Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

In February of 2024, a total of 41 alleged gang members in Boston were charged with a wide range of offenses, including racketeering, drug trafficking, firearms violations, and fraud. If these are indeed Heath Street Gang members, this crackdown has taken almost 33% of its workforce off the streets. This is apparently the culmination of a two-year investigation into the gang carried out by various law enforcement agencies, including Homeland Security, the Department of Labor, the IRS, the Massachusetts State Police, the US Department of Agriculture, the US Secret Service, the US Postale Inspection Service, the DEA, and the OCDETF.  

What is the Heath Street Gang?

According to the Department of Justice, the Heath Street Gang is a decades-old criminal enterprise originally formed in the 1980s. It has its roots in various housing projects in the Jamaica Plain area, and law enforcement considers it to be one of the most dangerous gangs in Boston. It has notable rivalries with the Mission Hill Gang and the H-Block Gang, and the DOJ accuses it of carrying out various shootings to “preserve and protect” its “power, territory, and reputation.” Some of these shootings reportedly killed children in the crossfire, attracting serious attention from law enforcement.  

A Surprising Number of White-Collar Crimes

Although the gang attracted attention from law enforcement due to its alleged brazen shootings, it is also accused of carrying out numerous additional offenses – including white-collar crimes. The DOJ states that some of the 41 defendants have been charged with non-violent crimes, such as COVID-19 fraud. One defendant was accused of carrying out unemployment fraud in 10 different states – plus the territory of Guam. He was not the only associate to face such charges, and the DOJ accuses various members of “widespread CARES Act loan and unemployment fraud.” 

Organized Smash-and-Grabs

In addition, the DOJ points to what it calls “organized retail theft.” In other words, the gang allegedly facilitated large-scale shoplifting of major retailers in Boston. Combined with the various unemployment fraud activities, these activities apparently allowed the gang to generate about $900,000. The DOJ accuses them of using these funds to purchase over 100 firearms.  

Violence Involving Juveniles

While the aforementioned white-collar crimes are certainly worth mentioning, they are probably byproducts of in-depth investigations triggered by alleged violence involving minors. Both victims and perpetrators in many of these incidents were juveniles, and the Heath Street Gang is accused of recruiting minors in Jamaica Plain while encouraging them to carry out various acts of violence. In addition, many of the victims were juveniles – including those caught in the crossfire. 

Music Videos May Be Used as Evidence

Music videos may find their way into some of these criminal trials, as various gang members openly bragged about their crimes and posted these admissions on YouTube. In addition, juveniles were reportedly rewarded with cameos in some of these music videos, apparently providing law enforcement with a clear picture of who carried out various acts. 

Also known simply as the “OCDETF,” the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force plays an important role in numerous criminal cases across Massachusetts. However, many people may not understand this role, and some might not even be aware that this organization exists. Those who face investigations by this organization may face high-pressure, high-stakes criminal charges compared to others who commit similar but “lower-profile” crimes.  

The OCDETF Targets High-Profile Drug Offenders

The OCDETF offers to take high-profile cases off the hands of local or state police, and they tend to target cases that are easy to win. In exchange for “robbing them of their glory,” the OCDETF promises these local authorities to bring harsher penalties than the defendant would have otherwise received in state courts. The OCDETF can do this because it receives funding directly from the Department of Justice, and it can pursue charges through federal courts instead. It also has close ties to various federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Marshals Services.

In many ways, the OCDETF exists to make headlines. Because they can pick and choose cases across numerous states, they can easily select the most “winnable” cases. As a result, they can boast of accomplishments that would not normally be possible if they had no choice of which cases to accept. These include the seizure of billions in cash and tens of thousands of high-profile drug convictions.  

How Can the OCDETF Affect Criminal Cases in Massachusetts?

The OCDETF has the authority to direct investigative resources based on directions from prosecuting authorities in local Massachusetts courts. As a result, drug defendants in Massachusetts suddenly find themselves facing much higher levels of pressure whenever the OCDETF gets involved. The full scrutiny of numerous federal agencies may be brought to bear against relatively low-level dealers. With the possibility of facing excessive federal prison sentences, these defendants often agree to cooperate and provide evidence against the OCDETF’s real targets – the big-time traffickers who are much higher up on the ladder of drug crime networks. In exchange for this cooperation, the small-time dealers often receive reduced sentences. 

Two Recent Cases Involving the OCDETF

On January 23, 2024, the Justice Department reported that a Boston man had pleaded guilty to RICO conspiracy, trafficking charges, and possession of a firearm as a felon. His offense revolved around an assault in 2019. After his arrest by local police, 900 grams of cocaine, 500 grams of marijuana, a loaded handgun, and about $15,500 in cash were recovered in his possession. While one might argue that this is evidence of trafficking, this is clearly not a “high-level” dealer; the OCDETF’s involvement indicates that his guilty plea may have been due to his cooperation – possibly leading authorities to a higher-level trafficker. 

On January 19, it was reported that another Boston defendant had been sentenced to just over five years in prison for possession of two kilos of fentanyl. He was discovered in 2022 with a cereal box filled with fentanyl. This five-year sentence is quite low, considering that possessing even 10 grams of fentanyl can lead to 20 years in prison. This could be explained by the OCDETF’s involvement, suggesting that the defendant cooperated in exchange for a reduced sentence. 

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.

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.