Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer BlogAn Attorney was accused in Lawrence District Court of taking fees from a client and not performing the work. A criminal complaint for two counts of larceny from a person age 65 or older was filed against him. A charge of larceny can be easy to file but difficult to prove. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. In this case the “victim” was over age 65 at the time the charges were filed but it was clear from the evidence that at the time of the alleged thefts the “victim” was well under age 65. Right at the outset that reduced the two counts from aggravated larceny to simple larceny. Then Attorney Lewin noticed that the date of offense in Count 1 was more than six years before the date on which the criminal complaint issued. This put Count 1 beyond the six year Massachusetts Statute of Limitations. Now we were down to one count of simple larceny. To prove larceny by false pretences the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the taking of the money the accused had an intent to steal or defraud. This is an issue that is commonly raised in cases against contractors who take a deposit on a job and then for one reason or another don’t complete the job or don’t do any work at all on the job. Attorney Lewin and his staff researched the issue thoroughly and found a number of Massachusetts cases directly on point. The cases hold that mere non-performance of the job is not enought to prove an intent to steal or defraud at the time the the contractor is hired. An extensive Memorandum of Law was prepared for the judge and all the relevant cases were cited. When the Assistant District Attorney and Attorney Lewin argued the issue to the Judge, the Judge cited the very cases that Attorney Lewin had cited in his Memorandum. The District Attorney finally yielded and on August 9, 2010 all the charges against the lawyer were dismissed.
Online Child Enticement Case To Be Dismissed
AF, an 18 year old male from New York, had an online relationship with a 14 year old female from Massachusetts. The relationship included an exchange of pictures and an exchange of videos. The videos were very explicit. AF arranged to come to Massachusetts and meet with the female. They met and were seated in AF’s car when the police came. An investigation followed. The police in NY were contacted and AF’s computer was seized in NY. A forensic examination of AF’s computer and the female’s computer revealed the many explicit emails that AF and the female had exchanged as well as the videos. What this case was really all about was a love relationship between AF and the female. Attorney Lewin was able to convince the District Attorney that AF was not a “child predator”, that AF and the female had a genuine non-sexual relationship with one another (notwithstanding the pictures and the videos), and that AF was not the type of person the child enticement statute was designed to protect against. On July 26, 2010 with the agreement of the District Attorney the Judge in Framingham District Court continued AF’s case generally for six months. The case will be dismissed on January 11, 2011. There was no guilty plea; there was no “admission to sufficient facts”; this was NOT a plea bargain. There was absolutely no admission of any wrongdoing by AF. A successful result was reached, in part, because Attorney Lewin furnished to the District Attorney a number of the emails between AF and the female that showed that this really was a love relationship between AF and the female. It was important to avoid a conviction because a conviction would have required 20 years of sex offender registration as well as an electronic monitoring bracelet during any term of probation. All of that was avoided.
License Reinstated in Less Than Four Hours
DC lives in Ohio and has an Ohio license. Recently DC went to renew his Ohio license and was told he had a warrant in Massachusetts and a license suspension in Massachusetts and that both would have to be cleared up before Ohio would renew his Ohio license. DC had a very substantial job in the construction industry and absolutely needed a license to earn a living. On Tuesday, July 27, DC contacted Attorney Lewin and retained Attorney Lewin. Within minutes Attorney Lewin determined that in fact there was NO warrant outstanding against DC, that the entry of a warrant was incorrect. There had been a warrant but that warrant had been cancelled some years earlier. Attorney Lewin then contacted the Registry of Motor Vehicles, got the Registry to correct its records, and got DC’s driving privileges reinstated. All this was done in under 4 hours.
License Reinstatement in Under 24 Hours
In 2004 MS was cited in Brookline, Massachusetts for one criminal motor vehicle violation and two civil motor vehicle infractions. MS subsequently moved to Rhode Island and then to Viriginia and never received the court summons to appear in Brookline District Court. In 2005 a warrant was issued by Brookline District Court. For the last four years MS has had a valid Virginia license. Recently MS went to renew his Virginia license and was told he could not renew it because of the warrant in Massachusetts. On Wednesday, July 28, 2010 MS contacted Attorney Lewin and retained Attorney Lewin. On Thursday, July 29, 2010 Attorney Lewin went to Brookline District Court to begin work on the case. After reviewing the Court papers and speaking the with Assistant District Attorney, Attorney Lewin was confident the Judge would look favorably on a request to cancel the warrant and dispose of the case without MS having to travel from Virginia to Massachusetts. A Motion for relief was presented to the Judge who then (1) allowed Attorney Lewin to appear for MS, (2) excused MS’s appearance in court, (3) dismissed the criminal charge, (4) entered findings of not responsible on the civil motor vehicle infractions, (5) cancelled the warrant and (6) closed the case. The cancellation of the warrant was electronically transmitted to the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles and Viriginia allowed MS to renew his Virginia license. All this was done in under 24 hours.
Avoiding A Criminal Record As A Thief – Malden Court
One rainy day Patrick M, age 18, was walking to a friend’s house when it began pouring. Patrick saw a bicycle leaning up against a house in Wakefield. Patrick figured if he “borrowed” the bike he could get to his friend’s house more quickly and not get quite so wet. In a moment of poor decision making, Patrick entered the yard, grabbed the bicycle, and rode away to his friend’s house. Patrick left the bike at the friend’s house in the back yard. Unfortunately for Patrick, a witness had seen Patrick take the bicycle and had followed Patrick. The witness went to the police. The police retrieved the bike and confronted Patrick. In a moment of contrition Patrick admitted taking the bike and apologized profusely. He told the police it was his intention to return the bike the next morning and that he never intended to steal it. Patrick wrote a heartfelt letter of apology to the owner of the bike. The police charged Patrick with larceny over $250, a felony. Patrick retained Attorney Lewin prior to his arraignment. On the morning of the arraignment Attorney Lewin asked that the arraignment not be held but that the case be continued for a period of time to allow Attorney Lewin to try to convince the DA’s office to dismiss the case prior to the arraignment. The case was continued two more times and on June 23, 2010 the DA’s office agreed to dismiss the case “prior to arraignment”. The significance of the case being dismissed “prior to the arraignment” is that the case does not go on Patrick’s record. A charge of Larceny over $250 brands someone as a thief and no one wants to hire a thief. As a result of good lawyering at the outset of the case Patrick came out of this with no criminal record.
Clearing An Old Warrant
In 1995, while he was a college student in Rhode Island, Joseph C attended a concert in Massachusetts. Driving back to Rhode Island at two in the morning Joseph was going down Route 95 at 95 mph. He was pulled over by the State Police. It turns out that his California License was suspended. He was cited by the Mass. State Police for Unlicensed Operation and Speeding. Thereafter he returned to Rhode Island and eventually to California. He never received the Court summons and was defaulted. A Warrant issued for his arrest. The case sat idle for over a decade. In 2010 the Massaschusetts RMV (Registry of Motor Vehicles) picked up the warrant and revoked his right to operate in Massaschusetts. That revokation was entered into the NDR (National Driver Register) Data Base and California refused to renew his license. He contacted the Court and was told he would have to come out to Massachusetts to clear the warrant. Joseph retained Attorney Lewin on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. On Wednesday morning, June 23, 2010 Attorney Lewin appeared in Wrentham District Court. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Assistant District Attorney who, after some haggling, agreed to didmiss the charges. Attorney Lewin appeared before the Judge and the Judge went along with the dismissal of the charges (including the speeding ticket of which he was found not responsible). Attorney Lewin obtained the Notice of Cancellation of Warrant and furnished it to the RMV and by 3:00 PM Joseph C was cleared in Massachusetts so that he could get his license in California. This took less than twenty-four hours after being retained. Joseph C is back out cruising in his BMW.
Another DWI 2nd Offense Win
On Friday, June 11, 2010 a 63 year old Methuen man was found not guilty of DWI 2nd Offense following a two day trial in Lawrence District Court. RL was followed by the State Police on Route 93 North from the Dascomb Road exit to River Road where he was pulled over for numerous lane violations. As the trooper approached the car he noticed the driver drinking from a mouthwash bottle. The trooper also noticed that the driver had lowered all four windows of the car, not just the driver’s window. When the trooper asked what the man was doing with the mouthwash, the driver, after some hesitation, said he was coming from the Beijing in North Andover. Field sobriety tests followed and then the arrest. At trial Attorney Lewin introduced photos of Route 93 showing numerous potholes and the obliteration of most of the lane markings. The bill from The China Blossom (not Beijing) was introduced and it showed that RL had consumed only 1 Mai Tai all evening. RL’s girl freind was called as a witness and she confirmed that he had consumed only one Mai Tai. The case had been thoroughly prepared; RL and Attorney Lewin had no less than three trial practice sessions in Attorney Lewin’s Office to make certain that RL was ready for both direct and cross examination. As a result of this win RL did not lose his license for two years, he did not have to go to the two week in-patient program; and he will not be required to have an ignition interlock device installed in his car. He has his license. This is another example of how important it is to be properly prepared for trial.
Angry Mother With A Shoe
SD, a 68 year old mother, was angry that her son’s ex girlfriend had caused a number of criminal charges to be filed against her son (Kidnapping, Attempted Murder, Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order). The son was ordered held in $10,000 cash bail. In March 2010 the son’s case was on the Court list in Lynn District Court. Mother came to court wearing a pair of sandals. Mother saw the ex-girlfriend (a girl to whom the mother had been most generous over the last several years) and grabbed the ex-girlfriend by the hair, punched her in the head, and then allegedly took her sandals off and beat the ex-girlfriend with the sandals. Court officers and Lynn Police came running and put the mother in cuffs and arrested her. She was charged with Assault and Battery by means of a dangerous weapon (the sandals), Assault and Battery, and Threats. After considerable negotiations with the Essex County District Attorney’s Office, on June 7, 2010 the DA agreed to dismiss the felony count of Assault and Battery with a dangerous weapon and the count alleging Threats. The charge of Assault and Battery (a misdemeaonr) was ordered continued for nine months without a finding to be dismissed at the end of the nine months. As Attorney Lewin and the mother were leaving the Courthouse he told her to leave her sandals at home the next time she comes to Court.
Heroin Dealer Gets Lucky
On January 15, 2010 the Tewksbury Police were doing an undercover surveillance at a parking lot of a large store in Tewksbury just off Route 495. They observed one vehicle parked in the parking lot away from any other vehicles and away from the store. A second vehicle entered the parking lot and parked in the space next to the first. The two drivers exited the two cars and the police observed what appeared to be a drug transaction take place. The two men then headed back to their respective cars. The police approached the two men and after some discussion it was determined that the driver of the second car (initials SR) had delivered a forty bag of heroin to the driver of the first car. SR was charged with Distribution of Heroin (Class A) and Conspiracy to Violate the Controlled Substance Law. The Distribution Charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in the State Prison; the Conspiracy charge carries the same maximum penalty. In addition a conviction (finding of guilty) to the charge of Distribution carries a mandatory 3 year loss of driving license (with the right to apply for a hardship license after 18 months). Attorney Lewin was retained and began discussing the case with the Assistant Distrrict Attorney; calls were also made to the police. Without SR becoming an informant Attorney Lewin was able to negotiate a settlement of the case. On May 27, 2010, the Conspiracy charge was dismissed and the Distribution charge was continued without a finding. Because there was no conviction SR did not lose his license. At the end of the period of the continuance without a finding the Distribution charge will be dismissed.
DOMESTIC BLISS?
On April 17, 2010, MC, a stunning woman of 40 years (she looks like age 25) became very upset with her 24 year old husband for his habit of visiting with and spending time the mother of his child (a woman other than MC). MC became enraged and proceeded to give him a good beating. When he said he was leaving (to go you know where) she said I’m calling 911 which she did. The police responded and after speaking with him and her arrested her and charged her with Domestic Assault and Battery. MC had a prior charge of Assault and Battery in 2009. The District Attorney did not want to let go of this case; however, Attorney Lewin prepared a Marital Affidavit for the Husband to sign. On May 26, 2010 the case was on the criminal pre-trial list in Malden District Court. At Attorney Lewin’s request the husband came to court and exercised his marital privilege. Attorney Lewin moved for dismissal and the case was ordered dismissed by the Judge. MC and her husband walked out of court arm in arm.