for the pain and he became addicted. To support his habit he became a low level percocette dealer.

On February 26, 2013 JC and another dealer drove to the Burger King on Route 110 in Methuen, MA. JC was driving. JC pulled alongside a Mercedes in the BK parking lot and the passenger in JC's car exchanged drugs for money with the driver of the Mercedes. JC then pulled his vehicle alongside another vehicle in the parking lot and once again the passenger in JC's car exchanged drugs for money with the driver of the other vehicle. All of this was being watched by undercover police in the parking lot. The Mercedes got away but the second vehicle was stopped as it exited the parking lot. The operator gave up the drugs he had purchased and told the police that he had purchased the drugs from the passenger in JC's vehicle. JC's vehicle with both JC and his passenger still inside was surrounded in the parking lot by the police. Both JC and the passenger were ordered out of the car. The passenger was searched and drugs packaged for sale were found on his person and under the front passenger seat. In addition a small packet of heroin was found in his pant waist. JC had no drugs (or money) on himself. Nevertheless both JC and his passenger were charged with Distribution of Drugs.

JC had a decent case to take to trial. He had not personally distributed any drug and he had no drugs or money on himself. The government's theory of the case was that JC had "aided and abetted" his passenger in distributing drugs by driving him to the parking lot and by driving him from one customer to another in the parking lot. In such a case the law requires the state to prove two things: (1) That JC participated in some way in the crime, in this case by helping the passenger by driving and (2) That JC shared the intent required to commit the crime, in this case the intent to deal drugs. A person who is found guilty of aiding and abetting in a crime is considered guilty of the underlying crime (distributing drugs) and is punished the same as the person who actually distributes the drugs. If convicted JC did not face any mandatory sentence but he did face a three year loss of his driver's license and the potential of a jail sentence. (Drug convictions in Massachusetts carry a mandatory loss of license - 3 years in the case of distribution class B with the right to a hardship license after 18 months.)

JC retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin explained all of JC's options in detail. If the case could be continued without a finding then JC would not lose his license and there would be no conviction. JC had got into drug treatment. He was in a suboxone clinic and was being randomly tested for drugs. He had a long range goal of getting weaned off the suboxone and he was committed to staying off drugs. Attorney Lewin approached the DA's Office about a resolution of the case. The DA agreed that if JC pleaded guilty they would not look for jail time, but the DA was going to ask for a guilty finding and probation and the three year loss of license. Attorney Lewin explained to JC that he could plead and ask for a continuance without a finding; that would not involve any loss of license. Attorney Lewin explained to JC that he had a triable case: if he were found not guilty then there would be no punsihment, no jail or probation and no loss of license. On the other hand if he were found guilty he would lose his license for three years and the Judge could send him to jail (not likely).

After much discussion JC decided to take a shot at a plea to see if he could get a continuance of the case without a finding. On April 24, 2013 JC and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court. The case proceeded on the basis of a "tender of an admission" (a plea offer where if the Judge is unwilling to give the defense the result they request the Defense can withdraw the plea offer and it can never be used against the defense in any later proceedings). The DA made her pitch for a guilty finding; the DA pointed out that some years earlier JC had been given the benefit of a continuance without a finding in a prior drug possession case. Attorney Lewin explained to the Judge how it was that JC became addicted to the percocettes. Attorney Lewin explained how JC had put himself into a suboxone clinic; that all his random drug screens were negative; and that he was committed to sobriety. Attorney Lewin also explained to the Judge that JC was working full time to support himself. In effect JC was doing everything we want a person on probation to do. Attorney Lewin also explained to the Judge that JC needed his license to work; that if a guilty finding were to be entered JC would lose his license and he would lose his job. The Judge agreed with Attorney Lewin's pitch and ordered the case continued without a finding for 18 months with continued drug treatment and no loss of license. Attorney Lewin has great confidence that JC will remain drug free, will get weaned off the suboxone, and will be a productive citizen. In 18 months if JC complies with the terms of his probation then the case will be dismissed. JC can then petition the court to seal the record of the case. If the Court grants the petition to seal the record then it will be as it the case never happened! If that had been you, would you have rolled the dice and gone to trial or would you have taken the plea?

GC, a twenty year old man from Andover, has accumulated 11 surchargeable over the last four years. Under Massachusetts Law if a person accumulates 12 surchargeable events over a five year period they are classified as an habitual traffic offender and they lose their license for four years with the right to apply for a hardship license after 1 year.

GC let his license expire (he "forgot" to renew it on the renewal date). After a snowstorm on January 29, 2013 GC removed the snow from the front windshield but only in front of the driver's seat. The rest of the front windshield and the other windows and the roof remained encased in snow. A police officer pulled GC over and gave him a ticked for unlicensed operation (a criminal offense) and impeded operation (a civil violation). Both violations are surchargeable and if GC were found guilty/responsible of either violation he would lose his license for 4 years.

GC retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin ran GC's driver record from the RMV and his criminal record (from the Mass.Department of Criminal Justice Information Services). The driver record showed that in fact GC's license was not suspended or revoked but had expired; however, the driver record also showed that GC was in non renewal status because he owed excise tax. GC received a summons to appear in Lawrence District Court for an arraignment on April 25, 2013. Attorney Lewin met with the Assistant DA before court and explained the situation. The DA said she would agree to dismiss the unlicensed operation charge on the payment of $300 court costs (the criminal offense) but the DA wanted a responsible finding on the civil violation. The problem with a responsible finding on the civil violation is that it would have given GC 12 surchargeable offenses and he would lose his license for 4 years.

The case was called and Attorney Lewin explained the situation to the Judge; Attorney Lewin suggesting finding GC not responsible on the criminal violation and adding $50 in court costs. The Judge agreed. The unlicensed operation was dismissed and the impeded operation was a not responsible finding. It is attention to details such as checking a driver record to see how many surchargeable events a person has on his record that can make a difference between keeping your license and losing it for four years.

On December 4, 2012 PS (a 35 year old electrician) was at home in Reading. An on-again off-again girl friend called him and asked him to come over for a visit. PS does not drive (and that is another story - he has a license but chooses not to drive) so the girlfriend (also age 35) drove over to PS's house, picked him up, and drove him over to her house in Wakefield. Since their last visit he had broken off the relationship with her and had begun seeing another woman; nevertheless, he went over to her house that night hoping he might get lucky. The girlfriend wanted to talk about their relationship and wanted to know if he had "been cheating on her". Words got exchanged between them.

According to the police report PS punched her and knocked her to the ground. Another woman who lived upstairs came down when she heard the argument/fight and according to the police report PS punched her in the face. The neighbor called 911 and the police responded. PS got arrested and charged with Assault and Battery on both women. The girlfriend got charged with assault and battery on PS (PS had scratches on his neck which fortunately the police had photographed) and assault and battery on a police officer and disorderly conduct. The neighbor didn't get charged with anything. PS denied assaulting either woman.

PS retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin obtained the criminal record of the girlfriend; the neighbor had no record. Attorney Lewin went over all the facts of the case closely with PS and thoroughly prepared PS for both direct examination and cross examination. PS's case was set down for trial on April 25, 2013 in Malden Court. On April 24, 2013 Attorney Lewin spoke with the girlfriend's lawyer and it became clear that the girlfriend was going to exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify. On April 25, 2013 PS and Attorney Lewin appeared in Malden Court and answered ready for trial. Attorney Lewin informed the Judge that the girlfriend was going to exercise her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. The neighbor - who was also named as a victim - failed to appear. When the case was called the DA told the judge they could not go forward. Attorney Lewin asked the Judge to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The Judge granted the motion and both counts of Assault and Battery against PS were dismissed.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 was a busy day for Attorney Robert Lewin. At 9:00 AM Attorney Lewin appeared in Malden District Court representing DB, a 50 year old man charged with Assault and Battery on his wife. As happens in many cases of alleged domestic assault and battery, by the time of the pre-trial hearing in this case Mrs. B decided she did not want to testify against her husband. Mrs. B spoke with Attorney Lewin and Attorney Lewin prepared a "marital affidavit" in which Mrs. B swore that if called as a witness against her husband she would exercise her "marital privilege" and refuse to testify. In Massachusetts husbands and wives have a privilege not to testify against each other in a criminal trial.

The DA's Office was unwilling to dismiss the case at the pre-trial hearing and a trial date of April 17, 2013 was set. On April 17, 2013 Attorney Lewin, DB and Mrs. B appeared in Malden Court. The case was called and Attorney Lewin answered that the Defense was ready for trial. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that Mrs. B was present in the courtroom and was prepared to exercise her marital privilege. The Judge called Mrs. B forward and made inquiry of her as to whether she wished to testify or not and whether or not anyone had forced or coerced her into exercising her marital privilege. Mrs. B said she did not want to testify and no one had forced or coerced her into exercising her marital privilege. The Judge then accepted her exercise of her marital privilege. The DA said they could not go forward; Attorney Lewin moved to dismiss the case and the Judge ordered the case dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Attorney Lewin then left Malden Court and drove over to Cambridge District Court (now located in Medford just off Wellington Circle). HK, a 34 year old Egyptian national, was accused of Assault & Battery, Assault and Battery with a dangerous weapon (a headboard of a bed), Intimidation of a Witness, and Threat to Commit a Crime. According to the police reports HK and his 25 year old girl friend had gotten into a heated argument; it was alleged that HK got on top of his girlfriend and pushed her head into the headboard of a bed, took her cellphone, and threatened to kill her. According to the police report as she called 911 he fled the apartment. He was apprehended outside the apartment in his car. The girlfriend decided she did not want to see HK prosecuted; however, because they were not married she did not have a "marital privilege" and the government could force her to testify. In the police report there was an indication that the girlfriend had "pushed" HK; there was also a claim that the girlfriend had kicked HK.

Attorney Lewin prepared a "Fifth Amendment Affidavit" which HK's girlfriend read and approved and signed. In the Affidavit the girlfriend swore that "the police report stated that she had pushed HK" and she also swore that she had learned that HK might testify that she had kicked HK. The DA wasn't buying it. The DA did not believe that the girlfriend had a legitimate Fifth Amendment Claim.

On April 17, 2013 HK, his girlfriend, and Attorney Lewin appeared before the Judge in Cambridge District Court. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that the girlfriend was present in the courtroom and that she wished to exercise her Fifth Amendment Privilege. The Judge appointed a lawyer to speak with the girlfriend. The DA requested a Martin Hearing. A Martin Hearing (named after a case Commonwealth vs. Martin) is a hearing "in camera" which means a hearing with only the witness (the girlfriend in this case), her lawyer, and the Judge present. The DA, the Defense lawyer, and the Defendant are not present. At the hearing the Judge asks the witness questions about her testimony if she were to testify and the Judge makes a determination as to whether there is a valid Fifth Amendment Claim.

The Judge did this and after the hearing all the parties were called back into the Courtroom and the Judge announced that the witness in fact had a valid Fifth Amendment Claim and the girlfriend was excused from testifying. The DA then filed a nolle prosequi. A nolle prosequi is a termination of the prosecution of a criminal case by the Commonwealth. It is the same as a dismissal.

Both the case in Malden Court (marital privilege case) and the case in Cambridge Court (Fifth Amendment privilege case) went well because both cases were prepared and the witnesses (the wife in one case and the girl friend in the other case) were fully prepared. They both were prepared for the questions from the judge and they both fully understood the privilege they were exercising.

In 1991, at the age of 18, AR set fire in a school building. He was charged with Arson and two counts of possession of an explosive device. He was indicted by the Middlesex County Grand Jury and in February 1993 he appeared in Middlesex Superior Court and was given three 10 year sentences to MCI Concord; the sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. While he was on Probation he was subsequently arrested for two counts of operating on a suspended license, one count of possession of a class D substance, and five counts of larceny. All those new cases happened in 1995 and they were all in Framingham District Court. Fearing that his probation in Superior Court would be revoked and that he would be sent to State Prison for his three 10 year sentences, AR went on the run. Warrants for AR's arrest were issued from both Middlesex Superior Court and Framingham District Court. Years went by; he moved to Vermont; he married; he had two children; and he accumulated an Assault charge in Vermont and two DUI convictions in Vermont. The last DUI conviction was in April 0f 2012. In April of 2012 AR vowed to get his life on track. He got into alcohol abuse treatment. He joined AA. Vermont told AR that he could not get his driving privileges reinstated unless and until he faced the music in Massachusetts. AR contacted Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin went to Framingham District Court and Middlesex Superior Court and obtained copies of all the papers in AR's cases. It turned out that not only did he have three ten year suspended sentences in the Superior Court but he also had a suspended sentence in Framingham District Court. But 18 years had passed and although he had not been trouble free he was now in treatment for his alcoholism and was doing well. A letter was obtained from his Probation Officer in Vermont; a letter was obtained from his Alcohol Counselor in Vermont; a letter was obtained from his present employer and his previous employer; attendance slips from AA were obtained; and a letter was obtained from his wife that attested to AR's commitment to sobriety. Attorney Lewin had lengthy conversations with the Probation Officer in Framingham District Court and the Probation Officer in Superior Court. On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 AR and Attorney Lewin (and many members from AR's family) walked into Framingham District Court. After a hearing all the warrants in Framingham District Court (6) were ordered cancelled, AR paid $2,148.16 in court fees and restitution, all of his cases were ordered closed. After 18 years he walked out of Framingham District Court. On Thursday, March 21, 2013 AR and Attorney Lewin walked into Middlesex Superior Court. His cases were sent up to a Judge in a criminal session. The Judge was given all the police reports about the explosive devices and the setting fire in the school from 1991. The Judge saw that AR had been given three 10 year suspended sentences with probation. The Judge also read all the letters that had been furnished by Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin made a simple but direct plea to the Judge. AR's offenses had occurred 21 years ago; although he had not been trouble free during the 21 years he now seemed to be grounded. He had been alcohol free (and had passed every random drug and alcohol test he had been given in Vermont) since his last arrest for DUI in Vermont. He was now married and had two children and was working hard to support his family. Attorney Lewin closed his statement to the Judge by asking the Judge to terminate AR's Probation and discharge him from any further responsibility in these cases. Before Attorney Lewin could sit down the Judge said one word "Done". After 20 years of living in fear that he would be forced to serve the three ten year sentences AR walked out of the Superior Court in Woburn completely free. When AR and his family walked out of the Courthouse AR and his family burst into tears of relief and joy. He had been so convinced that he was going to have to serve the ten years he could not believe he was free.From the very outset Attorney Lewin had encouraged AR to think positively and to go about the business of getting letters that would help. As Attorney Lewin turned to leave, AR's father, age 71, came over to Attorney Lewin and and gave Attorney Lewin a firm handshake and a hug and said "It was great to watch a pro in action." That made Attorney Lewin's day. Hard work, smart work, and perseverance paid off.

KB, a 34 year old army wife living in KY, went to renew her driver's license in KY but was denied because her right to drive was suspended in Massachusetts because she had defaulted in a criminal case in Peabody District Court back in 2008. On Monday, March 18, 2013 KB wired a retainer to Attorney Robert Lewin. On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 Attorney Lewin appeared in Peabody District Court for KB. The default was removed, the warrant was cancelled, Attorney Lewin paid $200 in court costs from funds that KB had wired, and the case was dismissed. The following day KB paid a small reinstatement fee to the Registry of Motor Vehicles online and her driving privileges were reinstated. KB had been fretting over this case for five years. In one day it was resolved and she never had to leave her home in Kentucky. Attorney Robert Lewin has been practicing criminal defense law since 1975 (38 years) and has a remarkable record of success in clearing old warrants.

On January 8, 2013 PD, an 18 year old male, met CC on line. CC identified herself as a 17 year old female. The chatted online, they exchanged photos, they talked on the phone. One week later they agreed to meet and on January 15 PD drove to Lynn and picked her up and they drove around for a short time. They talked and both had a genuinely good time. PD brought her back home; there was no sex of any kind. They continued chatting and talking. CC told PD that she loved him. They agreed to get together again and on January 19, 2013 CC drove to Lynn again, picked up CC, and they went for a drive. She directed PD to a secluded parking lot. They kissed and talked; there was some fondling but then CC jumped out of the car. Eventually she got back in the car and PD drove her home. It turns out that CC was 14 years old and had sneaked out of the house unbeknownst to her mother. Several days later the police showed up at PD's door and arrested him for Aggravated Rape, Rape of Child with Force, Indecent Assault and Battery on a Person 14 or older, Assault with a deadly weapon, and Threat to Commit a Crime. On January 22, 2013 PD was brought to Lynn District Court and arraigned and bail was set at $5,000.00. It took his family several days to raise the bail and PD was released. PD was bewildered as he had done nothing wrong. PD and his family contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin took a very detailed statement of the facts from PD. His story had a ring of truth to it. The details were consistent with innocence. Attorney Lewin got the police reports and the girl's statements and reviewed them in detail with PD. Again the details all pointed towards PD's innocence. Attorney Lewin went up the chain of command in the DA's Office and ultimately spoke with the head of the sexual abuse unit. Attorney Lewin sent a letter to the District Attorney asking the District Attorney to critically investigate the young girl's statements. On February 28, 2013 (37 days after his arraignment) PD and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lynn District Court and the District Attorney filed a Nolle Prosequi to all the charges against PD. A Nolle Prosequi is a termination of the prosecution of a criminal case by the District Attorney. On February 28, 2013 PD walked out of Lynn District Court a free man. This happened in part because Attorney Lewin got on the case immediately, promptly prepared the case, and advocated zealously for the charges to be dropped.

On February 3, 2013, JC, a 45 year old married woman, got into a heated argument with her husband. She had been drinking and eventually he ended up with a large bloody laceration to the back of his head. Some nick nacks got broken and a door got smashed. This was not one of her better nights. A call was made to the local police by JC's daughter and JC got arrested and charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a felony) and Assault & Battery (a misdemeanor). The next morning JC appeared in Lowell District Court and was arraigned and released. Her case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to March 6, 2013. JC contacted Lewin & Lewin. JC does not drive so Attorney Robert Lewin made a house call to meet with JC and her Husband. Attorney Lewin explained the marital privilege to JC and her Husband and explained that if the Husband exercised his privilege not to testify against JC that it was possible the case would be dismissed. Every Husband and every Wife in Massachusetts has a privilege not to testify against their spouse at a criminal trial. This is called the marital privilege. JC retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin prepared and the Husband signed a marital privilege affidavit. Attorney Lewin contacted the District Attorney's Office and sent them a copy of the Affidavit signed by the Husband. On March 6, 2013 JC and her Husband and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin gave the original marital affidavit to the Judge and explained the case to the Judge. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that the Husband was present in the Courtroom and wanted to exercise his marital privilege not to testify against his wife. The Judge asked the Husband if he wanted to refuse to testify against his wife and the Husband said yes. Attorney Lewin asked that the case be dismissed; the District Attorney objected stating that there was an independent witness (JC's daughter) and that the Commonwealth could proceed with the case against JC without the Husband's testimony. Attorney Lewin had previously interviewed the daughter and knew that she would testify that she was upstairs in her bedroom when the fight occurred and that she did not see any of the goings on between her mother and father. She heard loud shouting and that is what led her to call the police; but she did not see anything. The District Attorney asked that the case be continued for trial so that they could bring the daughter in. Attorney Lewin objected strenuously and told the Judge that the daughter had not seen anything and that her testimony would not help the Commonwealth prove the case against JC. Attorney Lewin suggested that the District Attorney call the daughter on the phone and speak to her (something they should have done earlier) so that the case could get resolved that day. The Judge agreed that that was a good idea. The District Attorney called the daughter and she confirmed that she had not seen anything, that she had been in her bedroom. The case was called again and the District Attorney filed a nolle prosequi. A nolle prosequi is a termination of the prosecution of a criminal case by the Commonwealth. JC and her husband walked out of the courtroom arm and arm and very happy. The case had been thoroughly prepared; the husband and the daughter had been interviewed at the start by Attorney Lewin and he knew what each of them was going to say.

SD, a computer engineer, and his wife, also a computer engineer, immigrated to the US from India. They are both permanent resident aliens. Tensions developed in the marriage and one night Mrs. D called 911 and the police responded. She told the police that SD had struck her and thrown things at her. The police arrested SD and he was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. These are both deportable offenses. SD contacted and interviewed a number of lawyers and after much negotiation SD retained Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin spoke with Mrs. D and he explained the marital privilege to Mrs. D. Fortunately for SD his wife decided that she would not testify against him. Attorney Lewin prepared a marital affidavit for Mrs. D in which she exercised her marital privilege. Attorney Lewin then contacted the Assistant DA handling the case and gave him a copy of the affidavit. On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 SD and his wife and Attorney Robert Lewin appeared in Malden District Court for a pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin put the Assistant DA in contact with Mrs. D and she confirmed that she did not want to testify against her husband. The case was called and Attorney Lewin explained the situation to the Judge. The Judge questioned Mrs. D to make certain that her exercise of her marital privilege was done freely and voluntarily. Attorney Lewin then asked the Judge to dismiss the case; the Assistant DA did not oppose and the Judge ordered the criminal charges dismissed. The threat of deportation is now completely removed. SD and Mrs. D have some work to do if their marriage is going to be salvaged, but the criminal case is gone.

DP, a resident of Washington DC, went to get his driver's license renewed and was told he could not get it renewed because his right to operate in MA was under suspension because of an outstanding court warrant. It seems that in 2010 DP had gotten into a scrape at South Station in Boston and got arrested. He failed to go to court and returned to Washington. A warrant for his arrest was issued by the Boston Municipal Court. The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles received a notice form the Court and suspended DP's right to operate a motor vehicle. That suspension was entered into the NDR (National Driver Register) and when DP went to renew his license in Washington he was refused. DP contacted a Boston Attorney at a large firm whom he knew and the Attorney referred DP to Lewin and Lewin. DP retained Attorney Robert Lewin. The day after being hired Attorney Lewin immediately went over to the Boston Municipal Court and obtained copies of all the papers and police reports in DP's case. Attorney Lewin also went to the District Attorney's Office and spoke with the DA Supervisor. After some discussion the DA's Office agreed to dismiss the charges. Several days later DP flew up to Boston from Washington and on Thursday, February 21, 2013 DP and Attorney Lewin appeared in the Boston Municipal Court. The Judge removed the default, cancelled the warrant, assessed $200 in court costs which DP paid immediately, and ordered the two criminal charges dismissed. The cancellation of the warrant was entered into the warrant management system. DP went to the RMV, paid a reinstatement fee, and got the suspension of his right to operate lifted. He then flew back to Washington and got his license renewed. He is a happy camper!

On August 15, 2012 VB, a 28 year old program director at a facility for the handicapped, was caught shoplifting at Kohl's in Chelmsford. Every year her employer does a CORI check (criminal record check) and if this case showed on her record it would have meant immediate dismissal from her job. VB contacted Attorney Robert Lewin. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Chelmsford Police Prosecutor who said it could be months before the application for criminal complaint was processed and scheduled for a hearing by the Clerk's Office at Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin also spoke with the Loss Prevention Officer from Kohl's. Finally VB received a notice from Lowell District Court to appear for a Clerk-Magistrate's Hearing. On February 7, 2013 VB and Attorney Lewin appeared for the hearing. Attorney Lewin had secured an agreement from the police prosecutor for a complaint not to issue. The Clerk-Magistrate at the request of both the police and Attorney Lewin continued the hearing for six months to August 9, 2013. If VB is in no further trouble with the police then on that date the Application for a Criminal Complaint will be dismissed by the Clerk-Magistrate and neither VB nor Attorney Lewin will have to appear in Court on that date. As a result of this disposition VB has NO criminal record and her job will not be placed in jeopardy. Because no criminal complaint was issued against her she does not have to appear in front of a judge and no entry is made in the CORI system. It is as if it did not happen.

CB, a senior at a local state college, was heading back to school when he got pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer got up to the driver's window and was immediately struck by the strong and distinctive odor of marijuana. One thing led to another and by the time the police were done they had seized a quantity of marijuana from the car along with a scale, packaging materials, and over $3,000.00 in cash. CB made incriminating statements to the police. CB was arrested and charged with Possession of Class D with intent to Distribute. CB, a Dean's list student, is due to graduate from college in May and saw his future job prospects going up in smoke. CB retained Lewin & Lewin to represent him. The facts did not lend themselves to a good Motion to Suppress and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Initially the Assistant District Attorney was looking for a conviction and a 2 year term of supervised probation. Attorney Robert Lewin met with the Assistant District Attorney and advocated on behalf of CB. The Assistant DA agreed to a continuance without a finding and agreed to lower the term of the probation to one year. On February 8, 2013 Attorney Joshua Lewin appeared in Dorchester District Court with CB. A tender of plea was presented to the Judge. Attorney Lewin asked the judge to continue the case without a finding for three months (to CB's graduation date from college). Ultimately the Judge agreed to continue the case without a finding for six months. The Judge ordered that the probation was to be administrative. Provided CB stays out of trouble, the charge will be dismissed on August 8, 2013. At that time Attorney Lewin will file a Petition to Seal the record. If the Petition is granted the record will be sealed and it will be as if the case did not happen. In addition had there been a conviction (guilty finding) CB would have lost his license for 2 years; because the case was continued without a finding CB suffered no loss of license. Wins come in all shapes and sizes. CB was thrilled with the result: he was not found guilty; he did not lose his license; his case will be dismissed in six months; and he will be well positioned to get his record sealed in six months. He and his family were very concerned that this case would be disastrous for his future job prospects; now, however, In six months the record will be sealed and the case will not show up on his record.

In 2006 RG and KM began a dating relationship. They moved in together and then bought a home together. Eventually the relationship soured and one night in February 2010 they had a huge argument. The next day KM went to Lowell District Court and obtained an abuse prevention order against RG. At the full court hearing two weeks later the order was extended for one year. In February 2011 the order was extended for an additional year. In February 2012 RG decided he wanted to challenge the extension of the order. RG retained Attorney Robert Lewin. On the one year hearing date all the parties appeared in Court. At that time RG and KM were still involved in a civil lawsuit over the proceeds from the sale of the house. The Judge at the hearing expressed concern that the civil lawsuit could provide a flahpoint and a point of contact between the parties. It was anticipated that the civil lawsuit would be finished by June 2012. The Judge extended the abuse prevention order to a date in June 2012. On that date all the parties appeared again in court. The civil lawsuit was still not finished. The Judge again extended the order until December 4, 2012. On December 4, 2012 all the parties again appeared in Court. The civil lawsuit between the parties was completely finished. Attorney Lewin had prepared a lengthy memorandum of the facts and the law in the abuse prevention order case. He pointed out that the relationship had ended in February 2010 - 2 years and 10 months earlier and that there had been no contact between the parties since that time and no violations of the order. When a party seeks to extend an abuse prevention order the burden of proof is on that party to prove that at the time of extension hearing the party still has a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. It is not enough to prove that at the time the order was originally granted the party had a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. The party must prove that there is a continuing need for the order. There is no presumption in the law in favor of extending these orders. Attorney Lewin's Memorandum of Law cited all the appropriate cases for the Judge. On December 4, 2012 all the parties appeared before the Judge in Lowell District Court. The Judge reviewed the Court papers and read Attorney Lewin's Memorandum. The Judge turned to KM and asked her if she was seeking to extend the order for another year. To everyone's surprise KM said "No, your honor." Even KM had come to the realization that after 2 years and 10 months of absolutely no contact with RG that any fear she had would not be deemed reasonable. The order was vacated. Had RG not persisted in fighting the extensions of the order and had he not been willing to return to court on two additional occasions the order probably would have been made permanent. To win you have to be persistent and you have to be willing to fight for what is right.