Woburn Police Officer Killed in the Line of Duty

A Woburn Police officer was killed in the line of duty on Sunday, December 26, 2010 while the state was dealing with a blizzard. Scott Hanwright, of Wakefield, and another suspect who was later shot and killed by officers, robbed Kohl's department store in Woburn. Hanwright was chased to a motor vehicle where a third suspect, Kevin Dingwell, waited. Hanwright was charged with first degree murder and armed robbery. Dingwell was charged with accessory after the fact, and could also be charged with first degree murder and armed robbery, under a joint venture theory.

Officer John "Jack" Maguire was shot during the incident and was pronounced dead at the hospital.  Read the globe article below.

Attorney Gomes

Posted by Milton Valencia December 27, 2010 09:15 AM

Two men have been charged in connection with the fatal shooting of a Woburn police officer during an attempted robbery of a department store Sunday night.

Scott Hanwright, 19, of Wakefield, has been charged with first degree murder and armed robbery, and Kevin Dingwell, 51, of Wakefield, was charged with accessory after the fact as a result of the shooting. A third suspect was fatally shot after he shot the officer, who was responding to the robbery attempt.

The officer was identified today as John “Jack” Maguire. 

Have You Been Arrested For OUI in Massachusetts?

If you or a loved one has been arrested for operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) in Massachusetts, you need a lawyer. There are many different lawyers to choose from in the Massachusetts area, however, few are as dedicated and committed as Attorney Theresa Gomes. Attorney Gomes practices OUI law in all parts of Massachusetts. Attorney Gomes' office is conveniently located in Boston, Massachusetts.

Attorney Gomes will be present for your arraignment, which is the first court date after you've been arrested. She will speak with you about your case, visit the scene of the incident, and begin working on your case immediately. Contact Attorney Gomes now to have a Massachusetts criminal lawyer who will fight to get you the best results for your case.

Why You Should Have a Second Parent Adoption in Massachusetts

   A second parent adoption is a legal procedure that allows same sex couples the right to adopt their partner's biological or adopted children without terminating the first parent's rights as the child's parent. Second parent adoption gives the child two legal guardians. It protects both of the parents by giving them both legally recognized parental status. A second parent adoption also guarantees both parents' rights in the event that one of them should become incapacitated or die. In the absence of a second parent adoption, the family of the legal parent, should she/he become incapacitated or die, may successfully challenge the rights of the surviving parent, thus causing the child to lose both parents.

Can My Statements Be Used Against Me in a Criminal Trial?

The answer to this question is an overwhelming YES! Any statement that a defendant gives to the police or to anyone else involved with an incident are called admissions, and can be used at the defendant's criminal trial. While most people who are stopped by the police believe that if they talk to the police and give them as much information as possible that they are being helpful, this is generally not the case.

Although a police officer may tell you that if you cooperate that he/she will "Cut you a deal" or "Put in a good word for you with the DA", these are usually ploys to get you to give the officer information that will later be used against you.  Even if a police officer does make a recommendation to the district attorney regarding what type of sentence a defendant should receive, there is no guarantee that the district attorney will make that recommendation to the Judge.

Massachusetts Allows Motion to Suppress of Illegal Dorm Room Search

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allowed the Defendant's Motion to Suppress drug evidence seized by the Boston College Police. The court found that the police officers illegally searched the Defendant's dorm room because the officers never received valid consent from the Defendant to search the room. Read the court's decision below.

-Attorney Gomes

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us




COMMONWEALTH vs. Daniel CARR (and five companion cases [FN1]).



SJC-10697.



October 4, 2010. - November 17, 2010.
Controlled Substances. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Findings by judge. Search and Seizure, Student, State action, Consent. Constitutional Law,Search and seizure, State action.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 28, 2007.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Linda E. Giles, J.

An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Greaney, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.

Charles W. Rankin for John Sherman.

Casey E. Silvia, Assistant District Attorney (Melinda L. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.

Randolph Gioia, for Daniel Carr, was present but did not argue.

John Reinstein, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.

CORDY, J.

On June 28, 2007, a grand jury indicted the defendants, two Boston College students, Daniel Carr and John Sherman, on charges that they trafficked in cocaine over fourteen grams, possessed psilocybin with intent to distribute, and possessed marijuana with intent to distribute, following discovery of the illegal drugs in their campus dormitory room. On December 17, 2007, Carr filed a motion to suppress the drugs and other evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search. Sherman filed a similar motion and a motion to suppress his statements to the college police. After an evidentiary hearing, the judge granted the defendants' motions to suppress.

Massachusetts Criminal Court Process

Many defendants attending criminal court for the first time can find the experience very overwhelming especially in some of the busier courts, such as the Dorchester District Court. This post is meant for those individuals and is intended to be a guide for individuals that do not frequent criminal court houses.

Generally, your first court appearance will be the arraignment. During the arraignment hearing you will be notified about the crimes you are charged with. Any issues of bail will be determined, and you will be given a date to return for a pretrial conference. The next court date will be the pretrial conference. At the pretrial conference your attorney will exchange information/evidence with the assistant district attorney.

Attorney Theresa Gomes Selected for Inclusion in Super Lawyers-Rising Stars

The results can be found in the 2010 issue of Boston Magazine, New England Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process used by Super Lawyers includes several phases as well as independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Attorney Gomes has been recognized by Super Lawyers for her work in the fields of criminal defense, family law, and estate planning. Attorney Gomes feels very privileged to be included in this group of tremendous attorneys.

Verna Sewell, 65, Found Guilty by Massachusetts Superior Court Jury

A Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court Jury has found Verna Sewell guilty of involuntary manslaughter against 74 year old Julius Scott. Sewell and Scott shared an apartment with each other in Dorchester, MA. Sewell was originally charged with second degree murder, but was found guilty of the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter. The police found Sewell after the incident with blood on her clothing. Prior to trial, Sewell admitted to being with Scott, but she denied stabbing him.

-Attorney Gomes

Please read the Boston Globe Article below.

By Globe Staff

An elderly Dorchester woman was convicted this morning of the May 2009 stabbing death of a 74-year-old man in the apartment they shared in Dorchester, according to Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.

Verna Sewell, 65, was found guilty by a Suffolk Superior Court jury of involuntary manslaughter for the death of Julius Scott. She had been indicted on a charge of second-degree murder.

Massachusetts Attorney's Disbarment Upheld

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a Massachusetts Attorney who was convicted of an assault and battery, and providing contraband to an inmate client was properly disbarred from the practice of law. Attorney Gomes 

Term

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

In the MATTER of Jon C. TAYLOR.

No. SJC-10632.

October 18, 2010.

Attorney at Law, Disciplinary proceeding, Disbarment.

William J. Keefe for the respondent.

Nancy E. Kaufman, First Assistant Bar Counsel.

RESCRIPT.

The respondent, Jon C. Taylor, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court ordering that he be disbarred from the practice of law. We affirm.

Can the Police Search My Car Without My Permission or a Warrant?

In most instances the police cannot search your car without your permission in Massachusetts under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The main reasons that a police officer may lawfully search your car is if he or she has probable cause that you have committed, are in the process of committing, or are are about to commit a crime; or if they believe you are armed and dangerous.

If the police stop you for a motor vehicle violation, they are allowed to ask you for your driver's license and registration in order to make sure that they are both valid. Once the officer has confirmed that both your license and registration are valid, the officer is obligated to write you a ticket and release you unless he or she has probable cause to investigate further.

A police officer may not order you from your vehicle unless he is placing you under arrest, or he has probable cause to search your car. If an officer asks for your consent to search your car it is your right to refuse his request. Please remember that if you give a police officer consent to search your car, you cannot later claim that he violated your rights. Also, please keep in mind that the 4th Amendment does not apply in cases where the car is stolen.

If you think you are the victim of an illegal search in Boston, MA, or surrounding areas, please contact Attorney Theresa Gomes at (617) 524-6600 immediately for a Boston criminal defense attorney who will work hard in your defense.

What's the Easiest Way to Get Divorced in Massachusetts?

The easiest way to get divorced in Massachusetts is under a Joint Petition for Divorce. In order to be divorced under a joint petition, the parties must agree on all aspects of the divorce including, but not limited to: child support, child custody, alimony, property division, liabilities, health insurance, and educational needs of any children. The parties may negotiate these issues with each other, through a mediator, or with attorneys. In my experience, the parties are usually not able to come to an agreement on their own, and it is best to involve at least one attorney, preferably two. The attorney will generally represent the party who has paid his/her fee. Most attorneys will not represent both parties at the same time.

The attorney will be responsible for drafting all documents and filing the documents with the court. After the documents are filed, a court date will be set and both parties will be required to attend the court hearing. The hearing itself generally lasts 10-15 minutes, and is conducted by a judge.

A joint petition is the easiest and most cost effective way to get divorced in Massachusetts. As you may or may not know, divorces can cost thousands of dollars and last for more than one year. I generally charge a flat fee for joint petition cases.  Please contact my office at (617) 265-2700 if you are looking for a Massachusetts divorce lawyer to help you with your divorce.

Do I Have to Testify at my Criminal Trial?

The short answer to this question is NO! I guess after a number of years working as a criminal defense attorney, and my prior experience as a police officer, I operate under the assumption that everyone knows the answer to that question. However, after a trial I had last week, and after speaking with a friend, I am beginning to think that not everyone knows that they don't have to testify at their criminal trial.

Under the U.S. Constitution, we all have a 5th Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination. In other words, if you are charged with a crime, a court cannot force you to testify against yourself. We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not your responsibility to help the government prove or disprove your innocence. You can choose to testify, or not to testify at your trial, whether you are guilty or innocent. In addition, a judge or jury cannot hold the fact that you didn't testify at the trial against you.

I had a trial last week, involving distribution of heroin, where my client did not testify. The jury found him not guilty after thirty minutes of deliberation because the government was not able to prove its case. I'd like to think this is an example of the 5th Amendment at work.

If you have any questions about this post please feel free to leave a comment or email Attorney Gomes at tgomeslaw@yahoo.com. If you want to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney that will work hard for you, call (617) 265-2700 x106 now.

Melanie's Law

"Melanie's Law" was enacted into law in late 2005. Its purpose is to enhance the penalties for drivers convicted of Operating a motor vehicle Under the Influence (OUI) of alcohol or drugs. Massachusetts OUI penalties have some of the steepest maximum fines in the country.  Repeat Offenders could end up with enormous fines. Failure to take the breathalyzer test could result in a driver's license suspension of 180 days to 3 years. Please remember that Massachusetts now has a lifetime look-back for all prior OUI convictions, this is different than the previous ten year look back period.


Here are the current laws if you are convicted of OUI or agree to a plea bargain prior to trial:
     
     First Offense                   

• Fine: $500 to $5,000
• Jail: No minimum to 2.5 years
• Driver's license suspension: one year

Drivers arrested for a first OUI offense can get their sentences reduced by agreeing to complete a state-approved alcohol education program. This is not an option after the first offense.

Second Offense

• Fine: $600 to $10,000
• Jail: 30 days to 2.5 years
• Driver's license suspension: two years

Third Offense (felony)

• Fine: $1,000 to $15,000
• Jail: 150 days to five years
• Suspension: eight years

Fourth Offense (felony)

• Fine: $1,500 to $25,000
• Jail: one to five years
• Suspension: 10 years

Fifth Offense (felony)

• Fine: $20,000 to $50,000
• Jail: two to five years
• Suspension: lifetime

Here are the current penalties for refusing to take the breathalyzer test:

• First Offense: Automatic 180 Day Suspension 
• Second Offense (or an offender who is under 21): 3 Years License Loss 
• Third Offense: 5 Years
• Fourth Offense: 10 Years 
• Fifth Offense: Life, prior offenses are subject to a lifetime look back provision and including any prior OUI or drunk driving history. 
 *If you refuse to take the breathalyzer it is an automatic 180 day loss of license versus 30 Days if you Take and then Fail the test by Blowing .08 or above   

If you have been arrested for OUI in Massachusetts, contact Attorney Gomes immediately at (617) 265-2700 x106.

MA SJC Rules Judge Cannot Order Defendant To Wear GPS In Certain Circumstances

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that a judge cannot order a Defendant who is on probation to wear a GPS monitoring bracelet where no violation of probation has been found, and there is no material change in the Defendant's circumstance.-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us




COMMONWEALTH vs. Ralph W. GOODWIN.



No. SJC-10647.



April 7, 2010. - September 17, 2010.
Global Positioning System Device. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Probation, Revocation of probation.Constitutional Law, Double jeopardy.

CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on November 17, 2009.

The case was reported by Botsford, J.

Bethany Stevens, Assistant District Attorney (Deborah Bercovitch, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.

Beth L. Eisenberg, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Jeannine E. Mercure with her) for the defendant.

Present: Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.

GANTS, J.

Acting on a petition for relief brought by the Commonwealth under G.L. c. 211, § 3, a single justice of this court reserved and reported the question "whether a judge has the authority to impose a global positioning system (GPS) monitoring device as an additional condition of probation in a probation modification proceeding" where there was no finding of a violation of a condition of probation. We conclude that, unless a judge finds a violation of a condition of probation, a judge does not have the discretion to impose GPS monitoring as an additional condition of probation where there is no material change in the defendant's circumstances and where GPS monitoring, paired with geographic exclusions, is so punitive as to increase significantly the severity of the original probationary terms. Therefore, the judge was correct to deny the Commonwealth's request to modify the conditions of the defendant's probation to add GPS monitoring and geographic exclusion zones.

MA Appeals Court Reverses Drug Conviction Based on 6th Amendment

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reverses the Defendants drug convicition on the basis that his Sixth Amendment right was violated when the Commonwealth introduced a drug certificate into evidence which stated that the substance involved was actually drugs. This case continues a long line of cases that began with the case of Melendez-Diaz, reversing drug convictions where the chemist or some other expert did not testify that the substance involved was actually a drug.-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us





COMMONWEALTH vs. Marcus PIXLEY.




No. 07-P-1976.




May 17, 2010. - September 9, 2010.
Constitutional Law, Self-incrimination, Confrontation of witnesses. Witness, Privilege, Self-incrimination. Controlled Substances. Evidence, Certificate of drug analysis. Words, "Secondary school."

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 26, 2005. The cases were tried before Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.

Jane E. Ross for the defendant.

Andrew R. Thomson (Joseph M. Ditkoff, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.

Present: Cypher, Meade, & Milkey, JJ.

MEADE, J.

A jury convicted the defendant of distribution of cocaine in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32A(c ), and for doing so in a school zone in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32J. In a separate bench trial, the defendant was also convicted and sentenced for being a habitual criminal in violation of G.L. c. 279, § 25, and for second offense distribution in violation of G.L. c. 94C, § 32A(d ).

[FN1]

On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the judge erred in holding an in camera hearing to determine the validity of a defense witness's claim of a Fifth Amendment privilege under the United States Constitution, (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that University High School was a secondary school, (3) testimony regarding money used to purchase narcotics should have been excluded because the money itself was not in evidence, (4) the admission of the drug analysis certificate without testimony from the analyst violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, and (5) that the judge erred in failing to properly instruct the jury on the school zone charge. We reverse.

MA SJC Allows Motion to Suppress in Case Involving Anonymous Caller

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts allowed the defendant's motion to suppress in this drug case due to the fact that the information received from an anonymous caller was not sufficient to search the vehicle occupied by the Defendant. I was actually the original attorney in district court that argued the motion to suppress. Please read the decision below. 
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)456 Mass. 385 (2010)

COMMONWEALTH
v.
MARTEL MUBDI.

SJC-10552.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.December 7, 2009.March 29, 2010.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ.

Christopher L. Maclachlan for the defendant.

386*386 Kathleen Celio, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

GANTS, J.

The defendant was charged in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department with possession of marijuana, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 34; possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32C (a); and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school or public park, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32J.^[1] The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, including the marijuana he is charged with possessing, seized by Boston police officers on May 16, 2007, from a parked vehicle during an investigatory stop. After an evidentiary hearing, a judge denied the motion to suppress, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop and that the protective sweep of the vehicle in which the defendant had been seated was reasonable to protect the safety of the police officers and appropriately limited in scope. A single justice of this court granted the defendant leave to file an interlocutory appeal in the Appeals Court from the denial of the motion. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996).

The Appeals Court issued an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28, affirming the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, but on grounds different from the motion judge. Commonwealth v. Mubdi, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2009). The Appeals Court concluded that the information that prompted the investigatory stop fell short of reasonable suspicion, but held that the defendant's motion to suppress should still have been denied because, in the affidavit he filed under Mass. R. Crim. P. 13 (a) (2), as appearing in 442 Mass. 1516 (2004), he failed to assert that he had an expectation of privacy in the vehicle in which the police located the challenged evidence and, at the evidentiary hearing, he failed to establish his reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. We granted the defendant's application for further appellate review. We now reverse the denial of the motion to suppress.

MA Appeals Court rules search of Defendant's home illegal

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled the search of a Defendant's apartment illegal due to the fact that the police were unable to show any connection between two to three drug transactions committed by the Defendant on one particular day and the Defendant's apartment. Please read the decision below.
-Attorney Gomes tgomeslaw.com


NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us







COMMONWEALTH vs. Joshua A. BOOKMAN.






No. 09-P-604.






June 14, 2010. - September 1, 2010.
Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause, Confrontation of witnesses. Search and Seizure, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Evidence, Certificate of drug analysis.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 25, 2006.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Paul A. Chernoff, J., and the cases were tried before Thomas P. Billings, J.

Patricia Quintilian for the defendant.

Susanne R. Bines, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Green, Dreben, & Milkey, JJ.

DREBEN, J.

After being indicted on numerous charges, the defendant was convicted of distribution of cocaine, committing that violation in a school zone, and of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, he claims (1) the motion judge erred in not granting his motion to suppress drugs found in a residential apartment (a) because the police lacked probable cause to believe that cocaine and related paraphernalia would be found there, and (b) because there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the apartment; (2) that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find hehad constructive possession of the cocaine within the apartment; and (3) the admission of the drug certificates was in violation of his rights under the confrontation clause.

1. Motion to suppress. We take our facts from the findings of the motion judge, supplemented by uncontradicted evidence from the hearing on the motion. On March 17, 2006, a confidential informant told the Somerville police department that an individual named John Holbrook would be participating in a drug transaction near a certain café and that a Ford Explorer with Massachusetts license plate TC7451 would be involved. Police went to the named café where they saw Holbrook, known to them as a drug user, leaving the Ford Explorer which then drove away. When approached by police, Holbrook, although at first cooperating with the police, named the seller as Josh and then as George, and gave them two bags of cocaine, soon ceased to cooperate and was arrested.

MA SJC Says Nepotism Not Allowed

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approved the decision of a chief administrator to deny employment to a candidate whose family member, who is also an employee of the Probation Department, who already had six family members working for the Probation Department would not be allowed a seventh relative to be employed by the department. Please read the Boston Globe Article below.

-Attorney Gomes tgomeslaw.com

SJC takes stand against nepotism in court hiring decisions
E-mail|Link|Comments (39)August 30, 2010 10:59 AM
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the power of the state's chief administrative judge to rescind a Probation Department job offer to an applicant who already had six relatives working in the court system.

The court said that the job applicant, Stephen P. Anzalone Jr., had no right to a job in probation, an agency now under investigation over allegations of widespread political favoritism.

Probation Commissioner John J. "Jack" O'Brien wanted to hire Anzalone, the son of O'Brien's college football teammate, as a probation officer in August 2007. But the offer was subject to the approval of Chief Justice for Administration Robert Mulligan. O'Brien and Mulligan have sparred for years over O'Brien's hiring choices and, when Mulligan learned of Anzalone's extensive family ties among court employees, he vetoed O'Brien's job offer.

Court Reverses Defendant's Conviction For Open and Gross Conduct

The Massachusetts Appeals Court reverses the defendant's conviction for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior on the basis that his genitals and/or buttocks were not shown to the victim. Please read the decision below.

-Attorney Gomes tgomeslaw.com


NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

COMMONWEALTH vs. Raymond L. BLACKMER, III.

No. 08-P-1994.

December 4, 2009. - August 26, 2010.

Lewdness. Open and Gross Lewdness and Lascivious Behavior. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Identity, Relevancy and materiality.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 27, 2007.

The cases were tried before Bertha D. Josephson, J.

Nona E. Walker, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.

Steven Greenbaum, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Rapoza, C.J., Kafker, & Hanlon, JJ.

HANLON, J.

The defendant appeals from his conviction after a Superior Court jury trial of one count of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 16, and one count of being lewd, wanton, and lascivious in behavior, G.L. c. 272, § 53, for an incident that occurred on the Smith College campus. We are asked to consider whether public masturbation, without exposure of the defendant's genitalia or buttocks, is punishable under G.L. c. 272, § 16. Because we hold that it is not, we reverse the defendant's conviction for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior only, and affirm his conviction for being lewd, wanton, and lascivious in behavior.

Background. The jury would have been warranted in finding the following facts. On February 15, 2007, a student at Smith College, a women's college in Northampton, was crossing the street at an intersection near the campus. She noticed a dark green van, which she described as being the same model as her parents' car, a Dodge Caravan, parked awkwardly and holding up traffic in a crosswalk on the other side of the intersection. As the student approached the car, she noticed the driver was moving "his arm and hand ... up and down against his groin." He appeared to be masturbating; however, she did not observe that either his genitals or buttocks were exposed. [FN1]

Top Eight Things to Do If You're Suspected of OUI in Massachusetts

Here is a list of things I recommend you do if you're stopped by the police and suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or OUI in Massachusetts:

1. Always be respectful to the police officer or state trooper that has stopped your vehicle.

2. Give the officer or state trooper your driver's license and registration.

3. Do not admit to drinking any alcohol.

4. Do not answer any questions asked by the officer or trooper, simply state that you would like to speak with your attorney before answering any questions.

5. Do not perform any field sobriety tests.* Contrary to popular belief, you do have a right to refuse to perform these tests.

6. Do not give the officer any other evidence that can be used against you at trial, i.e. leave the scene of an accident, rude or obnoxious behavior, yelling and screaming, empty alcohol bottles in your car, etc.

7. Do NOT take the breathalyzer test.* Even if you do all of the six things listed above, you still may have a chance for a not guilty at trial. However, a breathalyzer result over .08 may cause problems at trial.

8. Contact Attorney Gomes so that she may go to the Arraignment with you. This will be your first court appearance and you should have your attorney present.

*If you have consumed 1-2 alcoholic beverages prior to being stopped by the police you must use your own discretion as to whether you will pass the field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. Please keep in mind that a breathalyzer test refusal will result in a loss of your driver's license for 180 days. However, it is likely that your trial will take place before the 180 days has elapsed.

Call an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney now at (617) 524-6600.

Defendant Granted New Trial For Improper Jury Instructions in Murder Case

The Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed the defendant's motion for a new trial due to the fact that the jury was given an improper jury instruction regarding the defendant's mental illness and her alcohol consumption. Please read the decision below. 
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)



NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us







COMMONWEALTH vs. Sheila BERRY.






No. SJC-10397.






February 12, 2010. - August 23, 2010.
Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Instructions to jury. Insanity. Intoxication. Mental Impairment. Evidence, Intoxication, Insanity.

INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 24, 2003.

The case was tried before Paul E. Troy, J.

Eric S. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.

Robert C. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Marshall, C.J., Spina, Cowin, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.

SPINA, J.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. [FN1] The victim was an acquaintance. The defendant appeals from her conviction, arguing that the judgment should be reversed because the judge's instruction failed to inform the jury that the defendant was not criminally responsible if her use of alcohol activated her mental illness, and the instruction was prejudicially tilted in favor of the Commonwealth; and that this court should exercise its power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant the defendant a new trial or reduce the degree of guilt to murder in the second degree in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's mental disease and defect and her lack of criminal responsibility. We conclude that the instruction given to the jury created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

1. Background. The defendant had dinner with a friend on August 14, 2002. They spent about two hours together, during which time she had two to three glasses of rum. She testified that she could "feel the effects of the alcohol." She testified that, in general, alcohol "made me laugh." That evening, the defendant returned to her apartment, then went to the apartment of a friend, Deanna Marshall, with whom she had spent the afternoon. From there she walked to a small market in the neighborhood.

Defendant Granted New Trial in Murder Case

The Massachusetts Appeals Court allowed the defendant's motion for a new trial due to the fact that her family members were denied access to the courtroom during jury selection. Please read the decision below. 
-Attorney Gomes (tgomeslaw.com)


NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us





COMMONWEALTH vs. Donna WOLCOTT.




No. 08-P-1047.




December 10, 2009. - August 25, 2010.
Homicide. Solicitation to Commit Felony. Practice, Criminal, Public trial, Instructions to jury, New trial. Constitutional Law, Public trial. Accessory and Principal. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 21, 2006.

The cases were tried before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on August 14, 2008, was heard by him.

Michael J. Fellows for the defendant.

Marcia B. Julian, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Mills, Katzmann, & Fecteau, JJ.

KATZMANN, J.

The defendant, Donna Wolcott, appeals her convictions by a Superior Court jury for solicitation to commit a felony (murder), and two violations of abuse prevention orders. Informed by recent United States Supreme Court and Supreme Judicial Court decisions not available to the careful Superior Court judge, we reverse the order denying the motion for new trial on the grounds that an unconstitutional closure of the court room took place. In light of the remand to Superior Court, we address and uphold the judge's solicitation instruction, and various evidentiary rulings.

Background. We summarize the facts that the jury could have found as follows, and reserve the recitation of certain facts relevant to the discussion below. In March, 2006, Donna Wolcott told a number of people that she had grown unhappy in her marriage. Beyond that, she also asked a coworker, Jill Scibelli, whether her husband had contacts with the "Scibelli" crime family and said that she was "nervous" but "had money" and needed to get rid of a "problem."