Articles Posted in Hit and Run Cases

On September 13, 2024, at midnight, MS, a 59 year old man was driving his large, elevated pick-up truck in Everett. He approached an emergency construction site where a police officer was working a detail in an unmarked police car. The officer noticed the pick up truck approaching the officer’s vehicle from the  rear. The officer noticed that the pick up was too far to the right hand side of the road and was heading toward the officer’s car. The pick up side swiped officer’s car, making a loud screeching noise as it grinded against the officer’s car. The pick up never slowed or stopped but kept on going. The officer activated the blue lights and siren in the unmarked vehicle. The officer pursued the pick up down a number of streets and through several intersections; the pick up did not stop. Finally other police cars joined the chase and forced the pick up to the side of the road. The police report reads “Officer C.. opened the driver’s side door and the operator was brought down to the ground belly first and handcuffed” MS asked the officer what he did and the officer pointed to his car. MS replied “I hit it?” MS was arrested. He was bailed from the police station and told to report to Malden Court on September 16, 2024.

MS consulted with and immediately retained Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. On September 16, 2024 MS and Attorney Lewin appeared in Malden Court and MS was arraigned; his case was continued to November 14, 2024 for a pre-trial hearing. After investigating the case and personally viewing MS’s truck (which had very little damage) it became apparent to Attorney Lewin that MS never realized his huge pick up truck had actually scraped the parked unmarked police car.

Attorney Lewin met with the Assistant DA at Malden Court and furnished the DA with pictures of MS’s truck. On November 14, 2024 the DA agreed to continue the case for six months(without any admission of guilt or wrongdoing) to April 24, 2025. On April 24, 2025 the case was dismissed. MS was thrilled with the result.

On March 27, 2024,CG, a 53 year old nurse from Beverly, was driving from her home in Beverly to Shop & Shop. It was in the mid-afternoon. As she traveled down a residential street, she noticed a small truck with a trailer attached, parked on the right hand side of the street. As she passed by the truck she heard a bang. She did not see anyone around and she continued down the street. She went to Stop & Shop and in the parking lot she noticed that her passenger side mirror was damaged and that pieces of the mirror were missing. She then returned to the place where the truck had been. She slowly drove by and did not notice the police officer and man that were standing off to the side. She did not stop and continued home. The man who’s truck had been hit actually got CG’s plate number and a description of her car at the time of the crash and gave that information to the police. The Beverly police then issued a citation to CG for leaving the scene of a property damage accident and no inspection sticker. (The inspection sticker on her car had expired.) CG failed to attend a Clerk-Magistrate hearing (big mistake) and a criminal complaint was issued against her for leaving the scene and no inspection sticker. CG met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover.

Attorney Lewin immediately began his investigation of the case. It turned out that the damage to the truck was quite minor. There was a ladder on the back of the trailer that was knocked loose. The ladder simply needed to be reattached to the back of the trailer. Attorney Lewin spoke to CG’s insurance company to determine if any claim had been made and none was made. Attorney Lewin then met with the Assistant DA handling the case and was able to get the Assistant DA to agree to what is called a “general continuance” of the case. A general continuance is when the case is simply left open for a period opt time and then dismissed. It is NOT a plea bargain. There is no guilty plea; there is no admission of any kind. At the end of the period of time the case is dismissed. Attorney Lewin calls a “general continuance” a dismissal that takes a little time to get there. (It is quite different from a “cwof – a continuance without a finding”. A cwof is a plea bargain and involves an admission of guilt; a general continuance involves no admissions of guilt at all.)

On October 11, 2024, CG and Attorney Lewin appeared  in Salem District Court and the Judge continued CG’s case generally for six months. At that time – if CG stays out of trouble – the criminal charge of Leaving the Scene will be DISMISSED. In addition, the Judge entered a finding of NOT responsible on the inspection sticker violation. Attorney Lewin explained that right after this incident CG went and had her car inspected and got a sticker.

On January 11, 2024, SR, a 68 year old retired salesman, went to s store in a strip mall in Tyngsboro. He did some shopping and then walked to his car. He got in his car and left the mall and drove to his destination in New Hampshire. He never hit anything nor anyone. Later he received a phone call from the Tyngsboro police. They asked if he had been at the mall and he said yes. They asked if he had collided with another vehicle and he said absolutely not. The police told him that they had a witness who saw him strike the vehicle, pause, and then drive away without stopping. Moreover, the police said that the witness had taken a picture of SR’s car and his license plate. In addition the initial police report recited that the police had a video from the mall security cameras that recited that “a vehicle matching the description of SR’s vehicle” backed out of a parking space, struck another vehicle, pause, and then take off”. The police felt they had an open and shut case. The police issued SR a citation for leaving the scene of a property damage accident. SR requested a Clerk-Magistrate hearing. SR went to the hearing without a lawyer and the Clerk-Magistrate issued a criminal complaint against SR for Leaving the Scene. SR was shocked as he knew that he had not struck another vehicle.

SR consulted with and hired Attorney Robert D. Lewin from Andover. On June 18, 2024, SR and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court for SR’s arraignment. Attorney Lewin had prepared and filed a Motion for Discovery that sought production of the video and photographic evidence. At the arraignment the Judge allowed the Motion and ordered the DA to furnish the video and photos to Attorney Lewin by the next court date (August 7, 2024). SR insisted to Attorney Lewin that he was absolutely innocent and if there was a video it would prove him innocent. Attorney Lewin began to hound the DA’s Office for a copy of the video.  Attorney Lewin sent a flurry of emails and made a number of phone calls to the DA demanding a copy of the video. It became obvious that the DA (and the police) were having some issue with producing the video. It appeared that someone was hiding something; that no one wanted Attorney Lewin and SR to see the video.

On August 7, 2024, SR and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin was ready to raise the roof off the Courthouse because the DA had failed to produce the video. At 8:45 AM the DA approached Attorney Lewin and handed Attorney Lewin a “supplemental” police report. The “supplemental” police report recited that upon closer examination of the video it was clear that it was a woman who entered a vehicle (not SR’s vehicle) and then backed up and struck the other vehicle. And then the woman stopped, got out of her car, and went back into the mall. The video clearly showed that SR’s vehicle was NOT involved and that SR was NOT involved. The DA told Attorney Lewin that they would be filing a dismissal of the charge. At 9:00 am the case was called and it was dismissed.

On February 21, 2024 AL, a 32 year old social-worker, was pulling out of a parking space at a local Walgreens Pharmacy. She sideswiped the car next to her. She paused and then drove off. This was not captured on video; however, someone in the parking lot saw the accident and wrote down the number plate of her car and called the police and reported the hit and run. The police ran the plate and sent AL (who was the registered owner of the car) a letter requesting (demanding) that she contact the police. AL contacted and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover to represent her. Attorney Lewin told her not to contact the police, and that he would contact the police for her. AL did NOT want to be charged criminally with Leaving the Scene and she was willing to pay the damage to the other vehicle so that she would NOT be surcharged on her insurance.

Attorney Lewin immediately contacted the police and was able to obtain a copy of the police  crash report. Attorney Lewin spoke with the officer who handles the hit and run cases and was successful in negotiating a resolution of the case without AL being charged with any criminal offense. Attorney Lewin contacted the owner of the other car and arranged for AL to pay the owner directly the $800 cost to repair the car without involving the insurance company.

As a result of Attorney Lewin’s handling of the case, AL was NOT charged with hit and run (Leaving the Scene) and she was NOT surcharged on her insurance. (The $800 cost that she had to pay to the owner of the other car was less than the amount her insurance would have increased.) AL was very happy with the result.

On September 30, 2022 TK was driving his large pick-up truck in Haverhill. He was behind a woman who was talking on her cell phone and driving very slowly. TK got upset with her and began to tailgate her. Finally the woman – who was still on her phone – pulled to the right to let him pass. As he passed her, his truck struck the side of her car. He did not stop. The woman was able to get his license plate and immediately called the police. TK drove to his home in another town. The Haverhill Police had the police in the other town go to TK’s house. There the police spoke to TK. He denied striking the woman’s car. The police examined TK’s truck and did not notice any damage consistent with a collision. The police did notice that the tires on TK’s truck were large and that the truck body was elevated and that it was quite likely that the tires struck the lady’s car. The Haverhill Police then charged TK with leaving the scene of a property damage accident. TK was summonsed to appear in Court for an arraignment.

TK consulted with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover to represent him. TK absolutely denied that he KNEW that there had been a collision. One of the things that the state must prove in a leaving the scene case (hit and run) is that the offender KNEW that there had been in a collision. In this case it appeared that the tire of TK’s truck had struck the other vehicle. That would lend credibility to TK’s assertion that he did not know that there was a collision.

Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney (the prosecutor) and explained that TK did not know that there had been a collision. After some negotiating between the Assistant DA and Attorney Lewin, the Assistant DA agreed to continue the case generally for 1 year and then dismiss it. A general continuance of a case is not a plea bargain. With a general continuance there is no guilty plea and no admission of any guilt or wrongdoing. The case is simply left open for a period of time and then dismissed. Attorney Lewin refers to a general continuance as a dismissal that takes a little time to get there.