Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

The criminal justice system enforces much more strict penalties for DUIs when they cause serious injuries or deaths. In addition, the general public may be much less sympathetic toward alleged drunk drivers who cause crashes that kill teens and children. This is exactly what happened after a fatal DUI in Braintree, and the defendant in this case is likely to face serious penalties. This is due not to both DUI laws in Massachusetts and the stigma of innocent teen deaths. Could a DUI defense lawyer in Massachusetts help a defendant who finds themselves in this situation?  

Allegedly Drunk Driver Faces Three Counts of DUI Causing Serious Bodily Injury

In December 2024, an allegedly drunk driver struck an SUV and caused various injuries to the occupants inside. Police say that this driver was operating a pickup truck and that he had veered into oncoming traffic before the impact.  

One of the passengers in the SUV was an 18-year-old girl, and she suffered serious injuries that proved fatal. The driver of the SUV – also 18 – suffered serious injuries but survived after receiving treatment. The last occupant of the SUV was 21, and he was hospitalized with “serious but non-life-threatening” injuries. 

The 39-year-old defendant was also hospitalized, and the authorities arraigned him from his hospital bed with various charges. These include three counts of DUI causing serious injury, reckless driving, and failing to stay in his lane. 

Despite these charges, the Braintree Police reported that they were still investigating the crash in its immediate aftermath. They were assisted by the Massachussets State Police and the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office. 

Charges Upgraded to Vehicular Homicide

In January of 2025, NBC Boston reported that the defendant is now facing an additional charge of motor vehicle homicide. NBC also stated that the defendant had pleaded not guilty to all of his charges so far – and that he remains free on a $5,000 bond. 

His next court date is in March of 2025, and this defendant will presumably try to fight his DUI and homicide charges. In the weeks and months after the accident, various sources highlighted more personal information about the victim – including her devotion to her family. She was apparently a cheerleader at her local high school. News sources released photos of a blonde girl with blue eyes. 

It is not clear how a jury will react to this incident, but the girl’s “all-American” appearance could lead to some form of bias. One has to wonder whether the jury would react similarly if the victim was an older man or a foreign immigrant. Because of this potential for bias, the defendant may be considering a bench trial. 

Can a DUI Defense Attorney in Massachusetts Help? 

Some DUIs trigger much worse penalties than others, and a crash resulting in the death of a teenager is a clear example of this. Regardless, defendants should expect fair and equal treatment under the law in Massachusetts. Juries may easily become biased due to the social stigma of deceased children, and experienced DUI defense attorneys in Boston could help address this. To learn more about pursuing fair unbiased treatment in court, consider contacting Edward R. Molari today. 

Although Massachusetts does not have the strongest self-defense laws in the nation, one can still legally fight back against an attacker. If there are no other options remaining, one might even be justified in using deadly force. But if you want to defend yourself, you must do so in the heat of the moment. A recent case shows that when you go home and plot a retaliatory attack, you lose your right to self-defense in Boston.  

Man Faces Gun Charges After Police Catch Him Before Alleged “Retaliatory Attack” 

In late December of 2024, numerous sources reported that a man had been arrested with a fully automatic handgun in Boston. Police say that they caught the man as he was on his way to carry out a retaliatory attack on a group of individuals who had previously assaulted him. They say that their “Youth Violence Strike Force” received news of this initial assault and subsequently determined that the victim was planning to retaliate. 

They then spotted the defendant walking in the street with a “prominent bulge” in his clothing, and they carried out a pat-frisk. During the search, detectives found a firearm with destroyed serial numbers and a “switch” mod. This type of modification provides handguns with full-auto capabilities. Police also found Oxycodone pills on the defendant. 

What Would Have Happened if the Defendant Had Retaliated Immediately? 

Suppose the defendant had retaliated immediately after being assaulted by the group of assailants. What would have happened? He would probably attempt to argue self-defense, as being surrounded by multiple assailants obviously prevents a victim from fleeing. 

The real question is what would have happened if this man had defended himself using his illegal, fully automatic handgun. In this type of situation, a defendant may still be able to argue self-defense – even when using a highly illegal weapon. Even if they avoided murder charges, however, they would still face consequences for machine gun possession. 

Interestingly, a report by 25 News does not indicate that the defendant is facing attempted murder or conspiracy charges. Instead, he is facing numerous firearms offenses – including possession of a machine gun and possession of a large-capacity magazine. 

No Word on Whether the Assailants Were Arrested

It is also interesting to note that among the reports of this arrest, none provide any details on the initial assault. One would think that the people who assaulted this man would also be arrested and charged, but there are few details about these assailants. One report simply stated that prosecutors “declined to comment” on the initial assault, which is reportedly gang-related. 

Can a Defense Attorney in Boston Help Me?

If you have been accused of planning or carrying out a retaliatory attack on someone, consider speaking with an experienced defense attorney in Boston. These legal professionals may be able to mitigate your penalties – even if arguing self-defense is impossible. To learn more about your legal options, consider a consultation with Edward R. Molari today. 

When it comes to drug search warrants in Massachusetts, an important requirement is something called “particularity.” According to the Fourth Amendment, all search warrants must describe the specific items that authorities expect to seize in their searches. If the search warrant does not describe these items in detail, the search warrant could be challenged in court – and the resulting evidence may be inadmissible. This became clear after a recent drug case in Massachusetts.  

Authorities Fail to Describe the Specific Drugs They Wanted to Search For

In December of 2024, the Commonwealth announced that a search warrant issued in 2019 lacked particularity. The case stemmed from an incident involving a man who was allegedly selling drugs from his second-floor apartment. A police detective claimed to have received information from a confidential informant about the suspect, and this detective later provided a sworn affidavit that drug transactions were taking place at the address. However, the affidavit failed to identify the specific substances the suspect was allegedly selling – and this later proved to be a major flaw. 

The confidential informant later made a controlled buy from the suspect, but the police detective only described these substances as “narcotics” in his affidavit. As most people know, the term “narcotics” encompasses relatively minor drugs like marijuana – all the way up to hard drugs like heroin. The detective later stated that he described the drugs in intentionally vague terms to protect the identity of their confidential informant. 

Based on this information, the court issued a search warrant with equally vague terms – allowing police to search for “all” drugs, cash, weapons, and essentially any other incriminating evidence inside the apartment. 

The defendant faced numerous drug trafficking charges, and he quickly argued that the search warrant lacked particularity. The Superior Court first denied the motion, and a second judge made the same ruling when the defendant filed a second motion. Next, the defendant entered guilty pleas on the condition that he would have the right to appeal both denied motions. 

The appeals court then heard the defendant’s argument, ultimately agreeing that the search warrant lacked particularity. The court found that by describing “all controlled substances” in the search warrant, constitutional and statutory rights had been violated. They noted that search warrants must specifically name the substances that police believe to be present. They also noted that the police saw the substances purchased by the confidential informant, and they had no real excuse for failing to name this specific substance. 

Can a Drug Defense Lawyer Help Me Challenge Search Warrants in Massachusetts?

If you believe that authorities searched your premises, property, or person without a valid warrant, you may be correct. An experienced drug defense lawyer in Massachusetts may be able to help you review the details of the warrant and uncover various issues – including the lack of particularity. To learn more about potential defense strategies, contact Edward R. Molari today. 

Surveillance footage represents crucial evidence in many Massachusetts criminal trials, and at first glance, it might seem irrefutable. However, this footage may be less reliable than many realize. Putting aside the potential for pixelated and unclear film, one also has to consider the people who review the footage. Are these people even familiar with the defendant? What is the likelihood of mistaken identity? These questions were raised during a recent appeal for assault and battery in Massachusetts, and they proved effective.  

Officers Lacked “Sufficient Relevant Familiarity” With the Defendant

In October of 2024, the Commonwealth reversed assault and battery convictions for a defendant based on a successful appeal. The defendant argued that the officers who reviewed crucial surveillance footage were insufficiently familiar with his identity, making them unqualified to place him at the scene of the crime. 

This decision stems from a 2021 altercation at a Walmart. A video surveillance footage captured a man in a white shirt and another individual approaching three other men in an aisle. During this altercation, the man in white shoved one of these three individuals while holding a firearm. He then pointed his firearm at the two other individuals before retreating and leaving the store. 

During the subsequent assault and battery trial, two officers from the Worcester police gang testified against the defendant. The Commonwealth notes that no one who actually witnessed the altercation testified at the trial. These officers claimed that they were familiar with the defendant, who prosecutors had previously identified as the man in the white shirt. 

Specifically, one officer claimed that they had encountered the defendant four times over a five-year period. The other officer stated that they had encountered the defendant twice over a four-year period. Both stated that based on their review of the surveillance footage, they believed that the defendant was the man in the white shirt. The jury convicted the defendant on two counts of assault and battery with a deadly weapon. 

This defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the officers had not encountered him enough to accurately identify him in the footage. The Commonwealth noted that a police officer may only testify in this situation if they are in a “better position than the jury” to accurately identify a defendant. 

The appellate court ultimately concluded that the prosecutors failed to establish that the officers had “sufficient relevant familiarity” with the defendant. They also stated that their previous encounters with the defendant were “infrequent and sporadic.” They noted previous cases where this “sufficient familiarity” threshold had been met, which often involved officers who knew defendants socially for a decade before testifying. 

The Commonwealth concluded that this represented a “substantial miscarriage of justice” and that the two officers should have never been allowed to testify. They therefore reversed the convictions. 

Speak With an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston

If you face similar charges based solely on surveillance footage, it may be possible to use a similar defense strategy. To discuss this subject in more detail, schedule a consultation with Edward R. Molari – an experienced defense attorney in Boston.