Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Challenging Incriminating Statements in Massachusetts Criminal Cases

Published on: February 13, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Federal and Massachusetts laws provide robust protections to individuals accused of crimes, ensuring they cannot be compelled to offer testimony, talk to the police, or give a confession against their will. These protections are rooted in constitutional principles, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Over time, case law has refined these protections into procedural safeguards, such as the well-known Miranda warnings, which require law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogations. When police fail to comply with these requirements or obtain statements under coercive conditions, those statements can and should be excluded from evidence in a criminal proceeding.

A recent Massachusetts case illustrates how these protections are applied in practice. In this case, a man charged with a sex crime against a child made incriminating statements during a police interview that were later used to convict him. Despite his attorney’s efforts to suppress these statements, they were admitted at trial, leading to his conviction on multiple counts. This outcome highlights the critical importance of understanding your rights and exercising them when faced with police questioning.

The Facts

The defendant in this case was accused of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen. The investigation began when authorities received a report alleging abuse, prompting two detectives to visit the home where they believed the defendant was staying. Upon learning he no longer lived there, the detectives contacted him through his family, and he voluntarily returned to the house. During the interview, conducted in the family living room, the detectives provided Miranda warnings but did so imperfectly, requiring repeated clarifications. Despite these shortcomings, the defendant agreed to answer questions without an attorney present. Over the course of a 13-minute interview, he made several inculpatory statements, admitting to inappropriate conduct. He was subsequently arrested.

Mass. Appeals Court Agrees Police Officer Search Lacked Justification

Published on: February 4, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In criminal cases, when one side receives an unfavorable ruling, either the defense or the prosecution has the right to appeal to a higher court for reconsideration. While it’s common to see defendants appealing after a conviction, prosecutors can also appeal rulings that favor the defense, such as the suppression of evidence. This means that even if a defendant enjoys a favorable ruling before trial, they shouldn’t assume they’re out of the woods until all potential appeals are exhausted.

A recent Massachusetts case highlights this dynamic, where a defendant successfully challenged the admission of evidence before trial, only to have the prosecution appeal the ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. This case highlights the importance of having a skilled criminal defense attorney who can navigate both trial and appellate proceedings to protect your rights.

The Facts of the Case

When Can Police Use Secret Recordings Obtained Without a Warrant?

Published on: December 23, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts courts have long recognized the importance of protecting individuals from government overreach, aligning with the due process guarantees found in both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions. Judicial rules and legislative safeguards are in place to ensure that law enforcement actions respect these principles, particularly when it comes to gathering evidence in criminal cases. Illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible at trial, but there are exceptions where it might still be used. A recent Massachusetts case raised questions about the admissibility of secretly obtained recordings made without a warrant. This case underscores the critical importance of ensuring that constitutional protections remain intact during the criminal justice process.

The case involved an undercover officer who, without a warrant, used a cell phone application to record audio and video footage of three alleged drug transactions with the defendant. These recordings captured not only audio of the conversations but also video showing the defendant at various points. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the recordings, arguing that they were obtained in violation of Massachusetts’ wiretap law, which prohibits secret interceptions of oral communications without judicial authorization. The trial court agreed to suppress the audio recordings but allowed the Commonwealth to use the silent video footage as evidence. Both the defendant and the prosecution appealed this decision, with the defendant asserting that the entire recording—both audio and video—should be excluded, and the prosecution arguing for the admissibility of the silent footage.

On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered the intent behind the state’s wiretap statute, which provides robust privacy protections for individuals by prohibiting secret recordings without a warrant. The court concluded that the video footage, even without audio, fell under the statute’s definition of “contents” of a communication, as it revealed information about the identity of the parties and the existence of the conversation. As a result, the court ruled that both the audio and video components of the recordings must be suppressed. This decision upheld the legislative intent of deterring unauthorized surveillance and reinforced the privacy rights of Massachusetts residents.

Massachusetts Residents Have the Right to a Competent, Effective Defense Attorney

Published on: December 14, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

All Americans have the constitutional right to competent legal representation in criminal cases, a principle that applies to both public defenders and private attorneys. While the law does not guarantee the best lawyer in the world, it does require a certain baseline level of competence. When an attorney’s performance falls below this standard and results in harm to the client, the courts may recognize a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). This can lead to the overturning of a conviction, as the legal system seeks to ensure fairness in the administration of justice. A recent Massachusetts appellate case illustrates how IAC claims can significantly affect criminal cases and demonstrates the importance of effective legal advocacy.

In this case, the defendant was convicted on several charges, including violating an abuse prevention order, assault and battery in violation of the order, and threatening to commit a crime. On appeal, the defendant raised two key issues. First, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the violation of the abuse prevention order, as the prosecution failed to introduce a certified copy of the order to establish its terms. Second, he claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike certain undisclosed statements and for not impeaching the victim on prior inconsistent statements.

The appellate court’s review of the case revealed critical shortcomings. The court determined that the prosecution had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the terms of the abuse prevention order in effect at the time of the alleged violation. Without this evidence, the jury could not reasonably find that the defendant violated the order. As a result, the conviction on this charge was reversed. Regarding the assault and battery charge, the court found enough evidence to support a conviction of a lesser-included offense of simple assault and battery and remanded the case for resentencing on this lesser charge. The defendant’s claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were particularly compelling in relation to the charge of threatening to commit a crime. The court agreed that trial counsel’s failure to object to and move to strike damaging testimony about the defendant’s alleged threats likely prejudiced the outcome of the case.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Finds Error in Firearm Conviction — But Upholds the Ruling Nonetheless

Published on: December 14, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Gun violence has become an undeniable epidemic in the United States, with devastating consequences in communities nationwide. While Massachusetts is often regarded as having some of the strongest gun laws in the country, the state is not immune to the harms of firearm-related violence. Each year, Massachusetts records dozens of homicides, with many involving firearms, underscoring the need for stringent measures to enforce existing gun laws. State and municipal jurisdictions rely on a combination of licensing and registration laws to prevent firearm misuse and aid law enforcement in solving crimes. These laws, while effective in many respects, also lead to complex legal battles when questions of their application arise.

In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed an appeal by a man convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant challenged the way evidence against him was presented at trial, highlighting potential flaws in the system’s reliance on data and testimony to establish key facts. His case sheds light on the legal hurdles criminal defendants face and the critical importance of strong legal representation in navigating these challenges.

The case began when the defendant was pulled over for a defective brake light in January 2020. During the traffic stop, officers discovered that his driver’s license was suspended, leading to his arrest. A subsequent search of his vehicle uncovered a firearm between the driver’s seat and the center console, as well as loose ammunition and a loaded magazine. When asked if he had a license to carry a firearm (LTC), the defendant admitted he did not. This admission became a focal point of the prosecution’s case.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Addresses the Admission of Violent Rap Lyrics in a Homicide Trial

Published on: December 4, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The admission or suppression of evidence often plays a pivotal role in Massachusetts criminal cases. Determining whether critical pieces of evidence can be presented to a judge or jury frequently hinges on pretrial arguments. These arguments, led by skilled attorneys, aim to exclude evidence that could significantly impact the outcome of a case. One recent Massachusetts Supreme Court case highlights this reality. In this case, a defendant challenged the admission of rap lyrics he had written, which the prosecution introduced as evidence against him. Despite the defendant’s objections, the court upheld their admissibility, showing the importance of strategic pretrial advocacy.

The case involved a gruesome discovery in Cambridge, where a torso was found in a duffel bag near a business. Surveillance footage and key fob records led police to the defendant’s apartment. Subsequent searches uncovered evidence linking the defendant to the dismemberment of the victim, including bloodstains, a saw, and personal items. The defendant claimed the death resulted from self-defense during a physical altercation, but the jury ultimately convicted him of first-degree murder and improper disposal of human remains.

At trial, the prosecution introduced two rap songs written by the defendant, claiming they demonstrated his state of mind, intent, and fascination with violence. The lyrics described acts eerily similar to those committed in the case, including strangulation and dismemberment. Over the defendant’s objections, the judge admitted the lyrics as evidence, with instructions limiting how the jury could use them. Despite the defendant’s insistence that the songs were fictional and unrelated to the crime, the jury found the evidence compelling.

Prosecutors Celebrate New Massachusetts Gun Law Regarding 3D-Printed Firearms

Published on: October 30, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts lawmakers and prosecutors are working hard to keep up with the evolving legal landscape when it comes to weapons and firearms. A new gun law was recently passed with broad support, addressing the growing problem of ghost guns and 3D-printed guns. These untraceable firearms can be made using commercially available 3D printing equipment and were not adequately regulated under prior laws. Following a series of new rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts took action, moving swiftly to modernize its gun laws in an effort to protect its residents from these emerging threats.

The reasoning behind the new law is clear: ghost guns and 3D-printed firearms pose a significant public safety risk. These weapons lack serial numbers, making them nearly impossible to trace, which gives criminals an alarming advantage. Lawmakers recognized that the lack of regulation for homemade firearms created a dangerous gap in the system, allowing unregulated and untraceable weapons to flood into communities. The broad support for this legislation reflects a general consensus that stricter measures are necessary to prevent violence and save lives. The law introduces functional changes, such as requiring all firearms manufactured or assembled in Massachusetts to be registered, serialized, and traceable. This not only closes loopholes but also creates a system where the production and distribution of ghost and 3D-printed guns can be monitored and controlled.

These untraceable weapons have proven to be a menace, not only to law enforcement but also to the general public. The ability to create a fully functioning firearm from a digital blueprint with minimal technical skill has led to a surge in the availability of illegal guns. Because these firearms can be assembled outside traditional supply chains, they have become increasingly popular among those who want to bypass background checks or any form of government regulation. This makes it much harder for law enforcement agencies to track gun ownership or prevent violent crimes. The danger of these weapons is not just theoretical—there have been multiple instances where ghost guns have been used in violent crimes, leaving law enforcement with no way to trace the origins of the weapons.

Massachusetts Court Finds the Second Amendment Protects the Right to Possess a Switchblade Knife

Published on: October 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has expanded the protections of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms. Traditionally, this amendment was most often associated with firearms, but these protections have extended beyond guns. In a significant development, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently addressed a case that challenged a long-standing law prohibiting the possession of switchblade knives. This case highlights how the interpretation of the Second Amendment continues to evolve, potentially affecting how Massachusetts law views other weapons.

The case began when a man was arrested following an altercation with his girlfriend in Boston. Police were called to the scene and, during a search incident to arrest, discovered a switchblade knife on the defendant. Under Massachusetts law, possession of such a knife was illegal, and he was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon. However, rather than simply accepting the charge, the defendant decided to challenge the constitutionality of the law itself. His legal team argued that the law banning switchblades violated his Second Amendment rights, especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

The argument hinged on whether a switchblade knife could be considered an “arm” protected under the Second Amendment. While the common understanding of the Second Amendment has long focused on firearms, recent rulings by the Supreme Court have broadened this definition to include other bearable arms, emphasizing the inherent right of self-defense. The defendant’s position was that switchblades, which are a type of folding knife, have been used historically for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and should be included within the scope of the Second Amendment.

MA Governor Signs Revenge Porn Legislation Expanding the Definition of Domestic Violence

Published on: October 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

As technology and society continue to evolve, new types of crimes can emerge, often targeting individuals in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago. One such crime is known as revenge porn. This involves the sharing or threatening to share explicit images of someone, typically obtained consensually in a private context, with the intent to harm, shame, or coerce the person involved. While the distribution of such material is done without consent, its emotional and psychological impact can be devastating. Recognizing the gravity of this issue, the Massachusetts General Assembly recently passed laws criminalizing revenge porn, which were signed into law earlier this year.

These new laws have two major effects. First, they criminalize the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit images, closing a long-standing legal loophole that left many victims without legal recourse. Revenge porn, once merely a morally reprehensible act, is now considered a serious criminal offense under Massachusetts law. Second, the law expands the definition of domestic violence to encompass a broader range of abusive behaviors, known as coercive control. This includes non-physical acts such as intimidation, isolation, or threats, which are intended to manipulate or dominate a partner or family member. The law is detailed in its description of what constitutes coercive control, which can include anything from depriving a person of their basic needs to threatening harm to a child, pet, or family member. The scope of the law suggests it can be enforced in ways that are not yet fully foreseeable, and individuals may find themselves facing criminal charges under this broader definition.

When new laws like this are enacted, prosecutors often test the boundaries and limits of their enforcement. In many cases, these laws can be applied in overly aggressive ways, leading to prosecutions that may not have been anticipated when the law was drafted. Over time, some aspects of these laws may be found to be over broad or misapplied, but in the meantime, defendants may find themselves facing severe penalties. Those charged with domestic violence under the expanded definition of coercive control, or with the new crime of revenge porn, should take immediate action to protect their rights. Developing a strong legal strategy from the outset is crucial, especially when dealing with new and evolving legal theories. Anyone facing charges related to these crimes should seek the advice of a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney who is up to date on these laws and can navigate their complexities to prevent over prosecution.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Allows Evidence Obtained in Warrantless Search

Published on: August 29, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a vital protection against unlawful searches and seizures. It ensures that evidence obtained without a valid warrant cannot be used against defendants in court. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, and law enforcement officers, along with prosecutors, often seek to leverage these exceptions to justify warrantless searches. A recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court highlights the complexities surrounding these issues in cases where crucial evidence is obtained without a warrant.

In a recent case, a defendant was charged with second-degree murder after a tragic incident occurred in a Boston housing development. Surveillance cameras captured the shooting, and an eyewitness described the events. The police identified the defendant as a suspect several days later, based on the eyewitness’s independent investigation. More than three months after the incident, law enforcement tracked down the defendant and arrested him without obtaining a warrant. At the time of the arrest, the defendant was seen carrying a backpack, which was later found to contain a firearm. The defendant’s legal team argued that the warrantless search of the backpack, conducted after the arrest, was unconstitutional and that the evidence should be suppressed.

The trial court heard arguments on the motion to suppress the firearm and other evidence obtained from the backpack. The court concluded that while the search could not be justified as a search incident to the defendant’s arrest, the seizure of the backpack was reasonable. The judge found that because the backpack had been on the defendant’s person immediately before his arrest, it was permissible for the officers to seize it. Despite finding the immediate search unjustified, the judge ruled that the firearm should not be suppressed, as it would have inevitably been discovered during a lawful inventory search at the police station.