Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Two Arrested Under Questionable Circumstances After Fatal Shooting in Dorchester

Although Northeastern University states that Boston homicides are down 82% in 2024, fatal shootings continue to occur. Even a single fatal shooting in a major US city is a tragedy, and it is difficult to tell a grieving family that these incidents are just “part and parcel” of living in a busy metropolitan area. It is arguably even more tragic when innocent people are accused of carrying out these shootings on extremely shaky evidence. A recent shooting in Dorchester raises questions about criminal justice in Boston.  

Bail Denied for Two Men Accused of Carrying Out Fatal Shooting

In December of 2024, 7 News reported that two men had been denied bail after being accused of carrying out a fatal shooting in Dorchester. Police say that the two 25-year-olds were spotted in the immediate vicinity of the shooting at around 10:30 PM. When spotted by police walking out of an alley, the defendants allegedly fled. After a short pursuit, the pair were apprehended. 

Officers then conducted a search of the area where the men had been, recovering two firearms in the process. The implication is that the firearms belonged to the two defendants, and they were subsequently arrested on various weapons charges. These include unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a large-capacity feeding device. Court documents state that one officer was injured during the arrest, although it’s not clear whether this injury occurred due to violence or some kind of accident during the pursuit. 

The shooting in question claimed the life of a 37-year-old man. The pair were denied bail because the court determined they were too dangerous to be released. Perhaps most notably, the police did not reveal whether the pair had actually carried out the shooting. The charges are related to unlawful gun possession – and not homicide. This indicates that investigators need additional evidence in order to tie these men to the murder. 

Is There Any Reason to Believe These Men Carried Out the Murder?

One has to remember that Dorchester is a heavily populated area. Like any other major city in the United States, Boston has a high population density – and you can expect to find many people walking nearby after a shooting in one of its neighborhoods. 

One has to wonder whether these two individuals were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Upon seeing the officers, they may have fled purely out of instinct – or for a reason totally unrelated to the murder. 

It is also not clear why the police are so certain that the men tossed the two firearms while fleeing. The real murderers may have tossed these weapons at around the same time. During the mayhem and frantic pursuits after this fatal shooting, numerous people may have been fleeing for safety – mixed in with the real murderers. 

Can an Experienced Defense Attorney Help With Gun Charges in Boston?

If you have been accused of participating in a shooting in Boston, you should speak with a defense lawyer who has experience with gun violence. These legal professionals can quickly point out the questionable manner in which you were arrested – and they may be able to fight for your rights effectively. To learn more about potential defense strategies, contact Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
gun crimes
Criminal Defense

Massachusetts Man Successfully Appeals Assault and Battery Convictions Based on Questionable Surveillance Evidence

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. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Secret Recording by Undercover Officer Inadmissible During Drug Trafficking Trial in Massachusetts

Undercover officers often carry out “controlled buys,” setting up alleged drug dealers while claiming to be actual customers. This strategy is somewhat controversial, and it raises potential questions about entrapment. Putting that issue aside, there is also the question of whether secret recordings of these transactions are admissible during drug trafficking trials in Massachusetts. A recent decision by the Commonwealth implies that the answer to this question is “no.”  

Appeals Court Upholds Wiretap Act

In November of 2024, an appellate court in Massachusetts upheld the wiretap act and ruled that a secret recording made during a controlled buy should have been suppressed. This case stems from a fatal drug overdose in 2019 that subsequently led detectives to an alleged drug dealer. Once the detectives obtained this individual’s phone number, they set up drug transactions or “controlled buys” in order to gather evidence against him. On three separate occasions, police claim that the alleged drug dealer sold them packages of heroin or fentanyl. 

During each transaction, the undercover officer activated a special app on his phone that recorded audio and video of the interaction. As soon as the third transaction concluded, police moved in to arrest the defendant.

After the defendant had been arrested, his defense lawyer attempted to suppress these recordings. He claimed that they represented a violation of the Wiretap Act, which requires everyone to consent before being recorded. Massachusetts’ wiretapping laws are more restrictive than their federal counterparts, and they effectively make secret recordings illegal across the state. 

Despite this, the judge presiding over the drug distribution trial only agreed to suppress the audio component of the recordings. The video element would have still gone before the jury. Even though the undercover officer’s phone was pointed at the sidewalk throughout most of all three transactions, there were apparently moments where the defendant’s face or body was recorded.  

The appellate court ruled that the recordings ought to be suppressed in their entirety. In discussing their decision, the court noted that there may be an exception to the wiretap law if law enforcement officers obtain warrants prior to making their recordings. They also addressed the prosecution’s argument that the recordings were not “secret” because the undercover officer was holding the phone in his hand. 

Ultimately, they were unconvinced by these arguments and many others. The evidence was suppressed, and this defendant may now find it easier to fight his drug distribution charges. 

Fight Drug Trafficking Charges With an Experienced Boston Defense Lawyer

If you face drug trafficking charges in Massachusetts and you believe that you were illegally recorded during a controlled buy, consider discussing your next move alongside an experienced defense attorney in Boston. Due to the recent Commonwealth decision, this evidence may be completely inadmissible in your trial – and it may be difficult for prosecutors to secure a conviction as a result. Book a consultation with Edward R. Molari today to learn more about your options. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

How to Access Officer Disciplinary Records During a Criminal Trial in Massachusetts

Over the past year, there has been a major push toward transparency in the criminal justice system. Citizens have demanded access to various police records, and the legal system has mostly acquiesced. Today, it is easier than ever to access officer disciplinary records – and this could prove useful in a Massachusetts criminal trial for various reasons. How do you get ahold of these records, and when might they be useful? 

The Massachusetts POST Commission Explained

The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission was created in 2020. Its goal is to improve policing and make citizens more confident about the quality of law enforcement. These goals are achieved through more stringent certification, discipline, and training for all peace officers across the Commonwealth. 

Anyone Can Request Access to Public Records Through the POST Commission

A major part of the POST Commission is transparency. Anyone can make a public records request through this Commission to access things like officer disciplinary records. While you cannot find these records online without permission, the POST Commission does not have the right to refuse access without a valid reason. 

You can make your records request through the Commission Records Access Officer or custodian. There is a convenient online form that you can use, and you may also hand-deliver or mail your records request.  When making your request, you must provide a “reasonable description” of the information you need. Fees may apply. 

When Can I Use Disciplinary Records in a Criminal Trial?

Officers testify in many criminal trials, and you might plan to challenge the credibility of these officers by pointing to their disciplinary records. However, this may not be as easy as it seems. Various rules state that past actions, lies, or disciplinary actions may not be used to challenge the credibility of a witness. Unless this misconduct applies specifically to the case at hand, the disciplinary records could be inadmissible. 

That being said, the judge may decide to admit this evidence if they believe that the credibility of the testifying officer is a “critical issue at trial.” When making this determination, the judge may consider various factors. They might consider when the misconduct occurred and whether many years have passed since the officer was disciplined. They might also consider how convincing the evidence is and whether the disciplinary records are straightforward or complex. The goal here is to “impeach” the witness and make their testimony ineffective. 

Can a Defense Attorney Help Me Access Officer Disciplinary Records? 

A defense attorney may be able to help you access officer disciplinary records. You can access records through the POST commission but accessing these records and using them effectively are two very different things. To receive personalized guidance on this subject, consider a consultation with Edward R. Molari. Reach out today to get started with a defense strategy. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Criminal Procedure

Boston Police Lieutenant Sentenced for Sexually Abusing His Child

One of the more disturbing chapters of the Boston Police Department’s recent history has seemingly come to a close, with a disgraced lieutenant sentenced to between four and six years in prison. The defendant had previously confessed to sexually abusing his own foster child before pleading not guilty and then finally agreeing to a deal made with prosecutors. Did this police officer receive special treatment for sex crimes in Boston?  

Officer's Change of Plea

A police officer in Boston decided to plead guilty before his criminal trial for child rape, thereby avoiding a potential sentence of up to life in prison. The charges stem from a series of child abuse incidents that occurred in the defendant’s home from 2022 to 2023. The victim was the defendant’s foster child, and she was 10 and 11 when the abuse occurred. The final act occurred around Christmas, and the victim subsequently reported the abuse to an adult. 

The defendant’s wife subsequently discovered the abuse and confronted him, causing him to confess for the first time. The defendant then became psychologically unstable and visited his family’s graves at a nearby cemetery. Concerned, a family member reported the defendant’s behavior to the Police Chief – whose brother (a sergeant) confronted the defendant and seemingly convinced him not to commit suicide. 

After this confrontation, the defendant was taken to a nearby hospital for psychological evaluation. He then confessed his offenses to numerous people. Before the trial, he changed his plea to guilty and accepted a deal offered by prosecutors. As a result of this deal, the defendant will spend a maximum of six years in prison. 

Did this Police Lieutenant Receive Special Treatment?

One has to wonder whether an average citizen would have received the same deal from prosecutors after such a heinous act of child abuse. According to one report, the defendant had nonconsensual oral sex with the child – who was not even 12 at the time. This charge alone carries a potential life sentence, and the defendant also faced a slew of related charges. 

Also in November of 2024, a man in West Springfield was sentenced to a maximum of 12 years for child rape after the jury found him guilty It is also worth noting that a former police officer in Dartmouth received a 15-year sentence for child rape charges just one month ago.  The sticking point in plea negotiations on child rape cases is that, depending on the charge, the mandatory minimum can be as much as 10 years. Therefore, in cases with solid evidence like a confession, any offer by the Commonwealth for a sentence of below 10 years is only available with the Commonwealth's consent to reduce the charges. Prosecutors know this, and they know that as long as their sentence recomendation involves a reduction below 10 years they can usually get all but the most hard-headed of defendant's to take the deal. That is the reason that many child sex offenders end up with sentences on the order of 9 years, and why a sentence of 4 years in this case is uncommonly low.

Find an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston

Sexual assault charges are extremely complicated, and extremely serious. Even a police officer, with all the connections and deference that Courts give police officers, still recieved a committed state prison sentence.  Other people, like the defendants in West Springfield and Dartmouth, routinely recieve senences of 10 years or more. If you or someone you know is facing the prospect of a sexual assault charge, book a consultation with an experienced Boston defense attorney today to get started with a defense strategy. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Indecent Assault and Battery

Questions Raised Over Bail for Migrant Accused of Sex Crime

Sex crimes tend to elicit a strong reaction from the general public. Since time immemorial, these offenses have been seen as particularly heinous. Juries have little sympathy for sex criminals in Massachusetts, and even though the court is supposed to be impartial, it is difficult to imagine how a judge could remain unbiased when presiding over some of these cases. The public reacts particularly badly when the victim is a child, and such a case recently occurred in Massachusetts. To make matters even worse, it involved a migrant who entered the country illegally.  

Migrant Accused of Sex Crimes Raises Questions Over Bail System

In June of 2024, serious questions were raised over the bail system in Massachusetts after a migrant’s bail was set at $500. He had been accused of raping a child at a hotel, and he had been incarcerated since March of that year. He pleaded not guilty to one count of rape of a child with a 10-year age difference and a second count of rape of a child by force. 

Many pointed out the absurdity of a $500 bond for a suspected child rapist. Chief among them was the county prosecutor, who argued that the defendant was too dangerous to be released on such a low bail amount. However, the prosecutor did not actually argue against bail – he simply pointed out that it should have been $10,000 instead of $500. 

The migrant’s right to bail and the low amount stems in part from unanswered questions in this case. In particular, witnesses and video surveillance seem to show the victim entering and exiting the hotel room with little changes in her demeanor, hair, and clothing. However, a rape kit allegedly found male DNA on the victim – which the prosecutors hope to match to the defendant. 

In August of 2024, the defendant was released on a $500 bail bond. However, his freedom was short-lived. Soon after he was released, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took him into custody to begin deportation proceedings. This is despite the fact that the defendant was arrested in a “sanctuary city,” where ICE “detainer requests” are ignored. 

In an ICE press release on their detention of the defendant, ICE described retainer requests as “critical public safety tools.” But the facts of the case are still unclear – and only a criminal trial can determine the defendant’s guilt. It is worth mentioning that, technically speaking, the defendant entered the United States illegally. As a result, ICE has the authority to deport him regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty. 

Find an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston

If you are facing sex crime allegations in Boston, consider a consultation with an experienced defense attorney. These legal professionals can guide you toward positive outcomes, no matter how heinous your alleged crimes may be. The court is supposed to be impartial, and your defense attorney can help you ensure an unbiased trial. Reach out to Edward R. Molari today to get started with a defense strategy. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

New Massachusetts Ruling Clarifies the Legal Definition of "Firearms"

Many Americans have a clear idea of what a firearm is. Most would say that it is a gun of some kind capable of firing cartridges using the chemical reaction of explosive gunpowder. However, not all states agree – and various jurisdictions define firearms in different ways. For example, New Jersey defines BB guns in exactly the same way as "traditional" firearms. A recent firearms case in Massachusetts clarifies how the Commonwealth defines firearms – particularly in the context of unlicensed possession.  

Commonwealth Reverses Charge After Clarifying Legal Definition of "Firearms"

In November of 2024, the Appeals Court in Massachusetts reversed a charge of unlicensed firearm possession, noting that what the defendant actually held was not, in fact, a "firearm" under the proper legal definition. 

The case stems from a 2021 incident in which police discovered the unconscious defendant in a parked car at 2:00 AM. Police noticed drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle and carried out a search, finding a bag of fentanyl and a stun gun in the process. 

In 2022, the defendant was charged with various weapons and firearms offenses – including "possession of a firearm without a license" and "possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony." Although the drug charges stemmed from trafficking allegations, the firearms charges were solely concerning the defendant's possession of the stun gun (also known as a Taser). 

Later, the defendant argued that the firearm charges should be dismissed because the stun gun does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun. While the judge agreed to dismiss the charge of possession during a felony, the unlicensed possession charge stood. 

The defendant then appealed. The appeals court subsequently reviewed the legal definition of a firearm in Massachusetts, which includes the phrase: 

"[...] constructed in a shape that [resembles] a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun  [...]"

The Commonwealth did not dispute the defendant's description of his own stun gun, which included the phrase:

"A clunky electrical razor or even a small brick."

The Commonwealth had no other choice but to accept that the legal definition of a firearm in Massachusetts cannot include stun guns that do not resemble firearms. The appeals court seemed bewildered as to how this could have happened since it opens the door for all kinds of "covert weapons" that should clearly be illegal. 

The appeals court also noted that when the resemblance requirement was added to the firearm definition, the term "stun gun" was still absent. As a result, this represents a totally unintentional (and somewhat absurd) outcome for the defendant, albeit a clearly positive one.  

Contact an Experienced Firearms Defense Lawyer in Boston

If you are serious about fighting for your Second Amendment rights, contact an experienced firearms defense lawyer in Boston. Edward R. Molari has experience representing those accused of unlicensed possession, self-defense, illegal modifications, and many related offenses. Schedule a consultation today to learn more – and get started with a real defense strategy. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Firearms

High School Essay Leads to Sex Crime Charges in Massachusetts

Sometimes, the most unexpected things can trigger police investigations and subsequent criminal investigations. Recently, a high school essay published by a student caused a criminal investigation in Massachusetts – eventually leading to a charge of "gross lewdness and lascivious behavior." Although the defendant attempted to appeal his conviction, he was ultimately unsuccessful.  

Student Details Troubling Incident in High School Essay

This case stems from an incident described in a high school essay. This incident described involved a sleepover with two girls staying at the defendant's home – one of whom was the defendant's stepdaughter. At about 3:00 AM that night, the defendant is accused of pleasuring himself at the foot of the victim's bed. She woke up due to the sounds he was making, and he eventually ejaculated onto her ankle.  

The victim then pulled her ankle back under the covers, causing the defendant to flee the room. She subsequently texted her mother and sister at 4:00 AM, asking to be picked up. They arrived at 8:00 AM, and the victim informed her family of the incident. However, she did not want to report the incident to the police – and life continued for the girl – who was 12 years old when this all happened. 

Four years later, she wrote an essay describing these experiences. The police became aware of the essay and began investigating the defendant. During the trial, the judge instructed the jury about the legal definition of "lewdness and lascivious behavior." Under this definition, the defendant must act "openly" while "intending exposure" or "recklessly disregarding" the risk of exposure. 

Later, the fact that the judge did not define the term "recklessly" became a sticking point. The defendant argued on appeal that if the judge wanted to use a vague term like "recklessly," they should have clearly defined it. 

In response, the Commonwealth argued that this did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The real issue here, they claimed, was whether the defendant exposed his genitals "openly." Since the defendant's entire strategy at trial was that the defendant was lying about the incident, the court did not look favorably upon this later strategy.  

In the end, the appeals court determined that the jury would have reached the same conclusion whether the judge had defined the term "recklessly" or not. It is worth noting that the defendant still experienced notable success, having already been found not guilty of a charge of assault and battery stemming from the same case. 

Work With an Experienced Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

Although this particular attempt failed, highlighting issues with legal definitions is a legitimate defense strategy. It is the judge's responsibility to define various legal terms when they deliver the jury instructions, and certain omissions could certainly constitute miscarriages of justice. To discuss potential defense strategies in more detail, consider a consultation with Edward R. Molari, an experienced defense attorney in Boston. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

CJIS Testimony About Firearms Records is Hearsay in Massachusetts

In an important recent decision, the Commonwealth ruled that a representative of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) could not testify about the results of a firearms registry records search conducted by a different CJIS employee. The appeals court ruled that such testimony was hearsay, and this led to the Commonwealth reversing a conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition in Massachusetts.  

The Background of Commonwealth vs. Jose Encarnacion

The ruling stems from a case involving a traffic stop in January 2020. After an officer pulled the defendant over for a broken tail light, they determined that his license had been suspended. Next, they arrested him, placed him in handcuffs, and searched his vehicle. This search led to the discovery of a firearm, and the officer asked the defendant to present his firearms license. The defendant stated that he did not have a license, and the officer subsequently located six rounds of “loose ammunition” – plus a magazine loaded with seven cartridges. 

When the defendant eventually faced a trial for unlawful possession charges, a CJIS Deputy Commissioner explained that law enforcement officials could use the CJIS database to determine whether individuals had been approved for or denied firearms licenses. However, this CJIS employee did not personally search the database to determine whether the defendant had acquired a license. 

Initially, defense counsel objected to this testimony on the grounds of hearsay. However, the judge overruled the objection and allowed the testimony. The counsel then objected to similar issues, and the prosecution offered to call in additional witnesses. They also offered to have a witness conduct a CJIS database search in real time before the jury. However, none of these offers actually materialized, and the judge seemed to prefer the initial testimony of the deputy commissioner. 

Appeals Court Defines CJIS Testimony as Hearsay

An appeals court found that the testimony of the CJIS Deputy Commissioner was, in fact, hearsay. It is not difficult to see why they came to this conclusion, as the commissioner testified about what someone else had done. Not only that, but the commissioner testified about the conclusions of a CJIS database search conducted by someone else. 

The court also determined that even if there was an exception to the hearsay rule in this circumstance, the testimony would have violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights anyway. Among other things, the Sixth Amendment includes the right to confront your accuser directly. 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Lawyer Help With Unlawful Possession of Ammo?

An experienced defense lawyer in Massachusetts may be able to help you defend yourself against charges of unlawful possession of ammunition. As the recent Commonwealth decision shows, testimony from CJIS employees may not be as reliable as prosecutors assume. The court must be very careful when choosing witnesses to testify against defendants in these cases, and they should choose the same person who actually conducted a records check in order to avoid hearsay issues. To explore a potential defense strategy in greater detail, reach out to Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Firearms

Surveillance Footage vs. Eyewitnesses in Boston Armed Robbery Cases

Prosecutors today rely heavily on surveillance footage, a form of evidence that did not even exist a lifetime ago. Prior to this development, the only way to look back on a past moment was by asking an eyewitness. Which is the more reliable form of evidence in the context of murder, armed robbery, or assault cases in Boston? This question was recently addressed in a Boston armed robbery case – and it provides some interesting insights.  

Armed Robbery and Murder Defendants Appeal Based on Video Evidence

This case involved armed robbery and murder stemming from a 2015 incident. The defendants were accused of robbing or attempting to rob three different sex workers at gunpoint within a single night. The first woman denied them entry to her hotel room, while the second opened her door and had several hundred dollars stolen. They then visited a third woman’s hotel room, and this woman died shortly after the visit. 

The defendants were filmed entering and exiting the hotel via surveillance cameras. The guests also reported hearing screaming and a single gunshot. During their investigation, police contacted the two women who interacted with the defendants. One identified a defendant when presented with a photograph of him. Investigators also obtained security footage from not only the hotel but also the surrounding buildings. 

Investigators then used this footage to identify the defendant’s vehicle, later tracking it to a residence in Burlington. They then seized the car, searched it, and accessed his cell phone – finding more incriminating evidence. They also found evidence that showed the defendant was an employee of one of the targeted hotels. Through additional searches of vehicles and residences, investigators found compelling evidence against the defendant – including the apparent murder weapon and clothing worn during the offenses. 

All of this led to numerous convictions during a jury trial in 2017. These convictions included murder in the first degree and attempted armed robbery. 

The defendant then appealed, arguing that the police officer who identified the defendant in the surveillance videos did so erroneously. The defendant argued that the video footage was of poor quality, making it difficult to determine the identities of recorded individuals. In addition, the court admitted that instead of allowing the officer to describe the footage to the jury, they should have simply shown the footage directly to the jury. 

Despite this admission, the court decided that the error did not result in prejudice. Aside from the video footage, the court argued, there was simply too much incriminating evidence. In other words, it would not have mattered anyway – and the defendant would have still been convicted. 

Contact a Boston Armed Robbery Defense Lawyer

If you have been accused of armed robbery in Boston, you might want to get in touch with an experienced defense attorney at your earliest convenience. Even if there seems to be a significant amount of evidence laid against you, a lawyer could help you fight for your rights with confidence. To get started with a defense strategy, contact Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Pages