Assault Crimes/Violence

Showup Identification in Massachusetts Assault Case

Published on: April 16, 2014 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent case, a man appealed a judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress after being convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The case arose when Boston police officers received 911 telephone calls that reported a robbery on a street near the intersection of Coolidge Road.

An officer arrived shortly after that and spoke with a male and a female victim. The female victim told the officer she and her boyfriend had been robbed and beaten by fifteen black men.

Another officer responding to the call saw an SUV coming the wrong way on the road. He followed because of the violation of traffic rules. He also turned on the blue lights of his cruiser in order to stop the SUV. Even though the windows were tinted, the officer could see there were a number of people in the SUV.
Continue reading

Judge Refuses Bail in Aaron Hernandez First Degree Murder Case

Published on: July 11, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

According to reports, Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was denied release on his first degree murder charge during his appeal to be released on bail.The decision, which was handed down by a superior court judge upheld the prior ruling of a district court judge shortly following Hernandez’s arraignment for the murder charge and five additional weapons charges in relation to the alleged killing of Odin Lloyd. The evidence for weapons charges allegedly stems from the recovery of .22 and .45 caliber ammunition recovered from a condo where Hernandez had allegedly been present recently.

In the ruling, the judge expressed the opinion that although circumstantial, the current evidence suggests that Hernandez committed the crime in a cold-blooded manner, suggesting that he does not conform to societal rules, and is therefore a potential flight risk should he be released on bail.

Hernandez’s next scheduled appearance in relation to the charges is tentatively set for July 24 for a probable cause hearing, although there is a chance that prosecutors could schedule a grand jury prior to then in order to proceed with a formal indictment.
Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Warrantless DNA Collection Following Arrest

Published on: June 4, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The United States Supreme Court handed down somewhat of a shocking decision this week in the case of Maryland v. King, regarding the constitutionality of law enforcement collecting DNA of arrestees without a warrant.

At issue was a Maryland state statute, which allowed for the warrantless collection of DNA from a suspect following an arrest for a “serious offense,” which under Maryland law includes crimes of violence or burglary.

Here is what is deeply disturbing about this decision, and why all Americans should be concerned– this law does not require a warrant for the taking of your DNA. Under this law, and those being passed across the country, the collection of DNA is being treated in the same manner as the collection of your finger prints or booking photograph.

What’s so wrong with that, some might ask? What’s troubling about that is the fact that the burden for making an arrest is already low, and the potential for misuse or misplacement of DNA samples, and thus potential for abuse to an individual’s unique DNA is incredibly high. Leaving wholly aside the way in which this revelation could completely circumvent constitutional rights of individuals implicated in other crimes, we are now saying that it is ok to collect DNA after what could be an almost non-existent criminal case.

For example, if an individual happens to be present at the scene of the crime, and the police arrive following an anonymous 911 tip, the fact that the person is there could alone raise a strong suspicion, and thus provide a probable cause for an arrest. Even if you were not involved in the burglary at all, the fact that you are there could supply the probable cause for an arrest, and now the government can lawfully collect your DNA. Does that scenario bother you? It should. So much so that one of, if not the, most conservative justices on the court, Antonin Scalia, sided with three of the most liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonya Sotomayor, in a scathing dissenting opinion, which he personally read aloud in the courtroom.
Continue reading

4 Defendants Sentenced in 2011 Boston Armed Robbery/Shooting Case

Published on: May 16, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Earlier this month, four criminal defendants pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a September 2011 armed robbery and shooting, which resulted in the injuring of an on duty police officer.The men pleaded guilty to various charges, which included:

armed assault with intent to murder
masked armed robbery
assault & battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury
larceny
possession of a firearm while committing a felony

Two of the men additionally pleaded guilty to misleading a police investigation and being an accessory after the fact to masked armed robbery. The four defendants received sentences ranging from 7-8 years in state prison to 25-30 years in prison, all with probation following prison time.

They were additionally ordered to refrain from any contact with any witnesses or victims, and were ordered to pay restitution for the lost wages and medical expenses of the two police officers involved in the shooting.
Continue reading

Miranda Warnings and the Alleged Boston Marathon Bomber

Published on: April 22, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The tragic bombings and related events surrounding the Boston Marathon were felt by us all in Boston and nationwide. My heart goes out to the victims affected by the violent acts.Following the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is believed to be behind the attacks, many people have begun to debate the validity of granting a public safety exception in order to circumvent the requirement that Mr. Tsarnaev be informed of his right to remain silent and be represented by counsel. During questioning on Sunday morning by FBI agents during this special period, he admitted to his role in the attacks, and stated that he did not know of any additional plots, and that he and his brother had acted alone.

In the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court, Tsarnaev is charged with two federal crimes, including “Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” and “Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Death.” The complaint details the terrorism task force FBI agent’s reviewal of evidence, including video surveilance from nearby businesses.
Continue reading

Massachusetts Organized Crime Boss Sentenced to Prison

Published on: March 14, 2013 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

A 64-year-old North Andover man, who is described by prosecutors as the, “overall boss” of a loan sharking and illegal gambling enterprise has been sentenced to up to four years in prison.

Joseph Giallanella, who is also known as Jason Peters, was sentenced on Monday to serve time in stateprison for two to four years. The sentence follows Giallanella’s guilty plea on January 18 of this year, to two counts of conspiracy, two counts of accessory to larceny after the fact, managing of a gaming enterprise, criminal usury, and use of a telephone for gaming.

He was additionally sentenced to two years of probation upon release from prison.

Giallanella faces additional charges including assault and battery, attempted extortion, intimidation of a witness, and attempt to commit another to commit perjury. Investigations relating to this case resulted in additional indictments against 30 other individuals. His part of a criminal enterprise is noteworthy because it can potentially implicate the guilt of any co-conspirators involved in the criminal organization of which he is alleged to be a part of.
Continue reading

The Crime of Armed Robbery in a Massachusetts Coffee House

Published on: November 8, 2012 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

It was reported today in the Patriot Ledger that two white males allegedly robbed the Marylou’s coffee shop located at 1501 Bedford Street in Abington, Massachusetts at around 11:00 a.m. on Thursday. According to the district manager for the store, Sunisa Loring, these men used a weapon believed to be a gun or a knife after walking into Marylou’s at about 10:30. A witness described the two men as white and both were apparently wearing gray hooded sweatshirts. They demanded money from the cashier then fled in a blue Dodge Neon with the cash according to the police. The vehicle, which was reported stolen yesterday, was said to be heading south. No one was injured at the time and the police continue investigate the crime scene by dusting the shop for fingerprints.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legal definition of the crime of armed robbery is found in G.L. c. 265, § 17. To be convicted of armed robbery in Massachusetts, the prosecution must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the defendant must have been armed with a dangerous weapon. Second, a threat must have been made by the defendant that put the alleged victim in a state of fear, or the defendant must have physically hurt or used force on the victim. Thirdly, the defendant must have taken the alleged victim’s possession intending to steal it. Fourth, the defendant must have taken the alleged victim’s possession out the victim’s control. The crime of armed robbery is a serious felony crime in Massachusetts. Punishment for conviction of the crime of armed robbery includes the a possibility of life in state prison or for any term of years and experienced criminal defense representation will be needed at once.

On the police investigation end, in a robbery such as this, time is of the essence. If the police find the stolen car and it is not torched, they will scour it for fingerprint or DNA evidence that could lead to identification potential suspects. Obviously, identification of the suspects is central to a successful prosecution of the case. The police will interview all witnesses at the coffee shop and will put together a photo array based upon the description that is given by the witnesses. They will pull from a pool of suspects fitting the description of the defendants, if any was able to be obtained in this case, since they were reported to be wearing hooded sweatshirts which may have totally or partially obscured their appearance. They will check to see if someone can make a positive identification. They will carefully review videotape evidence from the scene if they was a camera which is likely in this day and age. They will check adjacent businesses to see if they have a camera that may have picked up the perpetrators in another area with their hoods off of their heads that may provide for a better angle to identify them.

The police indicated that the car that the suspects were using was reported stolen at some point. They will canvas the area from where it was taken to see if any witnesses saw anything or anyone at that time. They will check with local businesses in the area to see if they had a video footage near or at the scene from where the car was taken or on the route that may have been used by the suspects. If the car was located at or near an MBTA station they will review videotape evidence and try to investigate whether the suspects used a Charlie card and try to obtain identifying information through the use of a bank subpoena. They will seek to question likely suspects. They will be looking for these potential suspects to make a mistake and talk with them and get them to confess. The police are highly trained to investigate suspects and solve crimes. They often use tactics that lull defendants into a false sense of security and then get them to talk after waiving their Miranda rights and without legal counsel present.
Continue reading

MASSACHUSETTS ADOPTS TOUGH THREE STRIKES LAW KNOWN AS MELISSA’S BILL

Published on: August 31, 2012 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

It was recently reported on August 2, 2012, that Governor Deval Patrick signed new Massachusetts criminal law legislation that imposes harsh penalties for repeat violent criminal law offenders convicted in the Commonwealth. In doing so, Massachusetts now reportedly joins twenty-six additional states that have imposed strong habitual criminal offender laws. The new law takes away judicial discretion with respect to sentencing of repeat violent criminal offenders who have suffered convictions three times for certain enumerated violent crimes and makes these offenders ineligible for parole. In other words, repeat violent offenders now have to serve the full or maximum sentence with absolutely no chance for parole, probation, work release, furlough or reduction of sentence for good conduct while incarcerated.

The two previous convictions of a criminal defendant to be subject to the penalties imposed under the Massachusetts three-strikes law must have arisen out of distinct and separate incidents that must have occurred at different times. Also, these previous convictions must have carried sentences of at least three years each for the law to be applicable.

This law was sought by the father of Melissa Gosule, who was murdered by a convicted criminal who had been released early only after serving a two-year portion of a prison sentence and reportedly involved a history of twenty-seven prior felonies on his criminal record. Authorities argue that a tough three-strikes law may have avoided this and other similar, tragic losses of life.

In order to get that law passed there were certain concessions incorporated that actually decrease the mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes for trafficking, distribution, manufacturing or possession with intent to distribute drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, morphine or opium. In some cases involving trafficking in cocaine or phenmetrazine, mandatory minimum sentences have been reduced by three years. Also, the weight requirements of certain narcotics to support a conviction for trafficking have actually increased making it more difficult for prosecutors to convict for trafficking cases.
Continue reading

Massachusetts Sees Rise in Sex Crimes Arrests in 2012

Published on: July 5, 2012 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In the wake of the Penn State/Sandusky scandal, a Taunton High School teacher has been accused of having sex with two female students. Patrick Doyle, a history teacher, now faces charges of statutory rape and aggravated statutory rape of a child. NECN reports that the Doyle was indicted on twelve charges arising from the two incidents, and is currently being held without bail. A dangerousness hearing has been set for Doyle sometime next week. If convicted of these charges, Doyle faces a 10-year to life sentence in prison. Allegations of sex crimes are serious and should not be taken lightly. A conviction for a sexual offense in Massachusetts carries significant penalties of imprisonment and may confine an offender to a lifetime on the sex offender registry.

Earlier this year, two Newton men were arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography. The arrests were made in the same week during January 2012, although there does not appear to be a connection between the two men. Peter Buchanan, a 10-year city employee and Dave Ettlinger, an elementary teacher, both face serious charges stemming from the arrests. Dave Ettlinger was arrested in January 2012 for his participation in the child pornography website called Dreamboard, which requires members to post images of child pornography in order to keep their membership active. Ultimately, Ettlinger was charged with indecently assaulting three females and taping it. The arrest resulted from an international investigation of the website. A June 28th article by the Boston Globe proclaims that Ettlinger may plead guilty to the federal charges stemming from his role in the global child pornography network, although a plea has not yet been entered. If found guilty, Ettlinger faces imprisonment for 20 years to life under 18 USC §2252A. Upon the conclusion of the case, Ettlinger must return to Massachusetts to face state charges for the indecent assault on three females.
Continue reading

Downtown Boston Stabbing of 4 Witnesses Prompts Judge to Postpone Trial

Published on: June 29, 2012 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Many Boston area residents, workers, students and tourists were interrupted on Wednesday, June 6, 2012 when four people were stabbed on busy, downtown Beacon Street. The area, known as a local hotspot, became an area of chaos and confusion when four people were stabbed just after lunchtime across the street from the Omni Parker House. The Boston Globe reports that the stabbings stemmed from a murder trial underway at the nearby Suffolk Superior Courthouse. The stabbings were reportedly in connection with the murder trial of Kadeem Foreman and Terrell Rainey, who are charged with the May 22, 2010, murder of 24-year-old Toneika Jones. The two were charged with murder, armed assault with intent to murder, and gun offenses in Dorchester District Court after they allegedly shot Jones to death inside the foyer of a building at 183 Harvard St. All four of the men stabbed had been present at the day’s earlier proceedings, and two of which are said to be on the witness list for the trial.

Following the tumultuous incident, the Judge presiding over the case issued a continuance for a trial, nervous that the incident could set a dangerous precedent for future judicial proceedings. As reported by WCVB Channel 5, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Lisa Giles said that she was “outraged that this could set a precedent that all you have to do to derail a first-degree murder trial is attack one of the participants who are supporters of either side.” The attorneys for the defendants were split as to the decision to move the date for trial. Michael Doolin, defense attorney for Foreman, deemed it a necessity that the trial be postponed due to the severity of tensions stemming from the trial. But Rainey’s attorney, Stephen Weymouth, argued that the trial should proceed as not to delay the potential declaration of innocence for his client. Currently, the trial is set to resume on September 12, 2012.

The wake of this violent event has urged local police and officials to take precautions and step up punishments for the crimes of assault and witness intimidation. Law enforcement official assert that the protection of witnesses and those involved in trials of any kind need to be protected to ensure that justice is rightfully ensued. The crimes of assault and witness intimidation are taken very seriously in Massachusetts, as the crimes are usually of a physical nature and can end in fatal injuries. Intimidating a witness, as per M.G.L. c. 268, s. 13B is a criminal offense in the Commonwealth, and carries with it penalties of imprisonment in jail or house of correction for no more than 2.5 years, imprisonment in state prison for no more than 10 years, by a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 up to $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. Conduct that can constitute intimidating a witness is behavior such as threatening or attempting to cause physical, emotional, economic of property damage to, bribery, and misleading, intimidating or harassing any person who is a witness, judge, juror, attorney, or anyone involved in furthering the criminal proceedings or investigation. If you are involved in the crime of intimidating a witness, you may also be charged with the crime of assault.
Continue reading