Criminal Defense Blog

JULY 28, 2014

Share|Share

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reaffirmed a concept it established in 1996 in Commonwealth v. Rosario – known as the “Rosario rule” – which makes any statements made by a defendant more than six hours after his arrest, but before his arraignment, per se inadmissible against him, absent his valid waiver of his right to be arraigned without delay.

In Commonwealth v. Powell, the police suspected the defendant’s involvement in a murder that occurred in February 2010. On June 14, 2010, at 1:30 P.M. the police arrested the defendant on charges of larceny of a motor vehicle occurring on the night of the murder. Although the police likely had enough probable cause to charge the defendant with the murder as well, they had not yet been authorized to bring those charges. 

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Arraignment , Interrogation

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reaffirmed a concept it established in 1996 in Commonwealth v. Rosario – known as the “Rosario rule” – which makes any statements made by a defendant more than six hours after his arrest, but before his arraignment, per se inadmissible against him, absent his valid waiver of his right to be arraigned without delay.

In Commonwealth v. Powell, the police suspected the defendant’s involvement in a murder that occurred in February 2010. On June 14, 2010, at 1:30 P.M. the police arrested the defendant on charges of larceny of a motor vehicle occurring on the night of the murder. Although the police likely had enough probable cause to charge the defendant with the murder as well, they had not yet been authorized to bring those charges. 

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Arraignment , Interrogation

AUGUST 4, 2014

Last month, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a criminal defendant’s conviction for carrying a dangerous weapon due to insufficient evidence that the knife he was carrying was the type of knife prohibited under the applicable statute.

In Commonwealth v. Higgins, the defendant was convicted of violating M.G.L. c. 269 §10(b), which makes it illegal for anyone to carry certain kinds of knives deemed to be dangerous weapons. This conviction came as somewhat of a surprise, as the jury failed to also convict the defendant of the aggravated assault and battery charge that was the centerpiece of the trial.

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery , Dangerous Weapons , Evidence

AUGUST 11, 2014

Share|Share

After Massachusetts made it legal to possess one ounce or less of marijuana, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Commonwealth v. Cruz that the odor of burnt marijuana alone could not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a warrantless search. In a recent case, the SJC expanded that decision and held that the smell of unburnt marijuana does not provide probable cause for the police to search a vehicle.

In Commonwealth v. Overmyer, the defendant was involved in a motor vehicle crash. When the police arrived at the scene, they encountered a “very strong odor” of unburnt marijuana emanating from the defendant’s vehicle. After questioning the defendant about marijuana being present in the vehicle, the defendant acknowledged that a bag of marijuana was in the glove compartment, and gave the keys to the police. After the police retrieved a “fat bag” of marijuana, the officers continued to smell an odor or marijuana in the vehicle, and questioned the defendant about the possibility of the vehicle obtaining a larger amount of marijuana. Although the defendant denied this, the police proceeded with a search of the car, and found a backpack in the back seat filled with marijuana. 

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Search , Possession , Probable Cause , Search and Seizure

AUGUST 18, 2014

Share|Share

In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a superior court judge’s decision that the closure of the courtroom for the general questioning of the venire violated a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

In Commonwealth v. Timothy White, the defendant, a former state police sergeant, had allegedly stole drugs from the state police evidence room and sold them for profit. The defendant was charged with trafficking in cocaine, larceny over $250, and conspiracy to traffick in cocaine. Due to the media attention the case attracted, the defendant’s counsel requested individual voir dire of prospective jurors. Unbeknownst to the defendant or the judge, the courtroom was closed to the public for the first phase of the juror selection process, based upon the courtroom lacking sufficient space to seat all members of the venire.

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Trafficking , Right to Public Trial , Sixth Amendment

AUGUST 20, 2014

Share|Share

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently reversed a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial due to the improper admission of expert testimony regarding DNA evidence. The SJC concluded that an opinion regarding the results of DNA testing is admissible only where the defendant has a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the expert witness about the reliability of the underlying data produced by such testing.

In Commonwealth v. Tassone, a superior court jury convicted the defendant of unarmed robbery and assault and battery. The defendant had been arrested in connection with the robbery of a small variety store in Pittsfield, MA. The defendant was the allegedly the only customer in the store at the time of the robbery. It was alleged that the defendant went to the counter to purchase an item, and when the store manager opened the register door, the defendant reached into the register to take the money. A fight ensued, ending with the manager on the floor and the defendant fleeing with $350. When police arrived at the scene, they recovered a pair of eyeglasses on the floor that did not belong to the store manager.

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Appeals , DNA Evidence , Expert Testimony , Robbery

AUGUST 25, 2014

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently upheld a superior court ruling allowing a motion to suppress a firearm seized after a warrantless search of a backpack following an investigatory stop of a motor vehicle.

In Commonwealth v. Rutledge, two defendants were charged, among other things, with numerous firearms offenses. The arrest was made on July 13, 2011 after a 911 operator in Brockton received a call from a woman who overheard an argument between her current boyfriend and former boyfriend, when the former boyfriend allegedly pulled a gun on the current boyfriend, threatening to kill him.

Posted by O’Brien Law Boston | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Search , Firearm Offenses , Searches and Seizures , Warrantless Search