Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

One rainy day Patrick M, age 18, was walking to a friend's house when it began pouring. Patrick saw a bicycle leaning up against a house in Wakefield. Patrick figured if he "borrowed" the bike he could get to his friend's house more quickly and not get quite so wet. In a moment of poor decision making, Patrick entered the yard, grabbed the bicycle, and rode away to his friend's house. Patrick left the bike at the friend's house in the back yard. Unfortunately for Patrick, a witness had seen Patrick take the bicycle and had followed Patrick. The witness went to the police. The police retrieved the bike and confronted Patrick. In a moment of contrition Patrick admitted taking the bike and apologized profusely. He told the police it was his intention to return the bike the next morning and that he never intended to steal it. Patrick wrote a heartfelt letter of apology to the owner of the bike. The police charged Patrick with larceny over $250, a felony. Patrick retained Attorney Lewin prior to his arraignment. On the morning of the arraignment Attorney Lewin asked that the arraignment not be held but that the case be continued for a period of time to allow Attorney Lewin to try to convince the DA's office to dismiss the case prior to the arraignment. The case was continued two more times and on June 23, 2010 the DA's office agreed to dismiss the case "prior to arraignment". The significance of the case being dismissed "prior to the arraignment" is that the case does not go on Patrick's record. A charge of Larceny over $250 brands someone as a thief and no one wants to hire a thief. As a result of good lawyering at the outset of the case Patrick came out of this with no criminal record.

In 1995, while he was a college student in Rhode Island, Joseph C attended a concert in Massachusetts. Driving back to Rhode Island at two in the morning Joseph was going down Route 95 at 95 mph. He was pulled over by the State Police. It turns out that his California License was suspended. He was cited by the Mass. State Police for Unlicensed Operation and Speeding. Thereafter he returned to Rhode Island and eventually to California. He never received the Court summons and was defaulted. A Warrant issued for his arrest. The case sat idle for over a decade. In 2010 the Massaschusetts RMV (Registry of Motor Vehicles) picked up the warrant and revoked his right to operate in Massaschusetts. That revokation was entered into the NDR (National Driver Register) Data Base and California refused to renew his license. He contacted the Court and was told he would have to come out to Massachusetts to clear the warrant. Joseph retained Attorney Lewin on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. On Wednesday morning, June 23, 2010 Attorney Lewin appeared in Wrentham District Court. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney who, after some haggling, agreed to didmiss the charges. Attorney Lewin appeared before the Judge and the Judge went along with the dismissal of the charges (including the speeding ticket of which he was found not responsible). Attorney Lewin obtained the Notice of Cancellation of Warrant and furnished it to the RMV and by 3:00 PM Joseph C was cleared in Massachusetts so that he could get his license in California. This took less than twenty-four hours after being retained. Joseph C is back out cruising in his BMW.

On Friday, June 11, 2010 a 63 year old Methuen man was found not guilty of DWI 2nd Offense following a two day trial in Lawrence District Court. RL was followed by the State Police on Route 93 North from the Dascomb Road exit to River Road where he was pulled over for numerous lane violations. As the trooper approached the car he noticed the driver drinking from a mouthwash bottle. The trooper also noticed that the driver had lowered all four windows of the car, not just the driver's window. When the trooper asked what the man was doing with the mouthwash, the driver, after some hesitation, said he was coming from the Beijing in North Andover. Field sobriety tests followed and then the arrest. At trial Attorney Lewin introduced photos of Route 93 showing numerous potholes and the obliteration of most of the lane markings. The bill from The China Blossom (not Beijing) was introduced and it showed that RL had consumed only 1 Mai Tai all evening. RL's girl freind was called as a witness and she confirmed that he had consumed only one Mai Tai. The case had been thoroughly prepared; RL and Attorney Lewin had no less than three trial practice sessions in Attorney Lewin's Office to make certain that RL was ready for both direct and cross examination. As a result of this win RL did not lose his license for two years, he did not have to go to the two week in-patient program; and he will not be required to have an ignition interlock device installed in his car. He has his license. This is another example of how important it is to be properly prepared for trial.

SD, a 68 year old mother, was angry that her son's ex girlfriend had caused a number of criminal charges to be filed against her son (Kidnapping, Attempted Murder, Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order). The son was ordered held in $10,000 cash bail. In March 2010 the son's case was on the Court list in Lynn District Court. Mother came to court wearing a pair of sandals. Mother saw the ex-girlfriend (a girl to whom the mother had been most generous over the last several years) and grabbed the ex-girlfriend by the hair, punched her in the head, and then allegedly took her sandals off and beat the ex-girlfriend with the sandals. Court officers and Lynn Police came running and put the mother in cuffs and arrested her. She was charged with Assault and Battery by means of a dangerous weapon (the sandals), Assault and Battery, and Threats. After considerable negotiations with the Essex County District Attorney's Office, on June 7, 2010 the DA agreed to dismiss the felony count of Assault and Battery with a dangerous weapon and the count alleging Threats. The charge of Assault and Battery (a misdemeaonr) was ordered continued for nine months without a finding to be dismissed at the end of the nine months. As Attorney Lewin and the mother were leaving the Courthouse he told her to leave her sandals at home the next time she comes to Court.

On January 15, 2010 the Tewksbury Police were doing an undercover surveillance at a parking lot of a large store in Tewksbury just off Route 495. They observed one vehicle parked in the parking lot away from any other vehicles and away from the store. A second vehicle entered the parking lot and parked in the space next to the first. The two drivers exited the two cars and the police observed what appeared to be a drug transaction take place. The two men then headed back to their respective cars. The police approached the two men and after some discussion it was determined that the driver of the second car (initials SR) had delivered a forty bag of heroin to the driver of the first car. SR was charged with Distribution of Heroin (Class A) and Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substance Law. The Distribution Charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in the State Prison; the Conspiracy charge carries the same maximum penalty. In addition a conviction (finding of guilty) to the charge of Distribution carries a mandatory 3 year loss of driving license (with the right to apply for a hardship license after 18 months). Attorney Lewin was retained and began discussing the case with the Assistant Distrrict Attorney; calls were also made to the police. Without SR becoming an informant Attorney Lewin was able to negotiate a settlement of the case. On May 27, 2010, the Conspiracy charge was dismissed and the Distribution charge was continued without a finding. Because there was no conviction SR did not lose his license. At the end of the period of the continuance without a finding the Distribution charge will be dismissed.

On April 17, 2010, MC, a stunning woman of 40 years (she looks like age 25) became very upset with her 24 year old husband for his habit of visiting with and spending time the mother of his child (a woman other than MC). MC became enraged and proceeded to give him a good beating. When he said he was leaving (to go you know where) she said I'm calling 911 which she did. The police responded and after speaking with him and her arrested her and charged her with Domestic Assault and Battery. MC had a prior charge of Assault and Battery in 2009. The District Attorney did not want to let go of this case; however, Attorney Lewin prepared a Marital Affidavit for the Husband to sign. On May 26, 2010 the case was on the criminal pre-trial list in Malden District Court. At Attorney Lewin's request the husband came to court and exercised his marital privilege. Attorney Lewin moved for dismissal and the case was ordered dismissed by the Judge. MC and her husband walked out of court arm in arm.

JC, an 18 year old girl, was charged with Possession of A Class C Drug with Intent to Distribute and Conspiracy to Violate the Conrolled Substance Law. The charges arose out of an incident at the Square One Mall in Saugus. JC, who worked as a clerk at one of the stores at the mall, went to work and drove two male "friends" with her. She parked on the upper level of the parking lot and went to work. Her two male "friends" proceeded to begin selling drugs to "customers" at the mall. The two males would go back to JC's car to remove the drugs and sell. them. After each sale they would return to the car to get more drugs. The drug operation was watched and video taped by mall security. The security officers called in the Saugus Police who confronted the two males and arrested them. The police searched JC's car and found more drugs. While the police were searching JC's car, JC came out into the parking lot on break. She saw her car being searched and confronted the police. She got arrested. Attorney Lewin secured the video tapes from Mall Security; the tapes showed that JC was not involved in any way with the drugs. Attorney Lewin was able to convince the DA that the drugs found in the car belonged to the two males and there was insufficient evidence connecting JC to the drugs or to any role in the distribution of the drugs. On May 11, 2010 the DA's Office in Lynn District Court dismissed the drug charges against JC. The case took almost eight months to get resolved because the owner of the Mall resisted turining over the videos. Attorney Lewin persisted in obtaining a court order requiring the Mall owner to surrender the videos which they ultimately did.

A 35 year old Chelsea man (EM) (a legal permanent resident alien) was involved in a two vehicle collison in Chelsea and fled the scene. The driver of the other vehicle got the plate number and a good look at the vehicle. A neighbor saw the collision and thought he recognized the driver. The police ran the plate and it came back to EM's wife. The wife told the police that her husband had been operating the car. Based on the wife's statement the police cited EM for leaving the scene of a property damage accident.Prior to trial Attorney Lewin prepared a marital affidavit for EM's wife to sign wherein she exercised her marital privilege not to testify against her husband.She signed the affidavit and exercised her marital privilege and refused to testify against her husband. Under the Massachusetts rules of evidence her statement to the police that her husband had been driving was inadmissible at trial. On May 4, 2010 the DA's Office agreed to dismiss the case prior to trial.

A 58 year old Woburn mother was accused of assaulting her 32 year old daughter in Woburn District Court. The mother insisted she was simply trying to prevent her daughter from going to the home of the daughter's child's father, a useless bloke who pays no child support. The daughter told the police that as the daughter was leaving the house her mother grabbed the daughter's pocketbook which the daughter had over her shoulder causing the daughter to hit the refrigerator and fall to the floor. The police report indicated that the mother was drunk. For years the Mother had put up with her daughter's substance abuse and the Mother was the primary caretaker of the daughter's child. The Mother's frustration with her daughter was understandable. On the day of the pre-trial hearing the Mother indicated she just wanted to get the case over with and plead guilty. Attorney Lewin insisted that she not plead to the case as he felt that no jury would convict her. The case was continued for trial and on Friday, April 16, 2010 the District Attorney's Office in Woburn District Court filed a nolle prosequi ending the case. A nolle prosequi is a termination of the prosecution of a criminal case by the Commonwealth; it is similar to a dismissal.

MD, a 52 year old man from Winchester, was accused of stealing his daughter's roommate's lap top computer. He was charged in Malden District Court with larceny over $250 (a felony). A conviction would have cost him his job. The police accused him of stealing the lap top from the victim's apartment and then giving it to his daughter's mother to sell. He absolutely denied any intent to steal and claimed that he had taken the computer in the mistaken belief that it belonged to his daughter. His daughter was moving out of the apartment and had enlisted the help of her father in moving her stuff out. He honestly believed that the lap top belonged to his daughter. In Massachusetts larceny requires proof of an intent to steal. The law in Massachusetts is that if you take another person's property in an honest and reasonable belief that another person on whose behalf you are acting had a legal right to the property - even if that belief was in fact mistaken - then you are entitled to be found not guilty because you lacked an intent to steal. MD's case was scheduled for jury trial on April 13, 2010. MD and Attorney Lewin appeared at Court ready for trial and the DA's Office dismissed the case.

On April 8, 2010, BT, a 46 yearl old salesman, appeared in Lawrence District Court charged with Assault and Battery and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a computer mouse) on his 44 year old wife (who happened to be a lawyer). Mrs. T exercised her marital privilege and signed an affidavit that had been prepared by Attorney Lewin to the effect that she would not testify against her husband and that she wanted the case dismissed. Before April 8, Attorney Lewin put Mrs. T in touch with the victim/witness advocate from the DA's Office so that the DA knew that she was not on board with the Commonwealth. After a brief hearing the case was ordered dismissed by the Judge in Lawrence at the pre-trial hearing. Although the DA's Office often takes the position that they will not dismiss Domestic Assault and Battery cases at the pre-trial hearing, with proper preparation the DA can sometimes be convinced to dismiss at the pre-trial and not require everyone to return to court for a trial date.

Two California Driver's Get Lucky In Massachusetts

MP, a forty year old man, had default warrants outstanding in criminal cases in Lowell District Court, Somerville District Court, Chelsea District Court and Woburn District Court. The warrants dated back to 1989 and 1990 when MP lived in Massachusetts. In mid 1990 he moved to California leaving all the warrants outstanding in Massachusetts. In 1991 he was convicted of rape in California and then served 16 ½ years in prison in California. In 2008 he was released from prison and tried to get a California license. His driving privileges in Massachusetts had been revoked because of all the warrants. Attorney Lewin filed Motions in all the Massachusetts Courts where he had outstanding warrants to get the warrants cancelled and to get the criminal cases dismissed. Every warrant from each court was cancelled and all the criminal charges were dismissed. After tying up some loose ends at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, MP's driving privileges in Massachusetts were reinstated on March 23, 2010 and he was then able to obtain a California license. MP never had to come to Massachusetts. Attorney Lewin was able to get all the cases resolved in his absence. MP is now driving around in his 1966 Chevrolet Super Sport!

JM, a fifty-eight year old chemical engineer, resides in California. In 1990 he came to Massachusetts to attend a course in Cambridge. While driving on Storrow Drive he was involved in a collision and did not stop. He was subsequently stopped by the State Police and issued a citation for Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Accident. When his course in Cambridge was finished in he returned to California and never attended to the Leaving the Scene case. The case went into default status and a warrant issued against him. In 2009 JM went to renew his California license and California refused to renew it because of the outstanding warrant in Massachusetts. JM wrote to the Court (Charlestown District Court) and he called the Court and they told him he would have to come out to Massachusetts. JM retained Attorney Robert Lewin and within 28 days the warrant was recalled and the case was dismissed without JM having to come here. One trip to the Registry of Motor Vehicles cleared his Massachusetts Suspension and on March 25, 2010 California reinstated his driving privileges. JM is a happy camper.

Juvenile Delinquency cases are criminal cases where the offender is under the age of seventeen at the time of the offense. Juveniles face the same types of penalties that adults do - the system just gives some of those penalties different names. Juveniles found "delinquent" (guilty) can be fined, placed on probation, given suspended sentences, or given committed sentences. A juvenile who is committed is sent to a "secure facility" within the Department of Youth Services. Make no mistake about it, a "secure facility" is a jail with locked doors and bars on the windows.

Juveniles who commit serious felonies involving serious harm or the threat of serious harm to others can be prosecuted as "youthful offenders". Once the Juvenile Court determines that a juvenile is a youthful offender the court proceedings become public and the juvenile can be sentenced as if he/she were an adult. This can include a full adult state prison sentence.

2009 saw a spike in serious juvenile/youthful offender crime particularly in the Lowell and Lawrence areas. Attorney Lewin just finished a forcible rape case in Lowell Juvenile Court where a fifteen year old boy was accused of raping a five year old girl. The case was not a triable case as the boy had given a firm written detailed confession. The victim's family asked the Judge to impose a lengthy adult prison sentence; the District Attorney asked for a committed sentence. With the assistance of two very favorable psychological evaluations and reports Attorney Lewin was able to convince the Judge to impose probation with no sex offender registration. 2009 also saw two successfully defended gun cases in Lowell Juvenile Court by Attorney Lewin and he is presently defending a 16 year old high school student on a charge of Attempted Murder by Strangulation in Lawrence Juvenile Court.

Make no mistake about it, juvenile cases can be serious and require the same level of attention and skill and effort that any adult criminal case requires.

In Massachusetts there are two types of arrest warrants: Default Warrants and Straight Warrants.

DEFAULT WARRANTS

A default warrant is issued when a person fails to appear in Court after having been given notice to appear; for example, a person is arrested for operating under the influence and is brought to a police station. The police call in a bail commissioner who sets cash bail. The person puts up the cash bail and signs a "recognizance" form. A "recognizance" form is a "promise to appear" in a specified court at a specified time on a specified date. The person then fails to appear in court on that specified date and the court issues a default warrant.

STARIGHT WARRANTS

A straight warrant is issued when the police go to a court and ask the court to issue a criminal complaint against an individual and the police want to arrest the person rather than have him/her summonsed into court. The court issues a "straight" warrant to the police and the police go out and try to locate the person and arrest the person.

Another example of a straight warrant is when a person is on Probation and fails to report or respond to his/her probation officer. The Probation Officer can go to the Judge and ask the Judge to issue a straight warrant for the person's arrest.

WARRANTS CAN CREATE HAVOC!

Having a warrant outstanding against you can create havoc for you. Your license can be revoked. If you receive benefits from the government, your benefits can be shut off. If you are picked up on a default warrant it is unlikely you will be released until you are brought to court and brought before a judge. It is not unusual for the police to wait till the Friday afternoon of a long weekend to arrest someone on a warrant. The person will sit in jail Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night, and Monday night and not be brought to court until Tuesday morning.

Attorney Lewin often gets calls from people with outstanding warrants and arranges to bring them before the judge before they get arrested and he gets them released.

If you have an outstanding warrant or warrants call Attorney Lewin. Completely private/confidential communications can be had over the phone or in person and we can bring you into court and get the warrant(s) cleared. If you have a family member who has just been picked up on a warrant call Attorney Lewin for prompt advice.

A Saugus man in his fifties who works in Boston had a confrontation with a younger man in his thirties in Boston that led to a brief fistfight. They did not know one another and the fight ended quickly and they each went their own way. The fight took place in the summer of 2009. Thereafter the Saugus man noticed the younger man at the train platform at North Station while waiting for his train. One October night the Saugus man got on his train and noticed the younger man get on the same train. The Saugus man took the train to his stop in Melrose and the younger man got off at the same stop. The Saugus man was concerned that the younger man was going to follow him to his home. The Saugus man had a dog leash in his jacket pocket with metal studs on it. The Saugus man confronted the younger man and proceeded to beat the younger man with the collar, clearly getting the better of the fight and causing some injury to the younger man. Someone called 911 and the Saugus man got arrested for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (a felony). The Judge in Malden Court - who clearly felt there was more to the story than met the eye - ordered the case continued generally for six months to be dismissed. This disposition of a general continuance of the case was quite favorable as there was no admission of guilt or wrongdoing by the accused. His plea of not guilty remained in full force and effect and at the end of the six months the case will be dismissed. This is similar to a continuance without a finding, except that a continuance without a finding does require an admission that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty. In this case there was no admission.