Assault Crimes/Violence

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.

The Uphill Battle of Pursuing an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim after a Massachusetts Conviction

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

Anyone accused of a crime in Massachusetts may have several opportunities to challenge the accusations lodged against them. Sometimes, charges are dismissed based on evidentiary issues before a trial occurs. At the close of a trial, defendants may be successful in asking the court to acquit them without sending the charges to a jury. After a conviction, defendants may be entitled to relief by an appeal if an error was made below. In situations where a defendant’s trial counsel made mistakes that resulted in a conviction, defendants may be entitled to relief by making a claim on appeal of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Although it is a high bar to meet, it is possible for someone to be completely exonerated by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed a defendant’s claim that their counsel was ineffective by failing to request a new trial before they were convicted of a violent assault crime.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the defendant was charged with assault after she was found by a family member next to an unconscious man in an apartment. After the defendant was confronted by the man’s friends, other individuals intervened and allowed her to escape. Later, the alleged victim found a wallet that appeared to belong to the assailant, and she was tracked down and arrested. The defendant was later convicted at trial, although she took issue with her defense counsel’s performance and appealed the conviction to the state appeals court.

On appeal, the defendant’s motion for a new trial and claim of ineffective assistance of counsel were denied. She argued that her lawyer failed to inform her about the possibility of a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF). However, a new trial can only be granted if justice likely was not served, and such motions are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The trial judge, who also ruled on the motion, found no evidence of ineffective assistance. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show their lawyer’s performance was significantly below standard and likely deprived them of a substantial defense.

Can a Dramatic In-Court Identification Unfairly Influence a Jury?

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

In the world of legal dramas as known by pop culture, we’ve all witnessed those intense courtroom scenes where a victim or witness dramatically points to the defendant, solidifying their guilt in the eyes of the jury. However, what these shows and movies often fail to depict is the complexity and unreliability of eyewitness identifications. Contrary to popular belief, these identifications aren’t the infallible evidence they’re often portrayed to be. In reality, they can be influenced by many of factors, leading to potentially flawed convictions.

Massachusetts law recognizes the inherent pitfalls of eyewitness identifications and imposes strict guidelines regarding their admissibility in court. Controlling legal precedents underscore the importance of these safeguards, as demonstrated by a recent case where a man’s attempted murder conviction was overturned due to an improper in-court identification that may have wrongly influenced the jury in his case.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was arrested and charged with felony assault and attempted murder after he was identified by witnesses as the person who returned to a party and shot at a home where the alleged victim was injured by gunfire. The witness identified the defendant as the shooter while being interviewed by the police, and then testified in court that the defendant was the person she saw committing the crime. The defendant was convicted of the charges at trial, but appealed the court’s allowance for the witness to identify the defendant in a dramatic in-court fashion.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Gives Broad Access to Law Enforcement Seeking Cellular Phone Location Data

Published on: May 15, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Criminal investigations have changed drastically in the last 30 years. The rise of cell phones and smartphones has created a new field of evidentiary law related to these electronic devices. Cell phone providers can track the location and behaviors of their customers, and police often seek this information to place suspects at crime scenes. However, both cell phone companies and their customers have a Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure of their phones or data. Therefore, law enforcement must obtain a valid warrant and demonstrate probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found before they can compel a cell phone company to turn over the data. The Massachusetts Court of Appeal recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that had suppressed some evidence of assault crimes that was obtained with a warrant from the defendant’s cellular phone provider.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant had been suspected of a chain of assaults over the course of about two weeks, based on a tentative identification by one of the crime victims. After another victim notified police that they saw their assailant in public, the police apprehended and questioned the defendant. Based on other evidence, the police sought a search warrant for the data related to two phone numbers associated with the defendant. Although the warrants were issued, the defendant’s counsel successfully challenged the warrants and the evidence would not be admitted, but for the State’s appeal.

On appeal, the Court discussed the requirements for a valid search warrant for cell phone data to be issued. Law enforcement must establish probable cause that the suspect committed a crime, that the suspect’s location data would be helpful in solving or proving the crime, and that the suspect had a cell phone at the relevant times. This requires demonstrating the suspect’s association with the cell phone and showing that location data from the phone is relevant to the investigation.

Massachusetts Court Sides with Defendant in Assault Case, Ruling that Lower Court Should Have Allowed Him to Strike Jury Member

Published on: January 9, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent case before an appeals court in Massachusetts, the defendant challenged the lower court’s refusal to allow him to keep a jury member from serving on the jury during his trial. On appeal, the higher court reviewed the lower court’s record considered the defendant’s argument, and ultimately sided with the defendant, setting aside his guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was charged with mayhem, assault and battery, and violation of constitutional rights with bodily injury after he got into a fight with a security guard at a local restaurant. According to witnesses, the defendant attacked the security guard, using racial slurs as he assaulted the man.

The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court’s judge should not have refused to strike one of the jurors that was part of the pre-trial jury selection.

The Decision

The higher court therefore had to decide whether it was reasonable for the judge overseeing the trial to refuse to strike the juror in question. The juror was a Black male, and the defendant asked to strike the juror, meaning he did not want the man to be part of the group of 12 jurors that would hear the case. The judge asked the reason for the defendant’s request, and counsel for the defendant explained that the juror’s mother worked for the police department and that he might therefore be biased against the defendant.

How Prior Offenses Can Drastically Affect Massachusetts Charging and Sentencing Outcomes

Published on: November 30, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Massachusetts criminal code is designed to allow prosecutors and judges discretion in charging and sentencing decisions in order to address the serious issue of repeat offenders. Criminal defendants with a prior record may be charged with different crimes than another person without a record. Additionally, a defendant’s record is taken into account when a judge makes sentencing decisions. These charging and sentencing decisions can have an enormous impact on the penalties that a defendant may be subjected to for the same conduct. A Massachusetts appellate court recently heard a case that challenged a lower court’s application of the Massachusetts Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to increase the punishment of a defendant with a prior juvenile offense.

According to the judicial opinion, the defendant had been charged with a firearm charge as a habitual offender because he had a prior conviction for a violent crime. The Massachusetts ACCA defines “violent crime” as an act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or possession of a deadly weapon, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year if committed by an adult. Prior decisions have established that a prior juvenile offense can serve as a predicate offense only if the Commonwealth can prove that the weapon used or possessed was inherently deadly. The defendant’s argument focused on the fact that his youthful offender adjudication involved an armed robbery with a fake handgun. The court agreed with the defendant that the defendant’s prie crime did not apply as a violent crime as required by the ACCA. A competent attorney was crucial in presenting this argument effectively, as the prosecution had to prove the inherent deadliness of the weapon, a nuanced distinction.

This judicial opinion underscores the pivotal role of competent legal counsel when facing cases involving prior offenses. Competent attorneys are vital in cases where the proper interpretation of statutes can mean the difference between enhanced sentencing and a more lenient outcome. They must be well-versed in legal precedent, statutory construction, and the nuanced distinctions between legal terms, such as “dangerous” and “deadly” weapons.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Decides Defendant in Assault and Battery Case is Entitled to New Trial

Published on: December 21, 2022 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appeals court in Massachusetts considered whether a defendant in an assault case should be entitled to a new trial. Originally, the defendant was charged with and convicted of assault and battery on a person over the age of fourteen. Once the defendant appealed, the higher court reconsidered the conviction and decided that the defendant was eligible for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant first threatened and then physically harmed the victim in this case in April 2016. The day after the assault occurred, the victim recounted what happened to her friend. Two months later, she decided to report the assault to a detective. The detective investigated the incident, found the defendant, and eventually arrested him on charges of assault and battery.

The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. Promptly, the defendant appealed his conviction, asking the higher court to grant him a new trial.

Massachusetts Defendant Loses Appeal in Assault and Battery Case

Published on: December 12, 2022 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent case involving assault and battery by a dangerous weapon, the defendant appealed his guilty conviction before the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge allowed impermissible testimony from police officers to be submitted at trial, and this testimony made the jury unfairly biased against him. Looking at the record of the case, the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal and affirmed the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was arrested with one other individual in an alleyway behind a local gym. Apparently, the defendant pulled out a knife while he and the second individual were threatening a third person. The defendant cut the victim’s face, and the victim sustained minor injuries from the incident. Soon after the assault, a police officer came to the scene to arrest both the defendant and the second individual.

The defendant was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. His case went to trial, where a jury found him guilty as charged. Promptly after the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Massachusetts Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Involuntary Homicide Case

Published on: September 10, 2022 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts ruled on a defendant’s appeal involving an attempted robbery and homicide. On appeal, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court affirmed the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and his accomplice got into a taxicab around 1:00am in August 2018. The two passengers took a short ride in the taxi, then when they arrived at their destination, the taxi driver informed them that the ride would cost five dollars. The defendant and his accomplice first asked for change for a fifty-dollar bill, then appeared to shuffle their hands in their pockets as if they were looking for money.

Suddenly, the accomplice reached over the driver’s seat and wrapped both arms around the driver’s neck in a chokehold. The accomplice and the defendant both told the driver to hand over his money. At the same time, the defendant pulled out a three-inch tactical-style knife and pressed the blade against the driver’s body. The defendant and his accomplice exchanged words with each other such as, “just stab him” and “kill him.”

Massachusetts Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Assault and Carjacking Case

Published on: January 31, 2022 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent opinion from a Massachusetts court, the defendant’s appeal of his convictions connected to an armed assault and carjacking was denied. The defendant argued in his appeal that the procedures that officers used to identify him as the person who committed the assault and carjacking were unnecessarily suggestive. Because these procedures were unfair, said the defendant, his convictions should be reversed. The court disagreed, denying the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two women arrived at a residence in Massachusetts to inquire about a potential cleaning job. The women arrived in separate cars, and when they got to the residence, one woman got out of her car and went to speak with the other woman in her car. At that time, a man came up behind one of the women and pointed a small black gun at her. The man began to tell the women to “get out.” The woman in the car exited her vehicle, and the man immediately got into her car and drove away.

One of the women immediately called 911 and reported the incident. An officer arrived, and the women gave the officer a physical description of the man who had taken the car. A report was broadcast over the police radio that included a description of the suspect, the license plate number of the woman’s vehicle, and the suspect’s direction of flight. Another officer in the area heard the broadcast and saw a car matching the description of the stolen car. Following the car, the officer saw the driver run a red line and crash into a telephone pole. The officer apprehended the driver and arrested him.