Last Friday, August 13, 2010, AJ, a 40 year old Israeli born US Citizen, traveled to the Middle East with his wife and 18 month old baby for a month long trip. They live in Ohio and on the return flight from Paris to the US they landed in Boston. When AJ's passport was scanned it was discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for AJ's arrest from the State of Pennsylvania. The charges in Pennsylvania included Being a convicted Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Possessing a Stolen Firearm, and Driving on a Suspended License. AJ was arrested by the Massachusetts State Police at the Airport and held for court on Monday. AJ's wife and 18 month old baby stayed in Boston over the weekend to be present in Court on Monday. On Saturday, August 14, 2010 AJ's wife contacted Attorney Lewin and retained him. On Sunday, August 15, 2010 Attorney Lewin went to Massachusetts General Hospital to visit with AJ. Because of a severe heart condition, AJ was transported from the State Police Lockup to a locked unit at the hospital where a Mass. State Trooper was stationed outside his room 24 hours per day. Attorney Lewin (on Sunday) got the case fully prepared and then on Monday, August 16, 2010 appeared in East Boston District Court where AJ was arraigned on a Criminal Complaint charging him with being a fugitive from justice from the State of Pennsylvania. Attorney Lewin prepared a Motion for Release on Bail that informed the judge about AJ's circumstances and why he warranted consideration for release on bail.. The Interstate Compact on Rendition allows a judge to release a person arrested as a fugitive; although it is a power that is rarely used. After a thorough hearing the Judge admitted AJ to bail and by noontime on Monday AJ and his wife and baby walked out of the Courthouse and headed for the airport to return to Ohio and then to return to the court in Pennsylvania. Everyone told AJ to save his money and not hire a lawyer as no judge would release him where he was a fugitive from justice from another state and lived in a third state. Attorney Lewin told AJ if we make a proper showing that you are not a flight risk and if we give the Judge the tools he needs, the Judge may very well admit you to bail. The worst the Judge can say is no; but in this case the Judge said yes. The lesson in this is don't give up. When you are in a tough fight you have to fight back with all the tools at your disposal and sometimes you have to reach for the unreachable.
August 2010 Archives
An Attorney was accused in Lawrence District Court of taking fees from a client and not performing the work. A criminal complaint for two counts of larceny from a person age 65 or older was filed against him. A charge of larceny can be easy to file but difficult to prove. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. In this case the "victim" was over age 65 at the time the charges were filed but it was clear from the evidence that at the time of the alleged thefts the "victim" was well under age 65. Right at the outset that reduced the two counts from aggravated larceny to simple larceny. Then Attorney Lewin noticed that the date of offense in Count 1 was more than six years before the date on which the criminal complaint issued. This put Count 1 beyond the six year Massachusetts Statute of Limitations. Now we were down to one count of simple larceny. To prove larceny by false pretences the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the taking of the money the accused had an intent to steal or defraud. This is an issue that is commonly raised in cases against contractors who take a deposit on a job and then for one reason or another don't complete the job or don't do any work at all on the job. Attorney Lewin and his staff researched the issue thoroughly and found a number of Massachusetts cases directly on point. The cases hold that mere non-performance of the job is not enought to prove an intent to steal or defraud at the time the the contractor is hired. An extensive Memorandum of Law was prepared for the judge and all the relevant cases were cited. When the Assistant District Attorney and Attorney Lewin argued the issue to the Judge, the Judge cited the very cases that Attorney Lewin had cited in his Memorandum. The District Attorney finally yielded and on August 9, 2010 all the charges against the lawyer were dismissed.