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 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.

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.

On September 29, 2012 LF left his home to find his 17 year old daughter who had run off in the middle of the night with two unknown men. He found her and attempted to get her to get in his car. She resisted. He called the police and got himself arrested for assault and battery on his daughter.He went to Court the next morning to get arraigned. He tried to explain what had happened and that it was he who had called the police. His daughter was present at Court and tried to speak on his behalf but the DA and the Judge would not hear any of it. LF was arraigned; he was told to get a lawyer; and he was told not to abuse his daughter. His case was continued to November 28. LF retained Attorney Robert Lewin. It appeared from the police reports that the daughter had in fact assaulted (kicked) her father. It became clear that the daughter had a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Counsel was obtained by the daughter. The daughter's lawyer recognized that the Daughter could herself be prosecuted for Assault and Battery and that it was in the daughter's best interest to exercise her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney and explained the situation that the daughter would not testify against her father and that the daughter would exercise her valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate herself.Normally, the District Attorney's Office refuses to dismiss these cases at the pre-trial and insists that everyone come back for the trial date.On November 28, 2012 LF and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court for a pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin explained the situation to the Judge. The Judge called the daughter and her lawyer forward. The Judge inquired of the daughter regarding her Fifth Amendment privilege. The Judge accepted the Daughter's exercise of her Fifth Amendment privilege. Attorney Lewin moved the Judge to dismiss the case right then and not make everyone come back on a later trial date. The DA relented and the Judge ordered the case dismissed. Getting the case prepared well in advance and making certain that all the necessary persons were present at the pre-trial brought about this very favorable result.

DK and LL had been in a relationship for several years and lived together at DK's house. The relationship was good, except that LL had a big problem with DK's ex-wife. On a beautiful spring day, the pair decided to take DK's motorcycle for a nice day-long ride. They had a wonderful day together and returned home. That's when trouble began. DK's ex-wife called and began arguing with DK. LL was not happy with the manner in which DK handled the telephone, got angry with DK and began drinking. Within a matter of minutes, LL's demeanor changed significantly, she became angry, intoxicated, and was yelling and screaming at DK. The pair separated--DK stayed downstairs and LL went upstairs. Eventually, DK went upstairs to go to bed. LL was not in the bedroom and DK crawled into bed and turned out the lights. Soon thereafter, LL approached and began yelling at DK and poking him in the back. She left the room and returned again shortly thereafter. As DK heard her walking towards him and then felt her hand touch his back again, he reached out with his arm to stop her. The next thing he heard was a loud crash. LL had fallen backwards and hit her head on a sharp marble fireplace next to the bed. There was blood all over the bed and the floor. LL ran into the bathroom, locked the door and called 911. The police quickly arrived at the house and arrested DK and charged him in the Malden District Court with domestic assault and battery. DK hired Attorney Joshua Lewin of the Law Firm of Lewin and Lewin to defend him against the charges. LL did not want DK to be prosecuted, but the Assistant District Attorney refused to drop the case and insisted that the case be prosecuted. DK and LL entered into an "Accord and Satisfaction", which is a private civil agreement to settle the dispute without criminal charges. Such an agreement, however, requires that a Judge agree to dismiss the charges. In this case, there were photos of the crime scene showing substantial amounts of blood and a copy of the 911 call had been determined to be admissible in evidence. The Assistant District Attorney objected to the case being dismissed and the Judge indicated that his practice was to not dismiss these types of cases if the Assistant District Attorney objected. On January 24, 2012, the morning of trial, with all witnesses present in court, Attorney Lewin argued persuasively to the Judge that he should dismiss the case even though the Assistant District Attorney objected. There were lengthy arguments. Ultimately, Attorney Lewin persuaded the Judge to deviate from his practice and to dismiss the charges. The case was dismissed and DK walked out of Court without any penalties. There are many strategies for winning a domestic assault and battery case, including through the use of an 'accord and satisfaction.' The lawyers at Lewin and Lewin have a long track record of using these strategies to successfully defend their clients in assault and battery cases.

NF and her domestic partner of 23 years live together in Andover, MA. On September 21, 2011 the two women got into an argument; the argument turned physical; punches were thrown and a glass bowl got tossed and smashed. The partner called the police to get NF removed from the house. The police repsonded and saw the partner with a black eye and NF got arrested and charged with Domestic Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (a glass bowl). The police photographed the partner's black eye. NF appeared in Court for an arraignment on the next morning and her case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to November 4, 2011. On Saturday morning September 24, 2011 NF and her partner met with Attorney Robert Lewin in Andover for a free initial consultation. During that initial meeting Attorney Lewin learned that NF herself had received several bruises in the fight and Attorney Lewin had photographs taken that day of NF's bruises. Attorney Lewin prepared an Accord and Satisfaction and a Fifth Amendment Affidavit for the partner to sign. The partner did not want NF to be prosecuted and wanted the case dismissed. Massachusetts Law permits the accused and the "victim" in an assault and battery case to work out a financial settlement of the case. That financial settlemnt is called an Accord and Satisfaction. Upon the filing of an Accord and Satisfaction a judge has the discretion to order an assault and battery charge dismissed. The judge is not required to dismiss the assault and battery but the judge may order the assault and battery charge dismissed. Technically an Accord and Satisfaction does not apply in the case of a felony. Assault and Battery is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon is a felony and technically an Accord and Satisfaction is not available for the felony charge. In addition to the Accord and Satisfaction Attorney Lewin also prepared a Fifth Amendment Affidavit for NF's partner to sign. Because the partner had exposure herself to being prosecuted for Assault and Battery against NF, the partner had an absolute right not to incriminate herself and therefor an absolute right not to testify in the case against NF. On September 28, 2011 Attorney Lewin met with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case for a pre-trial conference. Although the DA's Office recognized that the partner had a right not to testify the DA's Office was unwilling to dismiss the case at the pre-trial hearing. As they always do, the DA's office was insisting that the parties appear for a pre-trial hearing and that the case then be set down for trial on a date thereafter. On Thursday, September 29, 2011(8 days after the fight) Attorney Lewin had the case brought forward and Attorney Lewin, NF and her partner (the named victim in the case) all appeared in Court. Attorney Lewin presented the written Accord and Satisfaction and the written Fifth Amendment Affidavit to the Judge. The Judge asked if the partner was present in Court and Attorney Lewin had her come forward. The Judge then determined that the partner had a valid Fifth Amendment claim. The Commonwealth conceded that they could not go forward without her testimony. Attorney Lewin moved for dismissal of the charges; the Assistant District Attorney objected and asked that the case be set down for trial. Over the objection of the Assistant District Attorney the Judge ordered the case dismissed. It took just eight days from the date of arrest (September 21, 2011) to dismissal of all the charges (September 29, 2011). Both NF and her partner were thrilled that the case got disposed of so favorably and so quickly. The results in this case are common at Lewin & Lewin. We don't sit back and wait for things to happen; we make things happen and we do it quickly.

SM, a 26 year old male bookkeeper, was charged in Malden Court with assault and battery on his girlfriend on March 1, 2011. The allegation arose from a fight that he and she allegedly had; she claimed in her affidavit for an abuse prevention order that he had pushed her up against a railing and grabbed her around the throat, choking her. She also claimed that he had banged her face into a door leaving her with swelling on her forehead for which she went to the hospital. SM had two prior domestic assault and battery charges on his record and four prior abuse prevention orders that had been taken out against him by four different women over an eight year period. The Middlesex County D.A.'s Office did not want to let go of this case. SM retained Attorney Robert Lewin. The police reports were reviewed along with the girlfriend's affidavit; the reports and the affidavit did not add up. Ultimately the girlfriend told Attorney Lewin that SM had not assaulted her and that she had lied. Attorney Lewin put the girlfriend into contact with the Assistant D.A. The D.A.'s Office ultimately agreed to dismiss the charge against SM. On May 17, 2011 SM appeared in Malden Court. Attorney Lewin pressed for the dismissal to enter prior to SM's arraignment. The significance of the dismissal entering prior to arraignment is that the charge does not go onto SM's criminal record. Once the arraignment takes place a criminal record is created. As a result of this case not going onto SM's record he will be eligible in May of 2012 to have his remaining criminal record sealed. SM and his girlfriend walked out of court arm in arm - go figure.

On a warm night in April 2010 CL, a 48 year old businessman, took his then girl friend (ZM) to the beach to go fishing on Martha's Vineyard. They were both drinking and an argument broke out between them. CL struck ZM several times and then placed her in his truck and began driving. She tried to get out of the truck but he held her in. They arrived at his house (on the Vineyard) and he brought her inside. The fight continued. He punched her about the head, face, and arms and then took her head and banged it into the glass covering the fireplace. CL then ran from the house, got in his truck and drove away. When ZM came to she called a friend who came and got her and took her to the hospital. Pictures were taken of her face and arms. They were bloody and bruised. The police were called. A warrant was issued for CL's arrest for Attempted Murder, Kidnapping, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, 3 counts of Assault and Battery, and one count of Intimidation of a Witness. CL left the Island and and contacted his busness attorneys who referred him to Attorney Robert Lewin. CL met with Attorney Lewin on a Sunday and retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin contacted the local police department on Martha's Vineyard and then contacted the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case. At first the DA's Office was reluctant to discuss bail and took the position they wanted CL held without bail. After some negotiations a surrender agreement was reached that if CL appeared at Court the DA would agree to a $15,000 cash bail. Attorney Lewin and CL took the ferry across to Martha's Vineyard and appeared in Edgartown District Court. CL was arraigned and released on $15,000 cash bail. An investigator was retained to look into ZM. Subsequently, the case was presented to the Grand Jury and CL was indicted for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, three counts of Assault and Battery, and one count of Intimidation of a Witness. The Grand Jury declined to indict on the Attempted Murder charge.CL's wish was to stay out of prison. The case proceeded through court and in February of 2011 the parrties appeared in court to set a trial date. On that February date a major break occurred in the case. When CL appeared in Court, ZM was also in court. However, she was not there to watch the proceedings. She herself was under arrest. She was in cuffs and leg irons. She had been picked up on a detainer (warrant) that had been issued by the Feds for immigration violations. The Judge in Edgartown ordered her held for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agrents to pick her up, which they did. She was brought to Boston. Unfortunately for CL, the DA's Office does have a "special relationship" with the ICE agents where they can get a person held in ICE custody brought to the Court to testify in a criminal case. Nevertheless, Attorney Lewin saw this as an opportunity to press the DA's Office for a probationary dispositon of the charges. The DA's Office balked. During the year that the case had been going through the Court the DA's Office had always wanted a State Prison sentence. Now they were asking for a 2 year sentence to the House of Correction. CL did not want to go to trial but he was unwilling to plead to jail time. The negotiations continued and finally the DA's Office agreed to a suspended sentence with Probation. On April 21, 2011 CL and Attorney Lewin appeared in Edgartown Superior Court and CL plead to the charges and received a 2 year suspended sentence with a three year term of Probation, concurrent on all the charges. His conditions of Probation include drug and alcohol counseling and completion of a batterers program. Wins come in all shapes and sizes. CL was so relieved not to be going to prison. A suspended sentence is a sentence that is imposed, but execution of the sentence is suspended for a period of time. If the probationer stays out of trouble during the period of the probation then the probation is terminated and the case is closed and the probationer never serves a day in jail. If the probationer violates any term of the probation then the probationer can be brought back to court, the probation revoked, and the suspended sentence put into effect. CL has to keep his nose clean for the next three years. CL had a choice: he could have rolled the dice and gone to trial. If the DA had been unable to get ZM to court the case would most likely have been dismissed. If the DA was successful in getting ZM to Court then a plea on the date of trial would have yielded a State Prison sentence most likely. If the case had gone ahead to trial the evidence against CL was strong and the likelihood is that he would have been convicted and given a substantial State Priosn sentence. Once the suspended sentence with probation was put on the table CL decided to take the plea, take the probation, and be done with it. In the circumstances this was a wise decision.

GD, a 33 year old British Citizen, lives with his wife and seven year old son in Middlesex County Massachusetts. None of them are US Citizens and he is here on a work visa. GD got into an argument/fight (depending upon whose version you believe) with his wife and the police were called to the house. The police separated GD and his wife.The wife told the police that GD had "pushed her to the floor" and had slapped the seven year old. The police arrested GD and he was charged in Ayer District Court with Assault and Battery on his wife and Intimidation of a Witness. The Domestic Violence Unit in the D.A.'s Office had reviewed the case and had "taken an interest" in the case. They wanted the case prosecuted and wanted a guilty finding on the Assault and Battery Charge. GD retained Attorney Robert Lewin. There are many tools available in this type of case and they were all used here. Because GD was a British Citizen and because he traveled outside the US often any type of probation was unacceptable as he might not be permitted to reenter the US the next time he left. Attorney Lewin spoke with Mrs. D (GD's wife) and she agreed to exercise her marital privilege and not testify against her husband. Attorney Lewin also prepared and had Mrs. D sign an Accord and Satisfaction wherein she asked that the charges against her husband be dismissed. Massachusetts Law allows a Judge to dismiss an Assault and Battrey case if the "victim" comes before the Court and "acknowledges satisfaction" for her injuries. The Judge is not required to dismiss the case but has the discretion to dismiss the case. Attorney Lewin also prepared a Motion to Exclude the statements made by Mrs. D to the police on hearsay grounds. On April 14, 2011 the case was called for trial in Ayer District Court. The DA was going to proceed without the direct testimony of Mrs. D. The DA was going to attempt to get into evidence Mrs. D's statements to the police. The Judge reviewed the Accord and Satisfaction but exercised his discretion not to dismiss the case. The DA suggested a continuance without a finding; Attorney Lewin said that was unacceptable as GD denied hitting or pushing his wife and he would not admit guilt to anything. The Judge suggested a one year term of "pre-trial probation". Attorney Lewin said that this too was unacceptable as it may create immigration consequences for GD. Attorney Lewin said that the defense would agree to a general continuance of the case for six months - without any pre-trial probation - with the understanding that the case would be dismissed at the end of the six months. The Assistant DA in Ayer District Court had to call her superiors in the Domestic Violence Unit to get authority to agree to the general continuance of the case. The DA's Office agreed and the case was continued generally to October 14, 2011 on which date it will be dismissed. There is NO probation and there are no immigration consequences to GD.
This case could serve as a law school text book case for issues in a domestic assault and battery case:

1. Use of an Accord and Satisfaction to seek a dismissal of the charge.
   
2. Use of a Motion in Limine to Exclude the Statements of the Complainant on hearsay grounds.
   
3. Exercise of the Marital Privilege so that the injured spouse can refuse to testify.
   
4. The differences between (1) a continuance of a case without a finding, (2) pre-trial probation, and (3) a general continuance of a case.

   Attorney Robert Lewin has been at this since 1971 and Attorney Joshua Lewin has been at this since 2003. They bring the level of experience and knowledge and toughness that is needed when the government seeks to prosecute an individual for a crime and when results matter.

   
   

JR dated a girl for 2 years. They got engaged and then he discovered she was cheating on him. They broke up. Within several weeks she started calling him on the phone. He would not take her calls. One Saturday night JR was out with friends and went to a night club. He left the night club and when he got out to his car there was a voice message from the girl. She said she missed him terribly and wanted him to come over. He drove to her apartment. She let him in. They talked and then ended up in the sack and made love. After the love they began to argue. He got upset and threw some things in her apartment. She told him to leave and he left. She then called the Everett Police and said that JR had assaulted her with a box cutter. The police went and arrested JR. He was arraigned in Malden Court and charged with Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (the box cutter). A review of the police reports showed that JR had never touched her (in any assaultive way). Attorney Lewin filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Assault and Battery. Assault and Battery requires proof of a battery; a battery is an unconsented to and intentional touching. There was no proof of such a touching and the Motion to Dismiss the Assault and Battery charge was granted. The DA's Office offered to continue the Assault with a Dangerous Weapon charge without a finding. JR refused the offer and took the case to trial. At trial the girl testified that JR waved the box cutter at her and threatened her with it. JR testified that he had only picked up the box cutter and threw it into a closet and that he never threatened her with it. Attorney Lewin was able to impeach the credibility of the girl by shlowing that she had made a number of inconsistent statements to the police. On February 9, 2011 JR was found not guilty of the charge in Malden District Court following a jury-waived trial. Attorney Lewin and JR had met three times in the week and a half before the trial; JR was fully prepared to testify (and he did) and he was fully prepared to handle every question he was asked by the Assistant District Attorney on cross-examination. During their trial preparation sessions Attorney Lewin played the role of the District Attorney and grilled JR with questions. JR was ready and handled the DA's questions with ease.

KL was married with one child. His wife had many issues including expecting KL to be at her beck and call whenever she wished. The marriage was floundering and KL moved out; she called KL often and demanded that he drop whatever he was doing and come take their child so she could "go out". When he did not respond promptly enough she called the police and accused KL of assaulting her. The police came and arrested KL and charged him with Assault and Battery on his wife. He was arraigned in Woburn District Court and his case was continued. While that case was pending she called the police a second time and again accused KL of assaulting her. KL was arrested again and brought to Woburn District Court; the DA's Office sought to have KL's bail on the first case revoked and have him locked up while the cases were pending. (Right now - October 2010 - it can take 5 months to get a trial date in Woburn District Court.) KL was released on a cash bail which his father put up. KL retained Attorney Lewin. KL insisted he was innocent. As the time for trial drew near KL's family became concerned about whether or not he should go to trial or perhaps "work out a plea deal"; Attornney Lewin insisted that Kyle not plead guilty but rather go to trial. Attorney Lewin made it clear to KL and his family (and to KL's wife) that the evidence and the truth were on KL's side and that KL would never plead guilty. On October 26, 2010 KL's cases were called for trial in Woburn District Court. Attorney Lewin stood up and in a loud clear voice answered that KL was ready for trial on both cases. KL's wife refused to testify; both charges were dismissed. Never plead guilty to a crime you did not commit.

GP, an 18 year old from Wilmington, was being picked on and bullied by a fellow who at one time had been his best friend. The bullying reached the point where GP couldn't take it any more. GP attacked the bully, knocked him down, and allegedly kicked him with a shod foot. GP emphatically denied kicking the boy. A boy who was present videoed the entire episode on his cell phone. The police applied for a criminal complaint against GP for Assault and Battery by Dangerous Weapon, a shod foot, and a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate was scheduled at Woburn District Court. The crime is a felony in Massachusetts. GP retained Attorney Joshua Lewin. Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the Wilmington Police and then drove to the Wilmington Police Station and obtained a copy of the video. The video was not of the best quality but a careful review ov the video confirmed what GP had been saying that he did NOT kick the bully. With the video in hand Attorney Lewin approached the Police Prosecutor and an agreement was reached that no complaint would issue against GP. On October 26, 2010, GP and Attorney Joshua Lewin appeared at Woburn District Court for the Clerk-Magistrate's Hearing and no criminal complaint was issued against GP. As a result of the case being prepared without delay prior to the Clerk-Magistrate's hearing GP was not charged, he did not have to appear in front of a judge, and NO CRIMINAL RECORD was created.