Published on: | by

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

Published on: | by

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

Published on: | by

A Boston Globe article reports that the recently enacted Massachusetts harassment laws have led state officials to place Kingston Town Administrator, Jim Thomas, on administrative leave. The board, acting on the advice of town counsel Jay Talerman, made this decision after Thomas was allegedly heard making threats to Selectwoman Susan Munford. Munford filed the complaint after learning of three alleged occurrences threatening the Selectwoman. The final incident was reported to Munford after two Town Hall employees allegedly overheard Jim Thomas making loud, expletive threats expressing his intent to “bring [Susan Munford] down.” Following Thomas’ administrative leave, other town employees came forward with their incidents of Thomas’ unprofessional conduct, claiming that Thomas “used threatening and retaliatory behavior against them, along with bullying tactics, and displayed lack of respect in his dealings” with other employees. A hearing is scheduled to determine whether to reinstate Thomas or to permanently dismiss him from his duties.

Government officials, local, state and federal, are highly respected individuals expected to uphold the law and make decisions for the community at large. Harassment, discrimination, and abuse are crimes that not tolerated in the workplace as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. government officials are not immune to harassment crimes law in Massachusetts. Crimes such as harassment often escalate to more serious crimes including assault and battery and violation of harassment prevention orders and should be addressed immediately. Crimes against the individual are considered serious in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are prosecuted vigorously. The implementation of laws to curtail harassment in Massachusetts has resulted in an increase in court filings, hearings and charges alleging violation of harassment orders.

The harassment law mentioned above came into effect in Massachusetts in February 2010 and allows a broader range of individuals suffering from harassment to obtain a harassment prevention order. In the past, the Massachusetts Superior Court was the only court permitted to grant a restraining order or Ch. 209A protective order, unless a petitioner qualified as family or household member of the perpetrator of harassment. However, the implementation of Chapter 258E of the General Laws, allows for the Superior Courts, Boston Municipal Court, District Courts, and Juvenile Court to issue Harassment Prevention Orders if an individual can prove that they suffered from three or more acts of willful and malicious conduct. The law provides that a Harassment Prevention Order may be granted to protect an individual from abuse, harassment, and may require the defendant to refrain from contacting the individual or visiting the individual’s workplace or household, and may require the defendant to pay monetary compensation for losses suffered resulting from the harassment. Ex parte (one side only at the hearing) or temporary harassment prevention orders may also be ordered by the court to protect an individual if they are in immediate danger of harassment. Typically, a harassment prevention order remains in effect for one year, and may be extended for an additional period at the anniversary of the original hearing date if the petition requests an extension on that date.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Waltham, Massachusetts lawman Thomas M. LaCroix, the city’s chief police officer, was arraigned in Concord District Court on two charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and threats charges and was ordered held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing in court set for this Tuesday.

LaCroix is accused of attacking and injuring his wife and her female friend in two separate incidents at his home in Maynard, Massachusetts. LaCroix is said to have used a bicycle rack and a countertop as the dangerous weapons in the alleged attack. Further details about the case have yet to be released according to the report of the incidents in the Boston Globe. The prosecutor is seeking medical records,if any, of Mrs. LaCroix to substantiate the alleged injuries in the case. Waltham’s Mayor, Jeannette A. McCarthy deemed the arrest a “serious matter” and named the city’s Deputy Chief to act as Chief in place of LaCroix. LaCroix earns about $160,000.00 per year and has been suspended with pay and his badge and gun have been taken away from him by the Waltham police.

Domestic assault and battery in Massachusetts is taken seriously by prosecutors and the courts. When a person who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law gets in this type of trouble the case get extraordinary coverage and scrutiny. The public and the press will follow the matter closely to determine if the accused is treated differently than anyone else accused of such a crime. Right now we do not now all the details in this case and what really happened. Apparently, Mrs. LaCroix alleged that she was assaulted by her husband but she did not call the police when it initially happened. She went to a female friend’s house. The friend did not call the police either despite the fact that she allegedly heard LaCroix’s story and saw injuries. Remarkably, they both decided to go back to where the alleged perpetrator was at home. According to the report this is when the second alleged assault took place involving the wife and her friend. Sometime after this alleged assault the police were finally called. It is not clear how much time had elapsed between the first and second alleged incidents and when someone decided to call the police.

Although the police report and the prosecutions summary of the case were impounded by the court, at first glance, it does not appear that the chief has been treated fairly so far in this case. We can assume that the chief does not have a prior criminal history and, therefore, no history of defaults in court. From the news report, he apparently was a pretty good police officer rising through the ranks while earning his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree before being named police chief in Waltham. Is the District Attorney’s office looking to make an example out of the chief who was apparently hospitalized with chest pains after the incident? You be the judge. They claimed the chief may be suicidal but LaCroix’s own lawyer expressed no such concerns after meeting at length with his client. Is it remarkable that the prosecution would want the chief held without bail and that they would seek a dangerousness hearing against him, the result of which could cause him be held without bail for 90 days in a case such as this? The chief could have been released on his promise to come back to court. The prosecutor could have requested a bail warning or sought a reasonable bail in the case that would ensure that Mr. LaCroix would come back to court if he were released. The prosecutor could have asked the court to order the chief to stay away and have no contact with his wife or her female friend during the pendency of the case. The prosecutor could have asked the judge to order other pretrial conditions of release such as electronic or GPS monitoring on the chief or weekly reporting or conditions such as drug or alcohol testing if the abuse of substances was an issue. Yet, the District Attorney’s office decided to take the most drastic approach to the case which resulted in depriving the chief of his freedom even though he is presumed innocent of the crime. Did this action result in punishment before the case has even gone to trial? What are the odds of similar treatment to other ordinary defendants if your were to look up the last few cases involving allegations of assault and battery with the use of dangerous weapons in that court? Did the prosecution seek to hold those defendants pending a dangerousness hearing?

I think it’s safe to say that the chief probably didn’t appreciate a skilled and aggressive criminal defense attorney before these charges were leveled against him. He probably now hopes that he has such an attorney in his present defense lawyer, Peter Bella.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

One of the most common ways for Massachusetts State Police to charge drivers with Operating Under the Influence (OUI) is through the use of roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints. The purpose of a sobriety checkpoint as defined by the Massachusetts legislature is to “further educate the motoring public and strengthen the public’s awareness to the need of detecting and removing those motorists who operate under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs from our roadways.” Sobriety checkpoints and roadblocks are organized in a joint effort by the State and local police, through which cars traveling on a predetermined road will be stopped and subject to police questioning. This allows officers to take an initial overview of the condition of the car and the condition of the driver, assessing whether the driver could be under the influence of alcohol. If the officer reasonably suspects that the driver may be under the influence of alcohol, he or she will be directed to take a preliminary breath or chemical test or instructed to perform a series of roadside sobriety tests. If you register a 0.08% blood alcohol content during a roadside sobriety test or breath test in Massachusetts, you may be charged with operating under the influence and face serious consequences. In instances such as these, the evidence of ones impairment while operating a vehicle are exclusively found in the results of the breath, chemical, or roadside sobriety test issued by the police officer. The results of these tests are often incorrect or inaccurate due to human and machine errors. An aggressive and accomplished Massachusetts OUI defense attorney will know how to proceed with your case and achieve the most favorable outcome in the event you are charged with OUI at a roadblock.

Fourth Amendment Conflict
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, thus it is illegal to stop or search someone without a search warrant or at least probable cause. While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the OUI exemption to the Constitution, twelve states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable searches, and have banned the use of police sobriety roadblocks. However, this is not the case in Massachusetts. In the 1980’s, Massachusetts’s residents challenged the constitutionality of the use of such roadblocks to catch those driving under the influence. In Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137 (1983) and Commonwealth v. Trumble, 396 Mass. 81, 92 (1985), the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that the State police’s method of using roadblocks to detect drunk drivers was reasonable under both the State and Federal constitution. The adjudication of these cases did however prompt the Massachusetts Supreme Court to outline the necessary requirements to establish a legal roadblock. For a roadblock to be permissible under Massachusetts state law, it appears that the selection of motor vehicles to be stopped must not be arbitrary, safety must be assured, motorists’ inconvenience must be minimized and assurance must be given that the procedure is being conducted pursuant to a plan devised by law enforcement supervisory personnel. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts also requires the state police to notify the media within four days that a sobriety checkpoint is going to be held on a specific date in a specific county.

The biggest issue with the use of roadblocks in Massachusetts is that police officers do not have to witness any erratic behavior or dangerous driving to pull you over; in other words, there exists no probable cause for the stop. This lack of probable cause leads to the dismissal of many OUI cases in Massachusetts, as the police officer will be required to admit that the individual’s driving or conduct was never at issue. An experienced Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney will know the best defenses and strategies to win your case. In the event that you are charged with an OUI at a roadblock, speak to a smart and qualified attorney immediately.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

As evidenced by recent news coverage, high school college student crime is significant and is an evolving and expanding area of the law. With the advent of social networking sites such as Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc., issues involving high school and college students have become widely publicized and come under intense scrutiny and criticism. The ever-evolving world of social networking websites has opened the lives of its users to the public, carrying with it certain advantages and disadvantages. This technological phenomenon, which has created links between different people and cultures of the world, has resulted in a need for the development of new laws to police people’s online actions. There are many issues arising from the use of social networking websites, such as privacy issues, internet scams and phishing, negative repercussions of website use in areas of business and employment, and the protection of children. For instance, high school students may now be held accountable for their actions on social networking sites, such as bullying other students, making threats against teachers and students, and posting inappropriate content or images. Similarly, on college campuses, students have been subject to punishment for partaking in illegal activities such as underage drinking, drug-related offenses, and sexual assaults on other students. Social networks can be a resourceful tool to market yourself or your business, reconnect with old friends, and even find romance; the important thing is to remember that these sites can be misused, and have damaging repercussions to high school and college students that may potentially affect their future. Criminal prosecution in court and expulsion or suspension from school or college can be expected when crimes are committed or exposed using social networking sites.

While many social networking sites have age restrictions in place to regulate their user base, it is quite simple to enter a fake birth date and gain access to these sites. The problem with young users is that they are not aware of the risks that these social networking sites create. Many young people share too much information online and do not realize that anyone with an Internet connection can view it, even pedophiles, employers, teachers, their school nemesis, and their parents. Even police departments have begun to integrate the use of social networking sites in investigations. The Boston Globe reports that police officials in half of fourteen departments surveyed admitted to using social networking websites to gather information when investigating crimes involving young people. This is the root of the problems now faced by an increasing number of high school and college age students.

USING SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH CRIMINALS
Social networking has also come under scrutiny due to the tendency of teen bullies to target teen victims on the sites. Bullying has become a serious and widespread issue in the United States, with the National Crime Prevention Council reporting that 43% of teens were the victim of bullying in the past year, and has called upon the sites to help prevent bullying and catch those committing the acts. For instance, videos of beatings and humiliation have been posted to the popular video hosting website YouTube, and have caused certain individuals to take their own lives due to the ridicule and embarrassment felt from the posts. The videos themselves have actually led police to the identification of the bully and introduced the video or posting as evidence against them in trial.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

I see it all too often. A person has an unresolved criminal case or probation matter and they forget or fail to come to court or visit with their probation officer when told to. Sometimes people get into trouble at different points in their lives when they abused alcohol or drugs and they accrue criminal matters that they have never fully resolved and these matters remain a nagging distraction and source of fear or unnecessary stress due to the potential for immediate arrest. It does not have to be that way, especially with the help and guidance of an experienced Massachusetts warrant removal lawyer. You do not have to live your life in fear of being arrested when the police run your name through the Massachusetts warrant management system when you get pulled over for a routine traffic ticket or during some incident that puts you in contact with the police. Unfortunately, many people choose to ignore the past and go it alone with the hope that the police and the courts forget about them. It simply does not work this way. The police will go to great lengths to find you even if you have done nothing else wrong. Under Massachusetts law, annual lists of individuals are compiled and distributed to law enforcement.

In an action that police named “Operation Summer Bummer”Norfolk and Plymouth County Sheriff’s Departments teamed up with other local law enforcement agencies to arrest dozens of people with outstanding felony warrants on June 1, 2012. These people will be taken to the nearest court location and will stand before a judge to explain why they have not come to court to answer on their individual case. The judge will hear from the prosecutor and the probation department to get their input as to whether or not the person should be held in custody on bail or in custody without bail pending the adjudication of their case. With the right criminal defense lawyer, an effective argument can be made to convince a judge to release a client on his or her own personal recognizance or promise to come back to court, especially when the client comes to court with a lawyer on his or her own and not in the back of a police car. This is why it is extremely important to hire a skilled Boston, Massachusetts warrant/default removal attorney before the police start looking for you. You don’t want to be walking on the street on a sunny Friday afternoon to be stopped by the police for some reason and let them find out that you have an old default warrant. Under this example, they are legally obligated to arrest you on the spot and hold you until the court opens on Monday.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Eighteen-year-old Aaron Deveau is the first Massachusetts resident to be charged with texting while operating a motor vehicle negligently and causing injury. Deveau is also charged with one count of vehicular homicide. If convicted of both charges, the Haverhill teen faces up to four and half years in jail. Authorities say the teen was sending and receiving text messages on February 20, 2010 at the same time he crossed over the center-line and crashed head-on into a vehicle, killing the 55 year old driver. The Safe Driving Act was signed into legislature on September 30, 2010 in an effort to prohibit drivers from texting and junior drivers from talking on a cell phone. Massachusetts became the 29th state to enact a law of this type, which bans texting, e-mailing, searching on the Internet, and other activities on a phone, laptop, or other electronic device by the operator of a vehicle. This also applies to drivers waiting at traffic lights and stop signs. The Safe Driving Act also bans drivers under eighteen from talking on a mobile phone while operating a vehicle, and requires drivers aged 75 or older to complete a vision test when applying for or renewing a driver’s license.

While the Safe Driving Act imposes six new violations for Massachusetts’ drivers, the violation of ‘Negligent Operation and Injury from Mobile Phone Use’ is the only new violation deemed a criminal infraction, and carries with it the most significant penalties. To be convicted of Negligent Operating & Injury from Mobile Phone Use, the Commonwealth must prove that while using a mobile phone as a minor (§ 8M); using a phone or texting as a public transportation operator (§ 12A); or sending or receiving a “text” (§ 13B), the operator drove negligently so that the lives and safety of the public might be endangered; and caused injury to some other person, vehicle or property. Keep your teens and family safe by staying up to date with the changes in Massachusetts driving laws, talk to your teens about the dangers of using a mobile phone while driving, and consult the best Massachusetts criminal defense attorney in the event someone you love is charged with a violation.

PENALTIES ATTACHED
The penalties attached to this new law are separated into two categories: junior operators license penalties, and over 18 penalties. For those with a junior operators license (JOL) the penalties include license suspension of 180 days for the first offense, a 1-year license suspension if the second offense is within three years of the first, and a $500 reinstatement fee. For those over the age of 18, the penalties amount to a 60 day suspension for the first offense, 1-year license suspension if the second offense in within three year of the first, and a $500 reinstatement fee. While the punishment imposed on violators of this law may not seem that severe, it is important to keep in mind due to the criminality of the charge, it also carries with it an insurance surcharge. The criminal offense surcharge applies to injury or property damage resulting from the following incidents:
• Use of any type of mobile phone or mobile electronic device by a junior operator;
• Use of any type of mobile phone or mobile electronic device by an operator of any type of public transportation; or • Use of any type of mobile phone or any handheld device capable of access the Internet to manually compose, send or read an electronic message while operating a motor vehicle.
For a complete summary of the penalties for violations of the Safe Driving Act, please click here.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Over 80% of OUI cases heard by a Massachusetts Judge and 50% of OUI cases in a jury trial are dismissed. This high rate of acquittals led the Boston Globe to launch a spotlight investigation on the matter in December of 2011. The findings of the final report show that the high rate of acquittals is due to the reluctance of prosecutors to dismiss flawed OUI cases, the improper administration of breath and blood tests, the inaccuracies from the results of those tests, and the prosecutions’ high burden of proof in regards to satisfying the elements of an OUI case. Most frequently, the arresting officer improperly administers the breath test on the suspect, thus leading to the inadmissibility of the evidence and the failure of the prosecution to proffer evidence of the suspect’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

Breath testing instruments are small hand held pieces of technology, which like most technology, are often prone to errors. In fact, research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration. At least 23% (that’s about one out of every four) of all individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their actual BAC. Therefore, the findings of the test leave a lot to be interpreted and analyzed by your attorney and the judge presiding over your case.

DEFENSES TO BREATH TEST RESULTS
Breath testing instruments most commonly experience problems with calibration, interfering substances, and mouth alcohol. Most breathalyzers require recalibration at least once a year to maintain accuracy. Thus, if the tester has not received the proper recalibration maintenance, it may lead to inaccuracies and false readings of the machine. Additionally, there are non-alcoholic substances that can contribute to a false reading such as the weight, health, metabolism, diet, and mental health of the subject. Medical illnesses such as diabetes, emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma can also have a dramatic impact on the results of the test. Breath testing instruments are also quite sensitive to temperature; the machine is calibrated to test the breath at 34 degrees centigrade, but studies show that at the time of OUI arrest, people generally come closer to 35.5 degrees centigrade. The result of this can mean a 10-20% higher reading.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Operating under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is a serious offense in the United States, and carries severe penalties for those found guilty. In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. The increased perception of driving while drinking as a serious problem has, in the past two decades resulted in tightening of the legal limit of blood alcohol – blood alcohol content (BAC). It has also produced another classification of driving under the influence (DUI) in many states. For instance, just recently, a man in Arizona was arrested and is now facing charges after it was determined that he had a blood alcohol level four times greater than the legal limit. This is an extreme OUI.

Normally, OUI is defined as an individual found to be operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or while registering a BAC level of 0.08. Presently in Massachusetts third offense OUI and above are treated as felony offenses. In cases of extreme OUI, an individual must be found to have a significantly higher BAC level – between 0.15 and 0.20. That is nearly double the legal limit for drivers. Statistics show that nearly two-third of all accidents resulting in an alcohol related fatality involves a driver with a BAC of at least 0.15%, or nearly twice the legal limit. This poses an extreme threat to the safety of the society and its citizens.

Legislatures attribute persistent drinking and the rise in binge drinking to the increase in extreme OUI cases. When a person consumes alcohol on a regular and continuous basis, they develop a tolerance towards the substance. Once an individual has built up a tolerance to alcohol, the amount of alcohol required to achieve a state of drunkenness is magnified. At this stage of tolerance, many people feel they are fine even after several drinks of alcohol. But the fact is that they are impaired of their driving ability due to slow reaction time, poor visibility, multitasking and coordinating various activities at a time. Usually people do not factor in extraneous circumstances, such as mood swings, fatigue and food consumed, which can have a significant effect on how your body reacts to alcohol consumption.
Continue reading

Contact Information
90 Canal St 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-367-0450Fax: 781-523-5454

We accept the following credit cards

Credit cards

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design