by

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at about 2:30 in the afternoon, BW, a 27 year old Registered Nurse, was driving on the Mass. Turnpike on her way to Connecticut. The State Police received numerous calls from motorists on the Turnpike that her vehicle was weaving on the roadway. A State Trooper pulled in behind her vehicle and observed it go from the left hand lane into the median of the highway kicking up debris. The Trooper put on his emergency lights and BW pulled to the right and, after signalling with her right blinker, pulled across the highway and off to the right into the breakdown lane and stopped. The Trooper pulled in behind her and approached her vehicle. The Trooper made observations of BW and then had her exit her vehicle and perform certain roadside assessments which according to the Trooper she failed. The assessments included a one legged stand, a nine-step heel to toe walk, a balance test, and a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. According to the officer she failed all the tests. In BW’s open purse the officer observed a prescription bottle of gabapentin, a prescription medication for nerve pain. The officer charged BW with operating under the influence of drugs, specifically gabapentin. The officer also charged BW with Negligent Operation.

BW consulted with many lawyers. On February 16, 2020 BW had a two hour initial consultation with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. The OUI Drug statute in Massachusetts is a very detailed and specific statute. It defines in very specific terms the types of drugs that trigger the application of the law. Gabapentin, which is a depressant substance (it depresses electrical activity in the central nervous system and is used to treat seizures and nerve pain) at first glance would appear to be a drug that triggers the OUI Drug law. BW and Attorney Lewin discussed the law in detail. BW retained Attorney Lewin. For BW it was important that she win; if she were to be charged and/or convicted her Nursing License could be in jeopardy.

Attorney Lewin thoroughly researched the law and the science. The Massachusetts OUI Drug law makes it unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on a public way while under the influence of a narcotic drug or a stimulant or depressant substance as defined in the law.  The law sets out a very technical definition of depressant substance. Attorney Lewin thoroughly researched the science and the law and was able to establish that gabapentin – although it was a depressant substance – did not meet all the requirements of the law; specifically the law required that the substance be “designated by regulation of the U.S. Attorney General as having a potential for abuse”.  Attorney Lewin did a thorough research of the Federal Regulations and it turns out that the US Attorney General has NOT so designated gabapentin. Attorney Lewin informed BW of his findings and told her that she was going to win her case.

Continue reading

by

On July 9, 2019 KM, a 45 year old Manager at a large Defense Contractor was arrested at his home in Andover by the police and charged with Witness Intimidation and Malicious Destruction of Property (a cell phone). KM and his wife had had an argument over KM’s texting with another woman. The argument got heated and when KM’s wife went to call 911 KM took her phone and smashed it preventing her from calling the police. KM and his wife have two young children who were asleep at the time the argument started but were awakened by the smashing of the phone. Ultimately KM’s wife went to a second phone and called 911. The police responded to the house and arrested KM. In addition the police reported the incident to DCF (the Department of Children and Families). DCF did an investigation and determined that KM had neglected his two children.

KM interviewed several attorneys. KM had an initial free consult with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. The consult was almost two hours. KM then retained Attorney Lewin and Attorney Lewin went to work on both cases (the criminal case and the DCF case). On October 30, 2019 the criminal case was dismissed in Lawrence District Court.

The finding of “neglect” by DCF could have dramatic consequences for KM; he could be prevented from participating in school events for his two children and his security clearance at work could be affected. Attorney Lewin appealed the finding of neglect. A “Fair Hearing” was scheduled for December 19, 2019.  Attorney Lewin prepared KM and his wife to testify at the hearing. Attorney Lewin prepared a thorough and detailed Memorandum for the Fair Hearing Officer detailing why the decision was wrong and needed to be overturned. On December 19, 2019 KM, his wife, and Attorney Lewin appeared at the DCF Office in Lawrence for the hearing. KM and his wife both testified. Attorney Lewin argued that “one loud argument between a husband and wife that woke the children up should not lead to one of the parents being branded a perpetrator of neglect”.

Continue reading

by

On October 24, 2019, IW, a 47 year old disabled married man from the Dominican Republic, was living in Lawrence with his wife and their 1 1/2 year old daughter. Previously his wife had taken out an abuse prevention order against him. The order was in effect on October 24, 2019 and the order ordered IW not to abuse his wife. The night before October 24, 2019 IW drank a great deal. On the morning of the 24th IW’s wife went to work leaving IW at home with their 1 1/2  year old baby. When IW awoke he was still drunk and he called his wife and told her she better come home from work to take care of the baby. In addition IW told his wife that he was going to throw all her clothes out in the street and that he wanted her out of the house. IW’s wife returned home from work and IW and his wife got into a heated argument. His wife then told IW that she was going to call the police and she did. She told the police that when she told IW she was going to call the police he told her “call the cops and you will see what happens”. After she called the police IW left the apartment. As he was leaving the building the police arrived and detained IW. The police talked to IW and he admitted that he was drunk. The police spoke with his wife and then the police arrested IW and charged him with violating the no abuse order and with witness intimidation (threatening her if she called the police).

On October 24, 2019 IW was brought to Lawrence District Court. He was appointed a lawyer and given a date to return to court. When IW could not reach his court appointed lawyer and when the court appointed lawyer did not return IW’s calls, IW contacted Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. Attorney Lewin and IW met and IW subsequently retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin reviewed the police reports with IW and told IW that the Commonwealth would have a very difficult time proving either one of the charges against IW. Attorney Lewin told IW that the evidence was not there to prove either of the charges and that he absolutely should take the case to trial. Attorney Lewin explained to IW that the Commonwealth would not dismiss the case prior to the trial date. Clients have a difficult time accepting the fact that the District Attorney’s Office will NOT dismiss a domestic abuse case prior to the trial date.

On December 12, 2019 IW and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court for IW’s pre-trial hearing. Attorney Lewin approached the Assistant District Attorney about dismissing the case but the Assistant DA said they will not dismiss a domestic abuse case prior to trial. The case was continued for a jury trial to February 3, 2020.

Continue reading

by

On July 24, 2019 SB, a 74 year old retired administrator from North Andover, was driving from Peabody Center westerly on Route 114 toward Danvers. As he traveled westerly he approached the section of Rt. 114 where the North Shore Mall is on the left and Kappy’s Liquors is on the right. He was in the third lane from the right. According to SB he applied his brakes and the car did not slow. He then turned his steering wheel to the right to pull into the parking lot of Kappy’s. There was a motocycle in the lane immediately to SB’s right. When SB made that sudden turn he collided with the motor cycle. The cyclist was thrown off the motorcycle and was severely injured. He had a fractured leg and a possible head injury. SB continued into the parking lot of Kappy’s and the police were called by another motorist. SB waited at the side of Rt. 114 and the police arrived shortly thereafter. Three witnesses at the scene all told the police that “the motorcyclist was travelling straight ahead, and the other vehicle involved turned in front of him resulting in the crash”. The motorcyclist told the police that he was travelling straight ahead when SB’s vehicle suddenly turned directly in front of him causing the crash. The police cited SB for reckless operation.

SB spoke to at least 4 criminal lawyers. SB met with Attorney Robert Lewin from Andover. They had an initial free consultation that lasted 2 hours. Attorney Lewin explained to SB that reckless operation carried a potential jail sentence of 2 years and a mandatory loss of license. Attorney Lewin downloaded SB’s driver history from the Registry of Motor Vehicles and it was terrible. SB had a prior conviction for Reckless Operation, 4 surchargeable at fault accidents, and 12 other moving violations. Attorney Lewin could sense immediately that SB was going to be a difficult client. SB thought he had all the answers and he thought he knew exactly how the defense should proceed. He was dead wrong and Attorney Lewin told him so. SB retained Attorney Lewin.

Attorney Lewin explained to SB why it was so important to try to kill the case at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. SB brought the citation to the Peabody District Court and requested a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin then went over to Peabody District Court and obtained copies of all the police reports. More importantly, Attorney Lewin met with the Police Prosecutor from the Peabody Police Department. The purpose of the meeting was to advocate on SB’s behalf to get the case resolved at the Clerk-Magistrate hearing without a criminal complaint being issued against SB – a very tall order given the facts of the case, SB’s driver record, and the severe injuries sustained.

Continue reading

by

On December 21, 2019 two men (JG and JM) who shared an apartment in Newburyport went out for a few drinks. They returned back to the apartment. It is at this point that the two versions of what happened differ wildly. The police reports contain the following: According to JG, who owned the lease on the apartment, JG asked the roommate JM to leave the apartment. When JM refused to leave an argument broke out and JM punched JG and pushed him to the floor knocking over a Christmas tree. According to JM, when they returned from the bar JM tried to go to sleep but JG began arguing with JM and JG pushed and scratched JM at which point JM pushed JG away.  Both men told the police that the other man was the aggressor. Both men told the police that the other man hit first. And both men told the police they acted in self-defense. JG had visible injuries and he had been the one that called the police. JG requested medical attention and was brought to the hospital. The police arrested JM at the scene and the police told JG that he would receive a notice to go to court.

On December 23, 2020 JM was arraigned in Newburyport District Court and his case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to January 27, 2020. JM was appointed a lawyer. JG received a Notice of a Criminal Complaint Application that had been filed by the police. The Notice informed JG that the police had filed an application against JG at the Court wherein the police were asking the Clerk-Magistrate of the Court to issue a criminal complaint against JG for Assault & Battery. The Notice further informed JG that a hearing would be held at the Court by a Clerk-Magistrate on January 31, 2020. JG met with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin of Andover. Attorney Lewin explained to JG that you never want to be in criminal court – especially in Newburyport District Court, the toughest District Court in Essex County. Attorney Lewin explained to JG that the only people who “win” in Criminal Court are the lawyers because the lawyers get paid to be there. Attorney Lewin explained to JG that if JM refused to testify against JG then it was very likely the case against JG would go away and JG would not be charged. Likewise, Attorney Lewin explained that if JG refused to testify against JM the case against JM would likely go away. JG told Attorney Lewin that he did not want to be charged and he had no problem with the case against JM being dismissed.

Attorney Lewin called the lawyer that had been appointed to represent JM and proposed that both men refuse to testify against the other in their respective cases. The public defender agreed with Attorney Lewin’s suggestion. Attorney Lewin called the police prosecutor. The police prosecutor represents the police department at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. The prosecutor said that if JM had no interest in going forward with the case against JG then the police would not press the matter forward at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin told the public defender for JM to speak with the Assistant DA and to tell the DA that Attorney Lewin represented JG and that JG was not going to testify against JM.

Continue reading

by

On November 15, 2019 KA, a 21 year old Senior at Salem State, put his college enrollment and graduation at risk by breaking into a campus building and stealing a case of beverages from the school cafeteria. At 2:30 in the morning he and another student entered the building and were in the process of stealing the bottles of beverages when the campus police came upon the two students. KA and the other student ran. KA got away; the other student did not. The other student identified KA for the campus police as the other intruder.

The police applied for a criminal complaint against KA for breaking and entering and larceny; the application was set up for a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate at Salem District Court. The hearing was scheduled for Friday, January 17, 2020. Three days before the hearing, KA and his mother consulted with and retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin immediately took control of the case. Attorney Lewin obtained and reviewed the police reports with KA. Attorney Lewin then reached out to the officer in charge of the case and the police prosecutor and advocated for the case to be diverted out of the criminal justice system. The Essex County DA’s Office runs a diversion program the principal benefit of which is to completely avoid criminal prosecution. Attorney Lewin then went over to Salem District Court and met with the head of the diversion program and advocated for the program to accept KA. The program director agreed that KA was a suitable candidate for the program.

On January 27, 2020 KA, his Mother, and Attorney Lewin appeared at Salem District Curt for the hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate. At the commencement of the hearing Attorney Lewin pointed out to the Clerk-Magistrate that Attorney Lewin had already spoken to the program director and that the program director felt that KA was a suitable candidate for the program. The police prosecutor told the Clerk-Magistrate that the police did not object to KA’s case being diverted. The Clerk-Magistrate agreed and said that she was referring the case to the Diversion Program.

Continue reading

by

KP, a 65 year old man from California, was on a work assignment in Andover, MA. He got into a dispute with a fellow employee. According to KP the fellow employee attacked KP and the fellow employee ended up getting charged by the Andover police with Assault & Battery on a Person Over 60. The fellow employee turned around and filed an application for a criminal complaint against KP at Lawrence District Court alleging that KP had punched and strangled him and had hurled racial insults against the fellow employee. The Clerk-Magistrate’s Office at Lawrence District Court scheduled the application for a criminal complaint against KP for a hearing on January 9, 2020. KP was referred to Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. KP and Attorney Lewin had an initial conference over the phone that lasted about 1 1/2 hours. KP then retained Attorney Lewin. Attorney Lewin explained to KP that it would be prudent for Attorney Lewin to find out who was representing the fellow employee in the fellow employee’s criminal case. Attorney Lewin explained that both KP and the fellow employee have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify against one another and that if they both exercised their Fifth Amendment right it was very likely the Commonwealth could not proceed against of the the two men. KP had no interest in pursuing the criminal charge that the police had filed against the fellow employee and KP certainly did not want to have to defend against a charge of Assault & Battery himself. Attorney Lewin explained to KP that the only people who win when a case goes to court are the lawyers because the lawyers get paid.

Attorney Lewin reached out to the lawyer for the fellow employee and explained that KP would not come out from California to Massachusetts to testify against the fellow employee if the fellow employee agreed not to testify against KP at the Clerk-Magistrate hearing. The attorney for the fellow employee agreed.

On January 9, 2020 Attorney Lewin appeared at the office of the Clerk-Magistrate for the hearing on the application for the criminal complaint for Assault & Battery against KP. KP remained in California. No one else showed up. The fellow employee and his Attorney had agreed with Attorney Lewin that they would not appear. The Clerk-Magistrate called the case and when no one other than Attorney Lewin responded the Clerk-Magistrate denied the Application for a Criminal Complaint against KP. As a result KP was not charged with any criminal offense; KP did not have to come to Massachusetts; and NO criminal record was created against KP. Attorney Lewin left the hearing room at Lawrence District Court and called KP in California and told him that he had just won his case! KP was thrilled and gave Attorney Lewin a big “thank you” from California.

Continue reading

by

DE, a 35 year old woman from Lowell, was cited by the State Police for a Hit and Run on Route 495 in Andover. On November 6, 2019, after leaving a bar/restaurant in Andover, she headed onto Rt. 495 South from Route 28 in Andover. At the same time a tractor trailer unit was headed south on Rt. 495. The driver of the truck observed her. The State Police report states: “[The truck driver] stated that she lost control and turned sideways. He then stated she appeared to regain control and continued onto the highway crashing into the side of his vehicle as he was traveling in the first travel lane. [The truck driver] advised that he could see that the passengers mirror was hanging from the drivers side as the vehicle fled the scene.” DE was subsequently identified as the operator of her vehicle at the time of the hit and run and on November 11, 2019 DE was issued a citation by the State Police for Leaving the Scene of a Property damage accident.

DE knew Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover as he had successfully defended her in 2013 against a charge of operating after suspension of her license. DE immediately contacted Attorney Lewin and retained him.

Attorney Lewin went over to Lawrence District Court and immediately filed a request for a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin checked the papers in the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office to see if the State Police had filed their copy of the Citation along with an Application for Criminal Complaint for the Hit and Run against DE. Under a little known statute (although well known to Attorney Lewin) the police have six business days to file their copy of the citation along with their application for a criminal complaint in the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office of the Court. Failure to do so is a defense. Attorney Lewin discovered that the police had not filed their paperwork. Attorney Lewin kept checking with the Clerk-Magistrate and it was not until November 25, 2019 that the police finally filed their copy of the citation along with their Application for Criminal Complaint against DE. This was 9 business days (exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and Thanksgiving Day). DE’s case was set up for a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing.

Continue reading

by

On Saturday morning March 2, 2019 at about 2:30 am,  DE, a 48 year old plasterer from Malden, was arrested for Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Accident and for Failing to Identify Himself. The police responded to a one car accident on Rt. 99 in Malden. A work van full of plastering equipment was found by the police up against a utility pole. The entire front end of the van was crashed in and both front airbags had deployed. No one was in the van. The keys were still in the ignition. The police ran the license plate and the registered owner was DE who lived near the accident scene. It was 2:30 in the morning. The police got an anonymous tip that a man wearing a gray sweater was seen leaving the van and heading up the street on foot toward the street where DE lived. The police drove up the street and located DE walking. He was drunk; he was covered in plaster; and he was walking toward his home. The police asked DE to identify himself and he refused. He demanded to know why the police were stopping him. The police told him his van was wrapped around a pole and he said F___ you to the officer. The police arrested DE. He refused to say anything to the police. He refused to admit the van was his; he refused to admit that he was driving; he said NOTHING. DE was brought to the police station and again he refused to say anything. He was put in a cell and at about two in the afternoon he finally got bailed out. On Monday, March 4, 2019 DE went to Malden Court and was arraigned.

DE called Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. DE was quite familiar with Attorney Lewin as Attorney Lewin had successfully defended DE against a charge of Drunk Driving 2nd Offense that had been brought against DE by the Gloucester Police in June of 2018. That case went to a jury trial on November 28, 2018 and on November 29, 2018 DE was found NOT guilty. (To read about that case see the entry on this website dated December 4, 2018).

In any event Attorney Lewin prepared the case for trial and noted that the Commonwealth would have trouble proving that DE was driving the van at the time of the accident. The District Attorney had numerous documents from the Registry of Motor Vehicles; but Attorney Lewin noticed that the documents were not properly certified. Attorney Lewin kept that little tidbit of information to himself.

Continue reading

by

On May 31, 2019 QN, a 19 year old male, was driving home to his Mother’s house in Andover when he lost control of his car and crashed into two parked vehicles. It was about 2:30 AM. QN got out of his car and looked around. All the homes in the neighborhood were dark. QN called his father who lives in Peabody. The father told him to wait at the scene and that the father would drive up from Peabody. QN waited and about 30 minutes later his father arrived. The father called for a tow truck and the father brought QN to QN’s mother’s house which was just around the corner.  The father then returned to the scene. The tow truck arrived but told the father that the car could not be towed because the car came to rest on private property (the front lawn of a house). The tow truck driver called the police and the police responded. The police arrived and asked the father what  happened. The father told the police that his son had been driving and lost control and that the father had brought the son to his mother’s house. The police went to the mother’s house and rang the doorbell but no one responded. The police charged QN with Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Accident. The police charged the father with Misleading a Police Officer.

Father and son met with Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin pointed out that he did not believe that any law had been broken!

The hit and run law requires that when a driver is involved in a collision he must stop at the scene and “make known his name, residence, and the register number of his motor vehicle”. The law requires that the information be given “to the person whose property was damaged, if reasonably possible, and if not, to someone acting in their interest or to some public officer or to some other person at or near the place at the time of the damage.” QN had remained at the scene for 30 minutes. All of his information was known to his father and as soon as the police arrived the father told the police his son’s name and residence address. The registration plate was on the car and plainly visible to the police. Attorney Lewin pointed out to QN that he only left the scene AFTER he had made known what happened to his father and that he therefore had substantially complied with the requirements of the law.

Continue reading
Contact Information
18 Kathleen Dr
Andover, MA 01810
Phone: 978-258-3520
Fax: 978-258-4565
E-mail Us
Map & Directions

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Lewin & Lewin
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design