by

On April 30, 2018, JB, the mother of a fourth grade female student in a local Catholic School, went to Lawrence District Court and applied, on behalf of her 10 year old daughter,  for an Harassment Prevention Order against SM, the mother of another female student in the class. JB alleged that SM over a five month period had “continued to touch her daughter inappropriately” at school. JB further alleged that SM had bullied her daughter at school. And lastly JB allegd that on April 28, 2018 SM had called the police and made a false report against JB.

Upon the filing of her Complaint for an Harassment Prevention Order the Court sent out a notice to SM that there would be a hearing on May 8, 2018. SM sought out a lawyer and met with and hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover, MA. Attorney Lewin immediately went over to Lawrence District Court and obtained a copy of the affidavit that JB filed when she applied for the Harassment Prevention Order. Attorney Lewin and SM went over the affidavit word by word. Every claim that JB made was false and Attorney Lewin and SM were able to build a defense. Attorney Lewin and SM had two lengthy trial preparation sessions in which Attorney Lewin explained the do’s and dont’s of testifying in court.

On May 8, 2018 SM and Attorney Lewin appeared in the Restraining Order Session at Lawrence District Court. JB was there with her lawyer. After a full hearing – which lasted about 30 minutes – the Judge ruled that JB had not proven that her daughter had been harassed by SM and the Judge DENIED JB’s request for an Harassment Prevention Order. The level of preparation of SM and Attorney Lewin’s thorough understanding of the Harassment Prevention Order law were readily apparent to everyone sitting in the Courtroom.

Continue reading

by

From January 2013 to May 2013 JA, a then 29 year old Hispanic male from Lawrence was in a relationship with DO, a 28 year old Hispanic woman also from Lawrence. The both worked in the same factory. In May 2013 they broke up when JA took a trip to the Dominican Republic. After the breakup they continued working in the same factory and DO wanted JA back. She would send him texts and then she started sending JA nude and very sexual pictures of herself. She would give JA notes at work. He had moved on and was with another woman and he rebuffed all her advances. DO herself was in a relationship with another man and was living with this other man but was still trying to get JA back. In 2018 DO complained at work that JA was harassing her and JA got fired. JA then took all the pictures and notes that DO had sent to JA and sent them to DO’s boyfriend. DO went to Lawrence District Court and applied for an Abuse Prevention Order against JA. JA was served with the temporary order and a hearing was set for May 1, 2018 in Lawrence District Court.

JA met with and hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. With the assistance of a translator JA was able to give Attorney Lewin all the facts of the case. JA and Attorney Lewin had two lengthy sessions where Attorney Lewin prepared JA to testify at the hearing. In addition, JA was able to obtain and bring to Attorney Lewin his phone and text records that showed all the calls and texts that DO had sent to JA. The case was fully prepared.

On May 1, 2018 JA and Attorney Lewin appeared in the Restraining Order session at Lawrence District Court. DO was there. DO testified and JA testified. Attorney Lewin showed the Judge all the nude pictures and text messages that DO had sent to JA from 2013 to 2018. There was NO believeable evidence that JA had placed DO in fear of imminent serious physical harm. That is the basis on which DO was seeking an order against JA. At the end of the hearing the Judge ruled in JA’s favor and denied DO’s request for a restraining order.

Continue reading

by

DB, a 46 year old repairman, went through a bitter divorce several years ago. His former wife has a history of making false accusations about DB. On Friday, March 23, 2018 DB received a Notice from the Newburyport District Court that the Rowley Police had filed an application for a criminal complaint against DB alleging that DB had violated a 209A Abuse Prevention Order. The Notice told DB that a hearing would be held at the Newburyport District Court on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 to determine whether a criminal complaint would be issued against DB. Late in the afternoon on Monday, March 26, DB found and hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Attorney Lewin obtained a copy of the police report and spent the better part of the day and  night preparing the case. The police report alleged that the Abuse Prevention Order required – among other things – that DB not go into the Market Basket store in Rowley. The police report indicated that a witness who knew DB for 25 years saw DB in the store on March 5, 2018 and reported it to the police the next day on March 6, 2018. DB was able to secure his cell phone records which showed that on March 5, 2018 DB’s cell phone pinged on towers in Douglas, MA before and after the time he was allegedly in the Market Basket store in Rowley. It is over 80 miles from Douglas to Rowley. In addition, DB and his current wife had a post office receipt showing that they were in the Post Office in Douglas, MA shortly before he was allegedly in Rowley. In one day and evening Attorney Lewin and DB put together all the documentary evidence. On March 28, 2018 Attorney Lewin met DB and his current wife at the Courthouse 1 hour before the hearing. Attorney Lewin sat with DB and his wife and went over their testimony in detail. Attorney Lewin gave them strict instructions about how to behave in the hearing room and he instructed them on how to be a good convincing witness. It was clear to Attorney Lewin that DB was innocent.

Finally – after waiting 1 1/2 hours DB’s case was called in. The Clerk-Magistrate explained that this was a show-cause hearing and the Clerk-Magistrate did not decide whether or not DB was guilty but merely whether there was “probable cause” to issue the complaint. The police prosecutor read the report. Attorney Lewin had DB and his wife testify and the phone records were put into evidence.

Attorney Lewin then advocated to the Magistrate that DB’s testimony and his current wife’s testimony was very believable particularly given the phone records and the receipt from the Post Office. In addition Attorney Lewin presented to the Judge a google maps printout showing where Douglas, MA is and how far it is from Rowley.

Continue reading

by

EU, a 19 year old resident alien from Albania, lives in Peabody with his parents and two brothers. His mother was apparently having an affair with a 31 year old man. EU’s father was very angry with his wife and the man with whom she was having an affair. EU found his Mother’s apparent boyfriend and in full view of a security camera at a local YMCA EU proceeded to beat up the apparent boyfriend leaving the boyfriend bleeding profusely from the head. People inside the Y saw the beating and called the police. EU fled the scene before the police arrived. EU was known to the people at the Y and he was quickly identified by the police. EU was charged with Assault and Battery.

EU’s father consulted with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover to represent EU. The biggest problem that EU faced is that Assault & Battery is a deportable offense. EU is NOT a citizen and in this climate having a criminal conviction for Assault & Battery can lead directly to deportation, exclusion from admission to the country if you leave, and denial of citizenship. Attorney Lewin explained the Federal Deportation law in detail to EU and his father and explained the real risk that EU was facing if he were found guilty. Even a continuance without a finding followed by a dismissal is a deportable disposition. The Federal Government treats a continuance without a finding the same as a guilty finding.

The video was terrible as it showed EU (and another man) attacking the victim. In addition the police took photos of the victim and the photos showed the cuts to his head and the blood all over his face and clothing.

Continue reading

by

On November 30, 2017, SO, a 32 year old pipe-fitter from Methuen, MA, got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend. She began to break things in their apartment and then she attacked him. HE called 911 and asked that she be removed from the apartment. The Methuen police responded quickly to the apartment. According to the police report she told the police that SO had grabbed her by the throat and dragged her out of one room and into the kitchen where he proceeded to hold her down on the floor. When he finally let her up, the police report continues, he blocked her way in the apartment. SO told the police that she had smashed a picture frame and he denied ever grabbing her or holding her down. The police arrested SO and charged him with one count of Domestic Assault & Battery. On December 1, 2017 SO was arraigned in Lawrence District Court and his case was continued to January 19, 2018 for a pre-trial hearing.

SO met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. It was obvious to Attorney Lewin that the girlfriend had a Fifth Amendment Privilege not to testify. She had committed at least two crimes: smashing the picture frame (malicious destruction to property) and assault and battery (she had struck him). Attorney Lewin met with the girlfriend and explained the workings of the Fifth Amendment Privilege. She told Attorney Lewin that she did not want to testify and would exercise her privilege. Attorney Lewin then went and met with the Assistant District Attorney. As is their custom, the DA’s Office refused to commit to dismissing the case at the pre-trial hearing on January 19, 2018. The DA always prefers to continue a domestic assault & battery case to the trial date. Their hope is that the complainant (the girlfriend in this case) will have a change of mind and will decide to testify.

On January 19, 2018 SO, Attorney Lewin, and the girl-friend appeared in the pre-trial session at Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin told the Judge that the complaining witness was present in the Courtroom and that she had a valid claim of a Fifth Amendment Privilege and that she wished to exercise her Fifth Amendment Privilege. The Judge appointed a lawyer to speak with the complaining witness. The District Attorney objected. The DA pointed out that the case was not on for trial but was scheduled for pre-trial; the DA pointed out that the complaining witness could change her mind between the date of the pre-trial and the trial date. Attorney Lewin argued that the complaining witness had taken the day off from work to come to court, that the complaining witness was resolute that she did not want to testify and that she would exercise her Fifth Amendment privilege. Attorney Lewin argued that it would be a waste or everyone’s time and resources to make everyone come back to court on a later date to do what could be done on January 19. The Judge agreed with Attorney Lewin. The Judge accepted the girlfriend’s exercise of her Fifth Amendment Privilege and the Judge then asked the DA if they could go forward with the case without the testimony of the girlfriend. The DA reported they could not. The Judge then ordered the case dismissed.

Continue reading

by

On May 18, 2017, BT, a 70 year old retired social worker, drove from her home in Winchester into Harvard Square. BT spotted a parking space on the side of the street. She proceeded to pull into the space scraping the entire side of a car already parked on the street. She got out of her car as if nothing had happened and headed across the street to do some shopping. Fortunately or unfortunately – depending on your point of view – a Cambridge Police Officer witnessed the entire episode. The officer approached and asked BT to return to the scene of the accident. BT accompanied the officer and told the officer she had no idea what he was talking about. The officer told BT to look at the damage to the car. Again she repeated that she had done nothing and she had no idea what he was talking about.The officer issued BT a citation for failure to use care and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. BT received a summons to appear in Cambridge District Court (in Medford) for an arraignment. On August 16, 2017 BT appeared in Cambridge District Court and was arraigned and the Judge suggested to BT that it would be in her best interest to hire a lawyer. Her case was continued to September 22, 2017.

BT met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. It became immediately apparent to Attorney Lewin that BT was suffering from some mental illness. According to BT the FBI had been following her for 24 years and this interaction with the police in Cambridge was all set up by the FBI. Attorney Lewin obtained all of BT’s car insurance information and then met with the Assistant District Attorney in Cambridge District Court. On September 22, 2017 BT and Attorney Lewin appeared in Cambridge District Court; by agreement the charges against BT were continued generally for 3 months. On December 22, 2017 the charges against BT were dismissed.

A general continuance does not involve any admission of guilt or wrongdoing. It is NOT a plea bargain. The case is simply continued without any admission of guilt and then dismissed. BT was very happy with the result. About a week later BT called Attorney Lewin and went on at length about how the FBI was still out to get her. All Attorney Lewin could do was listen!

by

ET, a 30 year old software engineer from India, has trouble obeying the rules of he road. He ended up getting his license suspended but continued to drive. He then got arrested in Woburn and in Malden for driving after suspension of his license. There was a warrant for his arrest for the case in Woburn. Some years before ET had hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover to handle a hit and run case. Attorney Lewin was successful in killing that case in the police station before any charge was brought. ET again retained Attorney Lewin. Because of the warrant Attorney Lewin and ET went to Court right away. On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 ET and Attorney Lewin went to Woburn District Court to address the warrant. Attorney Lewin arrived at Court early and spoke with the Assistant District Attorney. Attorney Lewin explained that the license suspension was not for any serious motor vehicle violations. The District Attorney agreed to dismiss the charge. ET and Attorney Lewin walked out of Woburn Court with the warrant cancelled and the criminal case dismissed. The next day, Wednesday, January 3, 2018, ET and Attorney Lewin went to Malden District Court. Again, Attorney Lewin arrived at Court early and spoke with the Assistant District Attorney. Again Attorney Lewin explained that the license suspension was not for any serious motor vehicle violations. The District Attorney agreed to dismiss the charge. Within 24 hours ET had both charges of driving on a suspended license dismissed. On January 4, 2018 ET is scheduled to go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and get his license reinstated. It just doesn’t get much better.

by

On August 1, 2017 TX, a 35 year old technology service coordinator for a school district in California, was stopped at Logan Airport after a search of his luggage revealed 5 MDMA pills. TX had just arrived from Lisbon, Portugal and was due to catch another plane to his home state of California. TX caught break after break. The Federal Authorities said they would not prosecute the case and turned it over to the State Police. The State Trooper who arrived on the scene asked TX if he wanted to go to jail. TX answered “No”. The Trooper then asked TX if he wanted to get arrested. Again TX answered “No”. The State Trooper then told TX to “expect a summons”. On August 24, 2017 the East Boston Municipal Court issued a summons for TX to appear for an arraignment on October 26, 2017 on a charge of Possession of a Class C substance.

TX contacted Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover via phone. Attorney Lewin conducted an initial client interview/consultation with TX over the phone. The consult took about 1 1/2 hours. TX then retained Attorney Lewin.

Attorney Lewin obtained the police reports and reviewed them with TX. Attorney Lewin then contacted the Assistant District Attorney at the East Boston Municipal Court. Attorney Lewin was able to detail for the Assistant District Attorney all of the good points in TX’s background: TX’s lack of criminal record, good education, good employment, etc. Attorney Lewin and TX were concerned that having a drug charge on TX’s record would cause TX to lose his job in the school district where he worked. (Zero Tolerance Policy) Attorney Lewin understood that if the arraignment did not take place then no criminal record would be created. It is the taking place of an arraignment that creates a criminal record. Attorney Lewin suggested to the Assistant District Attorney a pre-arraignment disposition of the case.

Continue reading

by

On November 15, 2017, SS, a 33 year old entrepreneur from Maine, was driving from Maine to New York City to catch a plane to South America to attend a wedding. While on Route 495 South he got pulled over for a marked lane violation. One thing lead to another and during a search of SS’s vehicle the police found a digital scale, 3 pounds of marijuana, 10 grams of mushrooms, 15 grams of THC extract packaged and marked for distribution, and Xanax. In addition SS had $1,000 in US Currency.

SS was arrested and brought to Newburyport District Court where he was charged with the following offenses:

  • Possession of Class C with Intent to Distibute (The THC Extract)(A Felony)
Continue reading

by

MT, a woman in her mid sixties, lived in a single family house in Andover with her husband. Immediately adjacent to MT’s property lived a family in another single family house. MT had issues. MT did not like certain things that her next door neighbors did in their yard. When the neighbors would come outside MT would go out into her yard and stare at the neighbors. Then MT began shouting obscenities at the neighbors (in the presence of the neighbor’s minor children). The neighbors began to keep a diary of the incidents and finally in October of 2016 went to Lawrence District Court and both the husband and wife were granted Harassment Prevention Orders against MT. The orders were to expire on October 24, 2017. In December of 2016 MT  saw her neighbor in the yard; MT went outside into her yard and walked over to the property line and began to stare at the neighbor. The neighbor got out his camera and began to film MT. The neighbor then went into his house and called the police. The police came and arrested MT and charged her with violating the Harassment Prevention Order. MT went to court and was placed on probation for violating the order. As the one year anniversary date of the order approached MT contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin of North Andover, MA to fight the extension of the order. Attorney Lewin told MT that where she had plead guilty to violating the order and where she was on probation for violating the order that it would be an uphill fight to get the order vacated.

The law with reference to extending these Harassment Prevention Orders is that the plaintiff (the person seeking to have the order extended) has the burden of proving that there is still a need for the order – that is that there is still a reasonable fear of the plaintiff being harassed – at the time the extension is sought. The law is identical with reference to extension of Abuse Prevention Orders as well.

Attorney Lewin thoroughly prepared MT to testify in court and Attorney Lewin prepared a written legal memorandum for the judge setting out in particular that the plaintiffs (MT’s neighbors) had the burden of proving that they still had a reasonable fear of being harassed by MT. On October 24, 2017, after a full hearing at which both sides testified, the judge in Lawrence District Court ruled in MT’s favor and refused to grant an extension of the order.

Continue reading