Date:           May 4, 2016

Charge(s):   Assault And Battery On A Household Or Family Member

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Dismissal

My client contacted me the evening prior to arraignment for both her and her daughter. I informed her that I could represent her but because I would have a conflict with her daughter, I could not file an appearance. I suggested that the daughter represent herself for the time being because once I told the prosecutor my client’s partners request to exercise for marital privilege.since I believed the daughter’s case would have also been discussed.  I met with the prosecutor prior to the court date that was set following the arraignment and highlighted the fact that my client had no record and had only been in this country for a period of one year. In addition, the daughter appeared to have tried to separate the parties and she became involved.

RESULT: Client’s Case As Well As Her Daughter’sCase Was Dismissed.

 

Date:           May 4, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating To Endanger

Court:         Worcester/Westborough   District Court

Event:         Plea Hearing

My client was operating his vehicle when he became involved in a situation which he believed he was the victim of road rage. I reviewed the report and noticed that the other operator was an off-duty Massachusetts state trooper. Complicating matters was the fact that my client had two prior offenses of operating to endanger in which he was placed on probation. Although those cases were over 10 years ago they still would play a role in how the prosecutor looked at this case as well as what a judge would potentially do if he was found guilty. The prosecutor in West borough wanted an admission,however, I did not want my client to admit to the charge and transfer the case to the Worcester District Court where the jury session was.   Because we pushed the case to trial, I was able to secure a resolution that did not revolve an admission. My client was placed on pretrial probation for six months, which ultimately will result in the dismissal of this case.   

RESULT:Client’s Case Continued Without An Admission To Be Dismissed In Six Months.

 

Date:           May 3, 2016

Charge(s):   Restraining Order Renewal

Court:         East Brookfield District Court

Event:         Plea Hearing

In this hearing, I actually represented a victim who was afraid that an out of control next-door neighbor would hire a lawyer to get the restraining order vacated.   Typically, I represent defendants who are seeking get a restraining order vacated.

RESULT:Client(Victim’s) Restraining Order Successful Continued For One Year.

 

Date:           May 2, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating Under the Influence, (2nd) Operating to Endanger

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Jury Waived Trial

My client got arrested after a witness observed her back into an ambulance that was parked at a gas station in Worcester. The witness followed my client approximately one third of a mile where she parked the vehicle in a parking lot. The police became involved after the witness returned to the gas station and spoke to the ambulance driver resulting in their dispatch responding to that lot. Upon arrival troopers investigated and interrogated my client required her to do field sobriety tests and answering written questions. The problem being, on the day of trial the only witness that could put my client behind the vehicle decided she had better things to do that day. The case was originally scheduled for a jury trial but since the only witness did not show up I opted for a jury-waived trial and my client was found not guilty of both counts.

RESULT:Not Guilty Of Both Counts.

 

Date:           April 28, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating Under the Influence, (1st) Operating to Endanger

Court:         Framingham District Court

Event:         Jury Waived Trial

At approximately 2 AMmy client was attempting to get back on route 495 and in doing so made it illegal U-turn. A police officer observed this action and proceeded to pull my client over on an on-ramp. The whole event was captured on the police officer’s cruiser video but I believed that footage significantly help my client’s case. The field sobriety tests, as well as my client’s manner of speech,was clearly observed from the video. What struck me as unusual was that after the field sobriety tests, there was a 10-minute delay in the officer returning to question my client. I asked the trooper on cross-examination if he had some doubts in terms of his sobriety. No police officer has ever answered that in the affirmative on the stand. This officer looked at them and said, “well I went back and questioned him did I not?” Implicit in his question was that I was correct.

RESULT:Not Guilty Of Both Counts.

 

Date:           April 25, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating Under the Influence, (3rd) Operating to Endanger

Court:         Attleboro District Court

Event:         Jury Trial

Soon after leaving a restaurant around 1 AM, a local police officer began following my client. He followed him for approximately 1 mile and pulled him over just before my client’s residence. The typical OUI stop was conducted and before long, my client was placed under arrest. The police officer was not very forthcoming and I figured that testimony regarding the length of time my client had been followed. He made it appear that my client was pulled over almost immediately following his departure from the restaurant. However, I had introduced photographs as well as a Google map showing the numerous stop signs and turns my client had to make before he was pulled over. My gut feeling was that my client’s operation was fine, however, when the officer ran my clients registry history his two prior OUI’s showed up. The jury never hears about the prior offenses in what was described as a minor weaving within his lane turned into my client driving almost perfect in the 1 mile the officer was behind.     

RESULT:Not Guilty Of Both Counts.

 

Date:           April 22, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating Under The Influence (Serious Bodily Injury)

Court:         Board of Appeals

Event:         Hardship License

My client was convicted of the above charges approximately two years ago. He still had a significant time left on his license suspension and asked me to try to get him a hardship license for work. One of the most important things at these hearings is to summarize not only a financial hardship, but also a hardship just getting to and from work. In addition, I highlighted his sober date as well as everything that he had been doing to stay sober throughout the last two years. I presented letters from his employer, which focused on his character as well as his importance of being able to get to, and from work in a timely manner. The board approved my client’s hardship license.

RESULT:Hardship License Granted.

 

Date:           April 22, 2016

Charge(s):   Speeding, Left Lane Violations

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Clerk-Magistrate Hearing

My client was a truck driver from Indiana. He had received these violations while traveling through Worcester. We appealed the citations and, given the fact that he is a truck driver with a CDL license, it was imperative to dismiss at the least the left lane violation. I was able to have both offenses dismissed.

RESULT:Not Responsible Both Counts.

 

Date:           April 12, 2016

Charge(s):   Rape

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Warrant/Arraignment

A warrant was issued for my client soon after a hearing at the local college concluded regarding allegations of sexual misconduct. I immediately stopped what I was doing it appeared at the local courthouse at approximately 3:30 PM with my client. I was able to securealow cash bail and my client was released to go home to his parents.

RESULT:Client Released.

 

Date:           April 20, 2016

Charge(s):   Disorderly Conduct, Minor In Possession Of Alcohol

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Arraignment

Prior to my client’s arraignment I contacted the head of the diversion program in Worcester to see whether or not I could get his case diverted by doing community service as well as an eight hour class. He had attended a concert at the Palladium and had become a bit problematic to the staff and the police. The benefit of a diversion would be that my client would not have a CORI record if any future employer or school would look into his background.

RESULT:Case Diverted.

 

Date:           April 20, 2016

Charge(s):   Possession Of A Firearm

Court:         Worcester Superior Court

Event:         Petition to Seal

My client was indicted on the above charge and I was able to obtain a dismissal of that. Even though the case resulted in a dismissal, it would still show up on her CORI record. I petitioned the Superior Court and filed a motion essentially showing that good cause existed in sealing my clients record. My client had a young child and was a single parent so it was imperative when seeking employment the charge did not appear. The judge allowed my motion

RESULT:Petition Allowed.  Case Sealed.

 

Date:           April 8, 2016

Charge(s):   Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Motion for a New Trial

My client thought he was entering into a great disposition when he represented himself alone. The prosecutor decriminalized the above charge but he was indeed found responsible. This caused an extremely difficult scenario with the RMV. The only way to undo the responsible finding was to request a new trial and get the prosecutor to dismiss the charge outright. I was able to accomplish this and his registry issues went away.

RESULT:Case Dismissed.

 

Date:           April 7, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating Under the Influence (1st)

Court:         Worcester District Court

Event:         Motion to Dismiss

This case might be the most unusual operating under the influence defense I have had in 10 years. My client was stopped after the officer felt as though his muffler was too loud at approximately 2 AM in an area in Worcester near most of the local bars. After making some observations of my client’s demeanor, manner of speech, and bloodshot eyes, the officer gave my client field sobriety tests that he performed fairly well. Rather than place my client under arrest, the officer decided to tow his vehicle. During the trail it was shown that there was a female at the scene who was argumentative with the police officer and it ultimately resulted my client’s arrest on the above charge. I filed the motion to dismiss because the statement of facts in which the clerk makes a decision to issue the complaint because it failed to show that the officer noted my client was impaired which is a critical element that was missing in this unusual case.  The judge agreed and allowed the motion to dismiss.

RESULT:Case Dismissed.

 

Date:           April 6, 2016

Charge(s):   Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Court:         East Brookfield District Court

Event:         Plea

This client came to see me after a difficult experience for the prior lawyer. The prior lawyer suggested he admitted to the above charge because of the witness that would testify against him at trial. I however noticed some significant inconsistencies and pointed those out the prosecutor. The prosecutor allowed my client’s case to be continued without any penalty for six months without having to make any admission.

RESULT:Case To Be Dismissed Without An Admission.

 

Date:           April 5, 2016

Charge(s):   Larceny over $250

Court:         Dudley District Court

Event:         Plea

My client worked as a home health nurse and made the horrible decision to take some money from one of her patients. The entire event was caught on camera. This case became one of trying to resolve this matter with the least effect on my client’s life as well as her nursing license. I arranged to have her get into counselingand provided the counselors report to the judge. I also reached out to the family’s lawyer and arranged to get them to agree to continue my clients matter without any clear finding for one year. That means she would not have to make an admission that would ultimately save her nursing license.

RESULT:Case To Be Dismissed In One Year Without Any Admission.

 

Date:           April 1, 2016

Charge(s):   Operating Under the Influence of Drugs/Immediate Threat

Court:         Board of Appeals

Event:         Restoration of License

I was able to win the above charge however; the court has no jurisdiction to address the hardship suspension that the trooper had placed on my client’s license. As a result, we had to go to the board of appeals and obtain relief from the RMV decision. The client hada serious head trauma many years ago and had a medical marijuana card issued as a result. The key for the board to feel comfortable in removing the immediate threat was to show to the board that when he is using marijuana in the future he would not operate a motor vehicle. This was the only blemish on my client’s criminal record and the board of appeals removed the immediate threat suspension and gave him his full license back.

RESULT:Full License Restored.