Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

District Court Judge in Massachusetts Says Carrying Guns Across State Lines Is Okay

Back in August of 2023, a District Court Judge in Massachusetts made a surprising decision. In a case that revolved around a New Hampshire man who attempted to carry a firearm without a proper license in Massachusetts, the judge dismissed the charges. Why? According to him, the state’s requirement that non-residents obtain temporary carry licenses is unconstitutional. While this case is notable, it’s important not to read too much into it. 

The Second Amendment Trumps Other Individually Held Rights

Judge Coffey wrote that a person cannot lose their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment simply by traveling into a different state. Anything else, the judge argued, would mean that an individual’s Second Amendment rights are handled differently compared to other rights. 

Back in June of 2022, the Supreme Court made a similar landmark decision in New York. These decisions seem to suggest that bringing a weapon across state lines is inherently acceptable under the Constitution – although it is important to remember that the Massachusetts decision was only issued by a District Court. As a result, it does not “set a precedent” in the same way as a Supreme Court decision.

Nonetheless, this is part of an apparent trend toward what some call “national reciprocity” – the idea that every US citizen has the right to travel across all 50 states while carrying firearms in public. Note that the penalties for carrying firearms across state lines without proper permits can be quite severe. The aforementioned New Hampshire resident was facing 18 months in prison for his offense. 

This decision also involves the distinction between a “privilege” to bear arms and a “right” to bear arms. The Supreme Court decision in June of 2022 established that the constitutional right to bear arms is a right and not a privilege – and the court used the term “second-class right” in this context. This suggests that Second Amendment rights should be prioritized over other rights - which is exactly what Judge Coffey was getting at when he made his 2023 decision. 

Does This Decision Even Matter?

While this decision is interesting, it does not serve as a precedent – at least not yet. The Commonwealth has already filed an appeal – and this means that it could eventually become a precedent at a later date. Specifically, the Court of Appeals may issue a decision – or it might even go to the Supreme Judicial Court for review. When and if this happens, Coffey’s decision could very well set a precedent – pushing gun rights even further across the entire nation. 

Get in Touch With a Firearms Defense Attorney Today

If you are facing charges for carrying a firearm across state lines, consider booking a consultation with a qualified defense attorney in Massachusetts. With help from Edward R. Modlari, you can push back against excessive penalties and fight for your Second Amendment rights. Book your consultation today to get started with an effective defense strategy. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Why Some Defendants Suddenly Have More Leverage On the Commonwealth

The elimination of life without parole for murder defendants between the ages of 18 and 20 will have significant effects on the criminal justice system in Massachusetts. Specifically, it means that the Commonwealth now has less leverage over defendants within this age bracket as they approach a major choice: Pleading guilty or heading to trial. While this choice is important for virtually any defendant, the stakes are obviously much higher if a defendant stands to lose any hope of ever being released. The exact effects of this change in the criminal justice system are somewhat nuanced.  

Commonwealth vs. Sheldon Mattis

In January of 2024, the Commonwealth confirmed that mandatory life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional for juveniles. Referring to a previous case in 2013 (Diatchenko I), the Supreme Judicial Court found that this protection against mandatory life imprisonment should extend to “emerging adults.” The court defines emerging adults as those who were 18, 19, or 20 at the time they committed their crimes. In Commonwealth vs. Sheldon Mattis, the defendant successfully challenged the constitutionality of his sentence of life without parole, and this argument was successful. 

The case revolves around a shooting incident that occurred at a parking lot. While the defendant did not pull the trigger, he was accused of handing his codefendant a weapon and telling him to “handle that” – referring to the presence of two individuals nearby. One victim survived the shooting, while the other succumbed to their wounds. Part of the trial was devoted to the subject of neurological development among teens, and it included testimony from medical experts. 

The issue at hand was whether "emerging adults" are capable of making informed decisions due to their brain development process and whether this should represent a mitigating factor for criminal offenses such as murder. The defendant was 18 at the time of the shooting. Ultimately, the defense counsel’s arguments proved was rejected by the trial court, and the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the sentence violated constitutional prohibitions on cruel or unusual punishments. 

However, the courts denied all of these efforts and upheld the sentence. In the following years, however, the subject of neurological development among teens continued to take center stage, with a different Superior Court judge stating that emerging adults are “less able to control their impulses.”

What This Decision Means

Before this case, an "emerging adult" was forced to choose between a trial and a plea deal. The trial came with significant risks, as there was a serious chance of never being released. On the other hand, a plea deal guarantees at least the possibility of release. Now, the prospect of life without parole has been eliminated – giving defendants more autonomy to make a choice that aligns with their values and priorities.

Some speculate that some day the SJC may decide to extend the rule against life without parole to adults. It seems unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but it is cerainly possible. in particular, the SJC in this case decided to take the statute fixing a term for parole between 20 and 30 years. It could have, instead, found unconstitutional the provision making life without parole mandatory, and thereby allowed people to be sentenced to life without parole but making the choice discretionary. This is how it works for juveniles in many states, and may be the next reform that Massachusetts sees towards the elimination of life without the possibility of parole.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Murder
Mandatory Minimums
Appeals

Insane String of Legal Decisions Pulls Brockton Man in and Out of Prison

On December 21, 2023, it was reported that a Brockton man had been arraigned on a murder charge. This isn’t particularly out of the ordinary, as Brockton is “not one of the safest communities in America,” according to NeighborhoodScout.com. However, when one looks into this case in more detail, it is anything but ordinary.  

Brockton Man Spends Four Months Out of Prison Before Being Accused of Murder

This individual had apparently experienced just four months of freedom before new murder charges, having previously been sentenced to nine years for involuntary manslaughter and firearms offenses back in 2021. These charges stemmed from a 2013 incident involving the death of an individual in Brockton. 

However, the defendant spent just a few years behind bars, as he received credit for time served. To complicate matters even further, he won an appeal in 2016 after initially being charged with manslaughter. As a result of this appeal, his convictions for manslaughter and firearms offenses were reversed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2019. 

Why did the Appeals Court reverse the decision? Because the judge denied his motion to suppress the portion of his interrogation after he clearly stated he was “done answering questions.” The Appeals Court found that the defendant was exercising his right to remain silent and that the trial judge should have suppressed the later portion of the interrogation as requested. Although he was set for a new trial, the defendant eventually decided to plead guilty and was then sentenced in 2021. He spent about a year longer in prison before being released in early 2022. 

Four months later, he allegedly became involved in the fatal shooting of another Brockton resident. Police say that after an investigation, they obtained an arrest warrant for the defendant. He was eventually taken into custody and charged with murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, possessing a firearm without a license, and possessing ammunition without a license. What happens next is anyone’s guess. 

Research this defendant’s history a little more, and you’ll find even more back-and-forth legal decisions. In 2009 – before his manslaughter incident – he was convicted of trafficking cocaine. One of the key witnesses in his trial was state drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan, who was later accused of mishandling 60,000 drug samples. Although the defendant was initially sentenced to five years in prison (minus time served), he walked out of prison in the wake of the drug lab scandal. The drug samples used to convict him had been destroyed by 2012, and his petition for a new trial led to his sentence being vacated. However, his freedom was short-lived – as he spent just six months on the outside before being incarcerated for the 2013 manslaughter incident. 

Due to this defendant’s incredible ability to escape serious terms in prison, it is difficult to predict with any accuracy whether these new charges will “stick.” 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

How Did This Defendant Get an Acquittal After Stabbing Accusations?

In 2019, a 20-year-old was fatally stabbed multiple times in Brookline, Massachusetts – but the person arrested for this offense was eventually acquitted. The fatal incident took place at approximately 1:30 AM, and it apparently involved a dispute over prescription drugs. Very quickly, the defendant claimed that he was acting in self-defense. Over the next few years, a detailed account of this incident began to emerge.  

How the Story Changed Over the Years

Initially, media reports painted the deceased individual as a clear victim. They highlighted the fact that he was a student at a local educational institution and that he was missed by many students and teachers. What these reports failed to mention, however, was that the deceased individual was almost certainly caught up in some kind of altercation over prescription drugs. 

Eventually, the story began to change. Police found Snapchat messages that implicated the defendant and led to his arrest. However, the defendant’s counsel quickly began to paint a very different picture – one that suggested that the deceased individual might not have been the “innocent student” initially described by media reports. On the contrary, the defense maintained that this individual attacked the defendant with a broken vodka bottle in an attempt to steal two Xanax pills. The defense also suggested that the deceased individual was heavily intoxicated at the time of the altercation. 

In response, the prosecution argued that the deceased individual had suffered almost 20 stab wounds – and that this could not possibly be the result of someone acting in self-defense. Someone acting in self-defense would have stopped after incapacitating the attacker with just a few stabs, they argued. They also pointed to surveillance footage that showed the deceased victim stumbling in a drunken manner prior to the attack – suggesting that this individual couldn’t have posed a real threat. 

In the end, the jury determined that the defendant was probably acting in self-defense – and they acquitted him of all charges. The defense’s argument of “sudden, close-quarters combat” seemed to resonate with the jury, who understood that there was no time to react or consider any course of action besides self-preservation. At the end of the day, the defendant was clearly robbed by not one but two attackers. 

How Did He Escape Felony Murder Charges?

Some observers have asked why the defendant did not face felony murder charges. After all, he was allegedly committing a crime (selling drugs) when the fatal altercation occurred. In some cases, it is possible to face felony murder charges even if you cause someone to unintentionally or accidentally die while you are committing a crime. In this case, it seems that the right to self-defense trumped any implications of illegal drug dealing. In other words, the defendant’s right to self-defense did not disappear simply because he was selling Xanax under questionable circumstances. One has to wonder what would have happened if the defendant did not defend himself. Would a reasonable person allow themselves to be seriously injured or murdered with a broken vodka bottle?

Get in Touch with a Qualified Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

If you have been searching for a qualified, experienced defense attorney in Boston, consider booking a consultation with Edward R. Molari.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Dangerous Weapon
Murder
Drug Possess to Distribute
Criminal Procedure

Criminal Court Chooses to Reverse a Decision to Dismiss Criminal Charges Against Ex-Boyfriend

Many defendants in Massachusetts face criminal charges after being accused of pestering their ex-girlfriends. These situations may be complicated further with the presence of new romantic partners. While the old saying “all’s fair in love and war” might ring true in many circles, the criminal courts are of a decidedly different opinion. These opinions, however, may fluctuate based on effective appeals from defense attorneys. This was demonstrated by a recent decision to dismiss criminal charges against an ex-boyfriend in Massachusetts. 

Why Did the Commonwealth Choose to Reverse a Decision to Dismiss a Criminal Complaint Against This Ex-Boyfriend? 

This case begins with a breakup between two adults who share a child. The ex-boyfriend later became a defendant accused of offenses related to alleged stalking. The girlfriend went on to start a new relationship with an individual who later accused the defendant of these offenses. Simply put, the victim became unsettled by the defendant’s various social media posts. The defendant also allegedly photographed the victim’s nearby vehicle after watching his child’s soccer game. 

Faced with these apparent issues, the victim went to a clerk magistrate and provided testimony. The magistrate believed that there was probable cause and issued a criminal complaint. The defendant immediately moved for a dismissal. 

A judge allowed the motion and agreed that probable cause had not been established. Perhaps most crucially, the judge did not even take into account the oral testimony that the victim had provided during the two prior show hearings. The District Attorney later wrote that this testimony should have been considered, and therefore, the decision was reversed. 

Some of the most notable details involve the nature of the social media posts made by the defendant, in which he describes the victim as a “beta male” who displays “weakness” and “cowers” behind females. He also posted what might have been interpreted as a threat: “I keep begging the universe not to push me.”

Facing these social media posts and alleged stalking, the victim and the ex-girlfriend allegedly became too afraid to leave their home – even after relocating to a new town. The defendant also claims that he suffered damage to his reputation after repeatedly being called a “child abuser” by the defendant on social media. It was alleged that the defendant made hundreds of social media posts targeting the defendant in the space of just 60 days. 

The defendant’s counsel asked the judge to consider only the victim’s application rather than any of the more detailed testimony that he had provided. Seeing limited objections from the assistant district attorney, the judge considered only the application and came to a decision quickly. In the judge’s opinion, the application had, in fact, failed to establish probable cause, and he dismissed the criminal complaint. 

The judge seemed to indicate that the social media posts were “protected speech” and were merely annoying rather than criminal in nature. However, the Commonwealth eventually reversed this decision and pointed out that the judge should have considered the oral testimony – and not just the application. 

Find a Qualified Criminal Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts

If you have been searching for a qualified criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts, look no further than Edward R. Molari. With our help, you can appeal various decisions by criminal courts for more favorable outcomes. Book your consultation today to get started. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Rape Acquittal for Former Suffolk County District Attorney

On November 4, it was reported that Adam Foss had been acquitted of all rape and sexual abuse charges. The former Suffolk County District Attorney and criminal justice advocate is now exploring legal options to hold relevant parties accountable for making false allegations against him. His defense attorney painted a damning picture for the DA’s office in this case, accusing them of basing their entire strategy on flimsy social media evidence rather than actual proof. This story goes to show that until the defense has its day in court, it is important for everyone to reserve judgment.  

How Reliable is Social Media Evidence?

The fact that the prosecution relied on social media evidence became a major talking point in later media reports. It immediately became clear that certain social media posts – including online essays – contained allegations with no real proof behind them. Despite the obvious shortcomings of this evidence, the prosecution seems to have based almost their entire around it. 

With all that being said, social media evidence is not inherently unreliable. In fact, social media evidence can help establish a defendant’s innocence. In a rape trial, certain online messages exchanged between the defendant and the alleged victim may prove or help establish a consensual encounter. Like any other form of evidence, social media is only unreliable when it is clearly devoid of any underlying facts.

Rape Investigation Turns Up Zero Evidence of Criminal Activity

Due to the fact that these alleged crimes took place while the defendant was working at the DA’s office, an official investigation was launched into the matter. An outside law firm was called in to conduct the investigation, and the investigators found no evidence of criminal acts. Although the law firm concluded that the defendant engaged in “concerning conduct,” they stopped short of labeling his actions unlawful. This was after they interviewed almost 30 different people and searched through numerous electronic documents. 

Serious questions have been raised after these revelations. If there was clearly no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing, why did prosecutors move forward with criminal charges? What reason did they have to suspect that a legitimate crime had occurred? Were they pressured by the influence of viral social media posts and numerous netizens demanding action for an alleged crime they did not fully understand? 

As Foss’ lawyer points out, this entire debacle “undermines the principles of due process and justice.” It should come as no surprise that Foss is now considering a defamation lawsuit. 

Find a Qualified Defense Attorney in Boston

Although the prosecutors often bring forth cases with very little real evidence to back their claims, a qualified defense attorney in Boston can quickly point out the flimsy foundation on which these arguments lie. As we have seen, false accusations have the potential to destroy reputations – even when they are completely devoid of any real evidence. Every defendant deserves their day in court, and this is an important part of the criminal justice system. Contact Edward R. Molari to defend yourself in a similar manner while protecting your reputation. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Assault with Intent to Murder: What Recent Boston Shooting Charges Tell Us

A shooting or a gun incident in Boston may result in a wide range of charges, and “assault with intent to murder” is only one possible example. What does this phrase mean? As with many legal terms, the definition may seem vague and uncertain to those unfamiliar with Massachusetts law. It may be especially imperative to gain an understanding of the phrase for those facing this charge, and a recent case in Boston provides important insights: 

The Definition of Assault With Intent to Murder

Armed Assault with Intent to Murder is a serious crime in Massachusetts. It involves the use of a firearm to carry out an assault, with either the goal of murdering or robbing the victim. An important aspect of this offense is intent. In order to face the consequences of this crime, the prosecution must clearly establish that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim. This requirement presents a range of possibilities for defense strategies. 

Defendant Convicted Due to Apparent Plot to Frame Him

Although intent is an important element in trials involving assault with intent to murder, there is also a much more basic requirement: Positive identification of the defendant. If the prosecution cannot clearly establish that the defendant was, in fact, the person who carried out the crime, they are not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. As a result, they must be acquitted. This is what one recent trial centered around in Boston. 

In September of 2023, the Superior Court wrote that a defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder despite the fact that no one had been able to positively identify him as the shooter. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of one witness, who claimed to have seen the defendant about 20 minutes prior to the shooting in the same vehicle a few blocks away. 

However, the defense counsel later received an anonymous text with information about an alleged plot to frame the defendant. The text included screenshots from the witness’ social media account. In addition, the prosecution was accused of improperly questioning the defendant’s decision to plead the fifth and their decision to show the defendant a photograph of his dead friend – something that was apparently inflammatory. Finally, the prosecution was accused of misleading the jury in their closing argument. 

The defendant requested voir dire examination of key evidence, but the judge denied this. The Superior Court found this to be a mistake and subsequently vacated the defendant’s convictions. Although a new trial will proceed, this is certainly an example of a successful defense strategy. 

Where Can I Find an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston?

If you are facing gun charges such as “assault with intent to murder,” it may be helpful to get in touch with an experienced defense attorney in Boston. Choose Edward R. Molari, book a consultation, and discuss the details of these offenses in more detail. There are many potential defense strategies for gun and shooting charges in Boston, so get in touch today to assess the most appropriate course of action. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Massachusetts Judge Resigns After Facing Accusations from Anonymous Source

A judge known for his tough stance on drug crime has resigned in Massachusetts after facing accusations from an anonymous source. Judges play an important role in our society, and in many ways, our very democracy hinges on their ability to make fair, unbiased rulings. Because of their pivotal role, even the slightest allegations of wrongdoing raise alarm bells. It is not clear exactly what happened in this situation, but the sudden resignation of First Justice Douglas Darnbrough certainly leaves many questions unanswered.  

Douglas Darnbrough's Story Has Been Unraveling for Months

For many people, Darnbrough's departure from the legal world is not much of a surprise. Even casual newsreaders probably predicted such an eventuality, as the media has been asking questions about this judge for months. In October of 2023, NBC reported that Darnbrough was serving in a different county than usual after an unexplained 20-day absence. Reporters began inquiring about the situation as early as September, and they were initially informed that an "anonymous letter" had surfaced.

According to various rumors, this letter contained a certain allegation (or a number of allegations, depending on who you ask) against the judge. Apparently, this letter has been circulating around the legal world – implying that whoever wrote it knew how to distribute it in a far-reaching manner to the most important members of Massachusetts' legal community. 

Reporters struggled to find any further information, although one was apparently informed of an "open investigation" against the judge. There was also conflicting information about whether or not Darnbrough had been suspended or whether he had been placed on administrative leave. At least one team of reporters spotted the judge at his home on multiple occasions, suggesting that he was not going to work. Finally, the court claimed that Darnbrough was "on vacation." Later in October, reporters apparently spotted the judge back at work at the Plymouth District Court. Weeks later, he publicly "signaled his resignation."

What Could Have Caused this Sudden Resignation?

We can only speculate as to what caused this sudden departure. Members of Massachusetts' legal community might have more clues, as they probably saw this infamous letter and its anonymous allegations. The allegations in the letter were never vetted, so it's open to speculation as to how much truth there may be to them. As a defense lawyer, it's certainly not my business to suggest that allegations alone should be enough to establish guilt.

Work With a Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

To learn more about the latest developments in Massachusett's criminal justice world, feel free to reach out to Edward R. Molari. With many years of experience as a Boston defense attorney, Mr. Molari keeps a keen eye on the ever-evolving judicial system in the Commonwealth – giving him valuable insights as he defends various clients. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Commonwealth Prosecutors Failed to Establish that Defendant Lacked a Firearms License

 It might seem obvious that in order to convict a defendant of unlawfully carrying a firearm, the prosecution would need to show the absence of a firearms license. However, one defendant in Massachusetts was convicted without the subject of a firearms license even entering into the discussion. The defendant predictably appealed the decision, and this led to an interesting debate surrounding the Second Amendment. In the end, the defendant was able to have most of his charges vacated.

The 2022 Supreme Court Decision That Changed the Outcome of This Case

In 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided that the 1911 Sullivan Act was unconstitutional. This act required New Yorkers to show a special need or “proper cause” in order to gain approval for a concealed carry license. The Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment supersedes this act, stating that every United States citizen should have the ability to carry a pistol in public. Arbitrary evaluations such as the “proper cause” requirement are now unconstitutional, while criminal background checks may still result in a denied application. 

So, what does this have to do with the Massachusetts case? First, a little bit of background: The defendant was found with a firearm, bullets, and a large-capacity magazine. His attorney argued that police conducted the search without a warrant, claiming that this violated the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, the defendant found himself facing several charges, including unlawfully carrying a firearm.  

The Burden of Proof Has Shifted

The prosecution was seemingly unaware of the Supreme Court ruling’s implications, as they did not feel that it was necessary to prove the absence of a firearm license during the trial. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the burden of proof was on the defendant. In other words, the defendants accused of unlawfully carrying firearms had to prove that they had a license. Today, however, the situation is completely reversed. The burden of proof now lies with the prosecution, and it is their responsibility to prove the absence of a firearm license. If they fail to do this for whatever reason, the court should presume that the defendant is innocent. 

The court did not presume the defendant’s innocence, and instead, the judge completely failed to take the Supreme Court ruling into account. He also failed to instruct the jury that in order to convict the defendant, they had to see the prosecution establish the lack of a license. 

Eventually, the highest court in the Commonwealth became aware of their mistake and vacated most of the charges made against the defendant. However, they did not vacate the charge related to the extended magazine – arguing that such a device goes beyond a simple need for personal protection. Although this clearly indicates a victory for the defendant, it is somewhat bittersweet. Although the charges were vacated, the Commonwealth remanded the case to the Supreme Court for a new trial. 

What Does This Mean for Gun Owners in Massachusetts?

It’s always a good idea to follow state laws and obtain proper licenses for your firearms. However, the Supreme Court of the United States clearly protects Second Amendment rights and gun owners on a national scale. Sometimes, the Constitution supersedes state law when it comes to gun legislation. Contact Edward R. Molari today to learn more about how you can protect your Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Firearms

Can a Fired Police Officer Give Reliable Testimony in a Criminal Case?

Many criminal cases in Massachusetts hinge on the testimony of police officers, but what happens when these officers are terminated or no longer employed by their department? If their testimony is necessary for prosecution, the criminal case becomes impossible to prosecute. We have seen many examples of these situations in Massachusetts over the past few years and months.  

The Massachusetts POST Commission Explained

According to the Massachusetts government, the POST Commission was created to “improve policing and enhance public confidence in law enforcement.” The commission aims to accomplish this goal by overseeing stricter regulations in terms of mandatory certification, discipline, and training for all peace officers within the Commonwealth. The acronym stands for “Peace Officer Standards and Training.”

The commission regularly releases statements and public records regarding disciplinary records. The most recent of these statements was released in September of 2023. The POST Commission’s web page allows users to:

  • View disciplinary records
  • View the statute of each peace officer
  • View decisions and orders
  • File police misconduct complaints
  • Learn about the adjudicatory process
  • Read the commission’s annual reports

What Effect Does the POST Commission Have on an Officer’s Ability to Testify?

The POST Commission can decertify police officers. In doing so, this may prevent officers from testifying in court due to the loss of their official positions. For example, the POST Commission decertified five officers in October of 2023 after they were convicted of felonies. These charges included issuing fake tickets to civilians, child exploitation, filing false reports, and others. 

In September 2016, it was confirmed that officers at the Braintree Police Department had been removing drugs, weapons, and cash from the evidence room. One officer committed suicide after their alleged involvement became clear, and numerous cases had to be dismissed as a result of the evidence going missing. Judges considered whether to vacate thousands of convictions related to the now-unreliable evidence from the Braintree Department. 

In June of 2023, a former Fall River police officer was sentenced to 18 months after a jury convicted him of beating a man and filing false reports. The fact that he has been convicted of filing one false report throws doubt upon all of his prior reports as well – and his criminal charges may, in fact, lead to more lenient sentences for defendants who were previously arrested by this fired officer. 

Where Can I Find a Qualified Criminal Defense Attorney in Massachusetts?

If you have been searching for a criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts, look no further than Edward R. Molari. A terminated police officer who cannot provide testimony is just one example of a potential situation that may work in a defendant’s favor. To learn more about defense strategies that may apply to your specific situations, book a consultation today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Criminal Procedure

Pages