Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Do Prosecutors Have to Reveal a Confidential Informant's Identity in Boston?

Many drug trafficking defendants in Massachusetts are prosecuted on the basis of information from confidential informants or "CIs." The issue is that these CIs are inherently anonymous – and their use raises Sixth Amendment questions. In the United States, defendants are supposed to have the right to face their accusers in court. Without this principle, the government could theoretically fabricate charges and then claim that their evidence is "confidential." A recent case in Massachusetts provides further insights into this issue.  

Prosecutors Refuse to Hand Over Confidential Informant Evidence in Drug Case

If you face evidence from a confidential informant in Massachusetts, you should be able to request some background information at the very least. However, a recent defendant was met with stiff opposition when his lawyer requested documents relating to a confidential informant in Boston. 

This case stems from an alleged drug deal that took place in 2019. After receiving a tip from a confidential informant, police began tracking a man in a red Honda Accord. Eventually, they saw him carry out a suspected drug deal and quickly pulled him over. After searching his vehicle, they discovered various drugs and bundles of cash. 

The defendant's attorney began to raise questions about whether the initial tipoff from the confidential informant was reliable. In response, the Commonwealth provided the defense lawyer with a memo written by a police officer. This memo waxed lyrical about this confidential informant, claiming that they had participated in numerous investigations involving drug distribution. In addition, the memo stated (for the first time) that this confidential informant had carried out a "controlled buy" from the defendant 72 hours before his arrest. 

However, the defense lawyer was not satisfied with this report – and he requested additional documents during discovery. These included copies of all communications between the confidential informant and the police department – including text messages. The lawyer also requested a "track record" of the past cases this informant had assisted with. In addition, he requested more documentation about the alleged controlled buy. Perhaps most importantly, the defense lawyer requested "motive to lie" information. These documents could potentially expose conflicts of interest, as many informants "sell" information in exchange for money, shorter sentences, and other rewards.

While the judge did not force the prosecutors to hand over all of this information, she ordered them to provide the communication documents and any information about the "motive to lie." Amazingly, the Commonwealth simply refused to comply. As a result, the judge dismissed the case against the defendant. However, a higher court then determined that the judge erred – and that she should have considered a less severe sanction. As a result, the case will assumedly move forward again. 

Can a Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts Help Me?

If you were arrested for drug trafficking in Massachusetts and you believe that the evidence came from a confidential informant, you may have various defense strategies to consider. To discuss your legal options in more detail, get in touch with a Boston defense lawyer. Choose Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, to work alongside a lawyer who has direct experience with drug cases. Book your consultation today to get started. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Drug Trafficking
Drug Possess to Distribute

Massachusetts Correctional Officer Accused of Smuggling Drugs Into Jail

We often hear that it is easier to purchase drugs behind bars than on the street. To the casual observer, this might seem like a ridiculous concept. After all, jails and prisons are subject to the highest levels of security. Everyone and everything that goes into a correctional facility is searched with a fine-tooth comb – so how could drugs end up in the hands of inmates? What many people fail to realize is that there is considerable corruption among correctional officers – and a recent drug case in Massachusetts highlights this issue.  

Jail Guard Allegedly Gave Suboxone Strips to Inmates

A correctional officer in Norfolk County faces serious drug charges after being accused of smuggling suboxone strips into a jail. The defendant was reportedly approached by one of the inmates, who offered payment in exchange for his assistance in a drug operation. The jail guard allegedly agreed and met with a female acquaintance of the inmate in a parking lot. The female co-conspirator provided the guard with suboxone strips, which he then smuggled into the jail alongside garbage bags. 

Suboxone strips are FDA-approved, and they are used to treat heroin addiction. Proponents of this drug have testified before Congress on its ability to help treat heroin addicts. Perhaps most notably, it completely removes symptoms related to withdrawal while eliminating cravings. However, CNN notes that it can also be abused as a recreational drug – providing a "little bit of a high." 

One has to wonder whether the inmates were abusing the suboxone or genuinely trying to treat their own addictions. Due to the supposed availability of drugs in prisons and jails, one would assume that heroin addicts could simply buy the "real thing" instead of using suboxone. One might also wonder why the jail wasn't giving suboxone to inmates struggling with withdrawal, especially given its FDA-approved status. Remember, heroin withdrawal can be fatal. 

County Sheriff Patrick McDermott stated:

"[...]our number one role here at the sheriff's office and at our correctional facility is rehabilitation before these men go forward and back into their communities."

Regardless, the correctional officer has been fired – and he now faces penalties for drug conspiracy. He says he was promised $5,000 to participate in the operation, which he never received. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Drug Trafficking
Drug Possess to Distribute

Massachusetts Police Detective Accused of Strangling Pregnant Woman

A former police detective in Massachusetts is facing serious charges after allegedly strangling a pregnant woman. This woman was found dead back in 2021, and her death was initially ruled a suicide. However, investigators now believe that this apparent suicide was staged by the detective – who knew exactly how to fool his colleagues. The details of this murder are disturbing, and the defendant faces an uphill battle in court. But as any Massachusetts defense attorney will tell you, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  

Defendant Allegedly Had Relationship With Victim Since She Was 15

Investigators say that the detective maintained a sexual relationship with the victim since she was just 15 years old. He was one of three officers to face these accusations. When the victim reached the age of 23, she allegedly told the detective that she had become pregnant with his child. Prosecutors say that this news caused the officer to kill her, and they say his motive was to conceal the illegal relationship that he had maintained since her childhood. 

Perhaps the most important question is simple: How could her death have been ruled a suicide if there is clear evidence that suggests otherwise? This raises worrying questions about law enforcement in Massachusetts. Specifically, there are questions about whether police covered up the crime in order to support one of their own. 

In fact, this crime was only exposed because the victim’s family hired an independent pathologist. This pathologist immediately discovered that the suicide allegations made no sense. This triggered a more in-depth investigation, which reportedly uncovered evidence of underage sex with the victim.

Prosecutors apparently have documents that show the victim was excited about giving birth. These documents also show that the defendant pressured the victim into deleting any digital evidence of their relationship before her 16th birthday. After giving her these instructions, he then searched for how to delete data from his own phone. 

Victim Allegedly Groomed Through Youth Police Program

Perhaps the most disturbing detail of this case is the involvement of a special youth program operated by the Boy Scouts. The Stoughton Police Explorers Academy is geared toward teaching children about careers in law enforcement. The victim participated in this program at the age of 12 and continued until the age of 16. This brought her into contact with the defendant – implying that he groomed her through a vocational program designed for children. This not only raises questions about the police, but it also casts doubt on everyone involved in these youth programs. 

Contact a Massachusetts Defense Attorney to Discuss Potential Defense Strategies

People are accused of heinous crimes all the time, but not all defendants are convicted. Regardless of how shocking these allegations might be, regardless of the evidence, you are always innocent until prosecutors prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If you face violent crime charges in Massachusetts, a criminal defense attorney may be able to help. Contact Edward R. Molari today to learn more about potential defense strategies. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Murder
Domestic Assault and Battery
Suffocation
Strangulation
Pregnant
Serious Bodily Injury

Power and Accountability: The Tragic Case of Matthew Farwell and Sandra Birchmore

A former Stoughton police officer has been indicted in federal court for having a sexual relationship with a woman from the time she was 15 years old until she was 23 and killing her sometime after she told him she was pregnant with his child.

The case involving former Stoughton police officer Matthew Farwell and Sandra Birchmore is a tragic and complex story that has raised significant concerns about power dynamics and accountability within law enforcement. Birchmore, a young woman who had been involved in a police cadet program, developed a relationship with Farwell over several years. The nature of this relationship and the circumstances surrounding it eventually led to a deeper investigation after Birchmore’s untimely death in 2021.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the government's motion for pretrial detention, Birchmore joined the Stoughton Police Explorers Academy as a child. "Farwell used his authority and access to groom, sexually exploit, and ultimately sexually abuse then-15-year-old Birchmore."  Then, after she became pregnant she began to disclose her sexual relationship.  In October of 2020, Birchmore found out that Farwell's wife was pregnant with their third child and "presented Farwell with an ultimatum: Farwell would have to agree to engage in unprotected sex with Birchmore with the goalof conceiving a child; and in return, Birchmore would not disclose their relationship."  In December she sent Farwell a text saying "congrats we are going to be parents." After that point, witnesses told investigators that Birchmore was extatic about her pregnancy, but Farwell became physically abusive. Their text messages show a long runing argument in which Birchmore pushes for commitment to being a family, and when Farwell resists Birchmore threatens to make the history of their relationship public. 

In January of 2021, while Birchmore continued to pressure Farwell, Farwell changed his tune. He began telling her that he would commit, and asked for a key and access to her apartment. On February 1st, the last time Birchmore was seen alive, Farwell sent her a text asking if he could "come by for a second." The last text she ever sent was to Farwell saying that she left to door open for him. Surveillance video shows Farwell entering her apartment at 9:14 p.m.  Investigators accessed Birchmore's phone which shows a timeline of her use of the device, as well as health data showing her last movement at 9:40 p.m., "3 minutes before Farwell was captured on surveillance video leaving Birchmore's apartment."

On February 4, 2021, Canton police found Birchmore's body next to the closet door with a duffle bag strap around her neck and the closet door handle. The office of the medical examiner determined the cause of death to be suicide, but the family was incredulous because everything in her apartment demonstrated that she was very future-oriented. The government obtained an independent review which indicated that the fracture of Birchmore's hyoid bone "is not consistent with the position in which first responders found her" and is not consistent with hanging by sitting with a strap around a door handle, but is consistent with strangulation. The review showed other signs consistent with strangulation.

In further support of the conclusion that Farwell killed Birchmore, the affidavit also details some sexually violent fantasies described by Farwell and sexually violent conduct that he and Birchmore discussed by text message, and also describes the various ways that Farwell lied to investigators while trying to minimize his relationship with Birchmore and his proximity to her last moments.  Without a doubt Farwell's defense will include a challenge to the admissibilty of his conversations with Birchmore about his sexually violent fantasies.

The investigation into Farwell’s actions revealed a troubling pattern of behavior that called into question the responsibility of law enforcement officers in maintaining professional boundaries, especially with vulnerable individuals. This case has become a focal point for discussions about the ethical obligations of those in positions of authority and the safeguards that need to be in place to protect individuals who may be influenced by such figures.

Beyond the specific legal and disciplinary outcomes, the story of Sandra Birchmore and Matthew Farwell underscores the importance of oversight in law enforcement. It serves as a reminder that the systems in place to protect individuals must be robust and proactive, particularly when those individuals are in vulnerable positions or interacting with authority figures.

The ongoing conversation around this case highlights the need for continuous evaluation of police conduct, both to prevent future incidents and to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. It also emphasizes the critical role that accountability and transparency play in maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Tags: 
Murder
Assault and Battery
Suffocation
Strangulation
Pregnant
Admission/Confession
Police Interrogation

Is a Switchblade a “Dangerous Weapon” in Massachusetts?

When it comes to criminal offenses, definitions matter. In cases involving prohibited weapons, the definition of “dangerous” is particularly important – and complex. Where do we draw the line between a “dangerous” blade and a knife that functions more like an everyday tool? The statute provides the following impossibly complex and ambiguous definition:

  •  . . . stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends . . . (and it goes on)

Putting blades aside, can we really say that a bike lock or wrench is less “dangerous” than a switchblade? In the hands of a sufficiently enraged person, virtually any solid object can be dangerous. A recent prohibited weapons case in Massachusetts focused on switchblades – and whether they meet the constitutional definition of a “dangerous weapon.”  

Massachusetts Ends Restriction on Carrying a Switchblade

In 2020, Boston police broke up a quarrel between a boyfriend and girlfriend. When questioned alone, the girlfriend claimed that her boyfriend had taken her phone – refusing to give it back. Witnesses also said they saw the boyfriend push her up against a wall. The police proceeded to arrest the boyfriend – and they searched him. During this search, they found a knife with a spring-assisted mechanism – also known as a “switchblade.” Note that there was no evidence that he used the switchblade against his girlfriend. 

The defendant faced two charges: Assault and battery on a household member and carrying a dangerous weapon. During his subsequent trial, the defendant admitted that the knife met the definition of a switchblade – but he argued that he had the right to carry it based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, he claimed that the switchblade met the definition of an “arm,” and he had the right to “bear” this arm under the Second Amendment. 

Although this argument was initially dismissed, the defendant appealed – and had his domestic assault and battery charge dropped in the meantime. Eventually, the appellate court considered whether a Massachusetts resident should have the constitutional right to carry a switchblade for self-defense. 

First, the court determined that the trial court was incorrect when it said that the Second Amendment only defines “arms” as firearms. Next, they referred to the Heller decision in 2008, which supported the Second Amendment and rejected States’ attempts to limit this constitutional right. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that a handgun ban in DC was unconstitutional – and that weapons do not need to be “disabled” when stored at home for self-defense. 

The court also found that knives were “ubiquitous” among early American settlers for self-defense – concluding that the Founding Fathers almost certainly included blades in the catch-all phrase “arms.” Finally, the court went through and categorically dismissed all of the various contentions made against switchblades – concluding that “nothing about the physical qualities of switchblades suggests they are inherently dangerous.” In fact, the Commonwealth noted that switchblades are particularly suited for self-defense because the user can use their other hand to call for help with a cell phone. 

The defendant’s dangerous weapon conviction was reversed, and this ruling now makes switchblades legal to carry in Massachusetts. 

Can a Boston Defense Lawyer Help With My Weapons Charges?

If you have been accused of carrying a prohibited or dangerous weapon, a defense attorney in Boston may be able to help. During a consultation with one of these individuals, you can discuss your unique priorities and concerns in more detail. Online research only provides broad, vague guidance – and a lawyer can take your defense strategy to the next level. Reach out to Edward R. Molari today to get started. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Dangerous Weapon
Armed Assault to Murder
Armed Assault to Rob
Assault with Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon

Community Caretaking Eliminated as Grounds for Warrantless Entry into Homes

The community caretaking exception once allowed police officers to carry out warrantless searches of residences in the United States – and in Massachusetts. Under this doctrine, a police officer can legally enter someone’s home without a warrant while carrying out a “wellness check.” At first glance, this might seem like a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment. After all, police officers should be able to help citizens struggling with urgent health issues without wasting time obtaining a warrant. But when you consider this exception in more detail, the potential for abuse is clear. A recent case in Massachusetts has eliminated the “community caretaking” exception for warrantless entry. To learn more, consider discussing this new development alongside a Massachusetts defense attorney. 

Commonwealth Acknowledges That Community Caretaking Exception is No Longer Valid

In COMMONWEALTH vs. MARK TOMAS REGAN, the courts found that the community caretaking exception to warrantless entries is no longer valid. This case involved a defendant who was found inside a residence with a deceased individual, and the defendant attempted to argue that the police violated his constitutional rights by entering his home without a warrant. 

The officers in question entered the home on the basis of a “community wellness check.” They had been told by numerous parties – including the victim’s family – that something was wrong. These family members suspected that the victim may have suffered some kind of health emergency, as he was an elderly individual with known health problems. The victim’s brother also appeared at the victim’s residence and urged police to enter. 

After entering, the police encountered the defendant in close proximity to the body. They also located firearms and ammunition. In an attempt to adhere to the Fourth Amendment, they claimed to have “frozen” the crime scene after initially entering and removing the defendant. They then exited, obtained a warrant, and re-entered.  

In reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the court upheld his murder conviction. However, they vacated his firearm and ammunition charges. 

In justifying their decision, the court accepted that the United States Supreme Court had ruled (two years after the defendant’s conviction) that wellness checks no longer allow police officers to carry out warrantless entries. They also specifically stated that “the Massachusetts Constitution may not provide less protection to defendants than the Federal Constitution,” and “the community caretaking doctrine is insufficient to justify a warrantless entry.” 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Attorney Help With Warrantless Entries into My Home?

If you are facing criminal charges because a police officer entered your home without a warrant, consider a consultation with an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer. With help from Edward R. Molari, you may be able to avoid criminal charges by raising a Fourth Amendment defense. Because the community caretaking exception has now been eliminated, it may be easier to raise this defense in Massachusetts than ever before. Book your consultation today to learn more. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Motion to Suppress
Murder
Search and Seizure
Reasonalbe Suspicion

New Jury Instruction on “Incarcerated Informant Testimony” in Massachusetts

Some people might regard witnesses in criminal cases as heroes – brave souls who stand up to alleged criminals with powerful testimony. To others, these individuals are nothing more than “snitches” – opportunistic individuals who will do anything to survive. At the end of the day, context is important. Can you really trust the testimony of someone who works out a deal with prosecutors? Is this testimony really valid if the witness receives a shorter sentence in return? New jury instruction on “incarcerated informant testimony” (ie. snitch testimony) sheds light on this complex issue, and you can discuss the subject further with a Massachusetts defense attorney.  

In Commonwealth v. Paul Francis, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dealt with a murder case where the key evidence was the testimony of an incarcerated informant. The informant claimed that Paul Francis had confessed to the crime while they were both in jail. The court expressed concerns about the reliability of such testimony, as informants often have incentives like reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation. As a result, the court established a new requirement that juries must receive specific instructions to critically assess the credibility of incarcerated informants.

Case Background:

Paul Francis was convicted of a 1996 murder based largely on the testimony of an incarcerated informant, who alleged that Francis confessed to the killing while in prison. The informant's testimony became central to the prosecution’s case, raising concerns about the reliability of informant testimony—particularly when such witnesses may be incentivized by the possibility of sentence reductions or other benefits. The case drew attention to the broader issue of wrongful convictions tied to informant testimony, which is often difficult to verify independently.

Court’s Decision:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that juries must receive tailored instructions on how to evaluate the testimony of incarcerated informants. These instructions should emphasize the need for jurors to approach such testimony with caution, considering factors like the informant's potential motives and the possibility of fabrication. The decision represents a significant step in strengthening protections against wrongful convictions and ensuring that juries are fully informed about the inherent risks associated with informant testimony.

This new jury instruction requirement seeks to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions that stem from unreliable or incentivized informant testimony, marking a significant development in Massachusetts’ legal landscape.

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me Address Snitch Testimony?

Edward R. Molari can help defendants approach witness testimony with confidence. Although it might seem daunting to face testimony from someone who claims to have knowledge of your alleged crimes, various strategies could be helpful in this scenario. Contact our law firm today to learn more about your legal options alongside an experienced Boston defense lawyer.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Murder
Armed Assault to Murder
Armed Assault to Rob

What are the Penalties in Massachusetts if I Cause a Fatal Crash in a Stolen Car?

Causing a fatal crash can lead to serious criminal charges, but doing so in a stolen vehicle may lead to even higher penalties. If defendants combine these offenses with operating under the influence (OUI), they face potential homicide charges. This became clear after a recent incident in Plainview that killed a 10-year-old child. If you face similar charges, you may want to get in touch with an experienced defense lawyer in Massachusetts. 

Man Pleads Not Guilty to Charges After Fatal Massachusetts Crash

A man from Massachusetts recently pleaded not guilty to 14 charges, all related to a fatal crash in Plainview. The crash occurred in August of 2024 and claimed the life of one child. The 42-year-old defendant has been accused of vehicular manslaughter, negligent operation, motor vehicle larceny, and assault with a dangerous weapon. Another report states that he faces an additional charge of vehicular manslaughter with OUI liquor. 

Police say that the defendant stole a Jeep Grand Cherokee from a parking lot outside a Kenny Chesney concert. The owners left the keys inside the vehicle, allowing the defendant to travel down Interstate 495. At some point during this journey, he collided with a Nissan Altima occupied by a family. The impact killed a 10-year-old and caused the other five family members to suffer various injuries. 

Police say that when they arrived, the defendant was highly disorientated. He allegedly believed that he was driving his wife’s car, and he was recorded making self-incriminating statements on numerous occasions. The first alleged statement was recorded during a phone call with his wife, during which the defendant reportedly admitted to having “one too many.” He then agreed to an audio-recorded interview with the police, during which he admitted to drinking during the concert. 

Probable Cause Hearing Set for September 19th

A probable cause hearing is set for September 19th, and there are a few things to note about his defense. First, he refused a blood test – so there may be minimal supporting evidence of his intoxication. Second, it may be difficult to convict him of auto theft if he genuinely believed he was driving his wife’s car. If his wife’s car is an identical model, he could realistically argue that he took the car by mistake – especially given the keys were sitting inside the vehicle. If he can avoid both the OUI and the auto theft charges, he may only face the remaining traffic violations. 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Lawyer Help After a Fatal Crash?

If you have been accused of causing a fatal car accident in Massachusetts, consider a consultation with a defense attorney. Choose Edward R. Molari and discuss your unique situation in more detail to assess potential defense strategies. The consequences of OUIs, fatal crashes, and auto theft can be very serious – especially when you commit them simultaneously. That being said, an experienced defense lawyer may be able to help you avoid some – or all – of these convictions. Reach out today to learn more about your options. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Prosecutors Charge Defendant With Witness Intimidation After Innocent Phone Call

Witness intimidation is a serious offense in Massachusetts. If convicted, you could spend up to 10 years in prison – and you might be forced to pay significant fines. However, it is important to recognize that the definition of witness intimidation is specific in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth cannot convict people of this crime on a whim, and a recent case shows that these prosecutions fall flat when made on flimsy foundations. Innocent conversations do not constitute witness intimidation, and you can fight these charges effectively alongside an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer.  

Commonwealth Reverses Witness Intimidation Conviction

In August 2024, the Commonwealth reversed a witness intimidation conviction stemming from a seemingly innocent phone call between a defendant and his fiancee. The call was recorded from a house of correction. The transcripts show a relatively tame discussion between the two parties, in which the defendant tried to convince his fiancee to avoid speaking with law enforcement officials. 

One might argue that he was simply instructing his fiancee to remain silent, which is a right afforded to everyone in the United States under the Constitution. During the call, he also promised to marry his fiancee when his legal issues had been resolved. It should be noted that the fiancee was the one complaining about the constant visits from police at her residence – and she seems to have been asking for advice on how to deal with this unwelcome attention. 

Perhaps most notably, the defendant at one point instructed his fiancee to “do whatever you choose to want to do” and to do “whatever you think that’s going to help you and benefit your situation.”

For whatever reason, the Commonwealth interpreted this as witness intimidation. They pointed out that the defendant had “conveyed an offer or promise” of something of value – presumably the promise to marry her. However, there are clear issues with this interpretation. 

The appellate court noted that equating a continued relationship with a “thing of value” was questionable. One might argue that as fiancees, this couple had already promised to get married long before the phone call was made. Reaffirming this promise is something that normal fiancees do. The court also found that the Commonwealth’s assertion that this promise represents intimidation was far too vague. The defendant did not specifically promise financial support, gifts, or anything else of that nature. He merely stated that he still wished to marry his partner.

Ultimately, the Supreme Judicial Court allowed for further appellate review. 

Find an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston

Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, witness intimidation, or a combination of both, it makes sense to consider your legal options alongside an experienced defense attorney in Boston. Edward R. Molari can help you push back against excessive penalties for crimes you never committed. Book a consultation today to discuss potential defense strategies in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

The “Staleness” of Gun Crime Evidence in Massachusetts

One of the most counterintuitive concepts in gun crime cases is something called the “staleness of evidence.” Essentially, this relates to the length of time that a piece of evidence (usually a firearm) can be linked to a gun crime in Boston. After a gun crime, how much time needs to pass before a suspect can carry a gun without suspicion? A few hours? A few days? This question was addressed by a recent case in Massachusetts.  

Firearm Found in Backpack Three Months After Murder

In August 2024, the Commonwealth rejected an argument from a defendant accused of murder in the second degree. The defendant argued that a firearm seized from his backpack should have been suppressed due to a variety of alleged issues – including a Fourth Amendment violation. 

The murder occurred in 2017. Caught on camera by surveillance cameras, the shooting occurred relatively quickly – with the suspect discharging several shots before fleeing. However, the surveillance video proved less important than the eyewitness who witnessed the murder while looking out of a nearby window. This witness conducted their own independent internet research and claimed to have discovered the identity of the defendant. 

The authorities finally tracked down the suspect three months later, proceeding to arrest him without a warrant before searching his vehicle and backpack. It was this backpack that contained the firearm, which was subsequently matched to the scene of the murder. 

Was This Evidence “Stale?”

In making its decision, the Commonwealth addressed the question of “staleness.” In particular, it notes that there would have been probable cause if the defendant had been arrested on the night of the murder. The fact that the defendant was likely to still have the firearm seems to have been sufficient in the eyes of the court. However, one has to question this logic – especially since one would “reasonably” expect a murderer to destroy or dispose of any evidence linking them to their alleged crime. This logic obviously applies to firearms. 

How long is too long when it comes to information that might indicate the presence of incriminating evidence? The Commonwealth points to two important factors in this situation: The nature of the crime and the nature of the item. Perhaps most notably, investigators must consider whether the item is “durable” enough to remain intact over the course of several months. 

While a firearm is obviously more durable than other evidence (including drugs), the three-month delay pushes previous boundaries. The Commonwealth could only point to one similar case, pointing out that a duration of six weeks indicated firearm evidence was “not stale.” There is obviously a notable difference between six weeks and three months. One might argue that both durations are unreasonable from the perspective of most people. 

Find an Experienced Gun Crime Defense Lawyer in Boston

If you have been searching for an experienced gun crime lawyer in Boston, look no further than Edward R. Molari. We have considerable experience with gun crime defense in Massachusetts, and we can help you explore various defense strategies. Reach out today to continue this discussion in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Firearms

Pages