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NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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.