Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Massachusetts Conviction Reversed After Bigoted Statements by Public Defender Reveal Personal Biases

Published on: July 16, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Both the Massachusetts State Constitution and the United States Constitution protect criminal defendants’ right to be effectively represented by counsel during their prosecution. A convicted person who can demonstrate that their attorney was ineffective in representing them may be entitled to the reversal of a conviction, even when the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently reversed a man’s conviction for sex trafficking charges after it came to light that his court-appointed defense attorney had been publishing extremely bigoted statements against both the religion and the race of the defendant to social media while he was representing the defendant.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant in the case was a black man who was also a practicing Muslim. The defendant was unable to afford an attorney, and was appointed a public defendant to represent him through the prosecution. While representing the defendant, his attorney chastised him for wearing a Muslim prayer cap in the courthouse, made other derogatory statements toward the man’s race and religion, and told the defendant that he would be unable to obtain a different attorney if he tried. As a result of advice given to him by his attorney, the man pleaded guilty to the crimes against him and was sentenced to over seven years in state prison for his crimes.

Several years later, it was discovered that the defendant’s attorney had been publishing bigoted and derogatory statements toward both Muslims and nonwhite people throughout his time representing clients as a court-appointed attorney. Based upon this newly discovered information, the defendant requested a new trial, arguing that the biases of his attorney prevented him from effectively representing and advising the defendant. The trial judge rejected the defendant’s motion, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice to himself based upon the attorney’s personal controversial beliefs.

When Do Criminal Defendants Have the Right to Know the Identity of a Confidential Informant in Massachusetts?

Published on: June 30, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Massachusetts law enforcement officers and agencies rely heavily on tips and testimony offered by confidential informants (CIs) when investigating and charging alleged criminal activity. Police often acquire CIs from the community in which they are investigating crimes. CIs who have previously been involved in criminal conduct are often offered incentives by prosecutors and law enforcement to encourage them to cooperate against their former compatriots. Because CIs are often involved in several investigations and are essentially working “undercover” in the criminal community while they are assisting law enforcement, the identities of active and inactive CIs are kept closely guarded by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that prosecutors do not need to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, even after a defendant argued that the identity may assist in mounting a defense against charged crimes.

The defendant in the recently decided case was stopped and arrested on suspicion of selling cocaine after a confidential informant notified police that the defendant was selling drugs on a Springfield street corner. Based on the informant’s tip, surveilling police officers witnessed the defendant performing apparent drug transactions and ultimately stopped him based upon a traffic violation after he entered the vehicle to leave the street corner. Before trial, the defendant requested the identity and other information about the confidential informant who allegedly told the police about his criminal activity. The trial judge granted the defendant’s motion, ruling that the information would assist the defendant in defending against the charges.

The prosecution immediately appealed the ruling to a higher court, and it was put on hold pending appellate review. On appeal, the Massachusetts High Judicial Court ruled that state law requires a trial judge to apply a two-step formula in deciding whether to unmask the identity of a confidential informant. After finding that the prosecution has properly invoked the informant privilege, a court must balance the competing factors of the defendant’s right to mount a defense with the state’s interest in protecting the functionality and physical safety of the CI. Because the trial court in the recent case did not appear to perform the two-step analysis, the high court reversed the trial judge’s ruling. Furthermore, the high court found that under the two-step analysis, the defendant would not be entitled to know the identity of the CI. As a result of the appellate ruling, the case against the defendant will proceed with the CIs identity undisclosed.

What is “Reasonable Suspicion,” and How Can it be Used to Justify a Warrantless Search?

Published on: June 10, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect Massachusetts residents from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement when a crime is being investigated. The most accepted and common way for law enforcement officers to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment is for them to obtain a valid search or arrest warrant from a judge before performing a search or making an arrest. For a judge to issue a search warrant, the applicant must demonstrate that there is probable cause that the search or arrest is valid. A properly obtained search warrant is difficult to challenge in a criminal prosecution, and evidence gained therefrom is generally admissible during a criminal trial.

Although a valid warrant sets the gold standard for a permissible search, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement which permit law enforcement officers to perform a search without a warrant. One exception exists when an officer is performing a brief investigatory stop of a criminal suspect. The Massachusetts Court of Appeal recently affirmed the conviction of a man who was searched and arrested for burglary after the responding officers approached and searched him without a valid warrant.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was arrested about a block away from the scene of an alleged burglary. The defendant partially matched the description of the perpetrator as recounted by the victim from her observation of security camera footage taken of the alleged burglary. After the defendant was stopped and detained, the witness confirmed in person that he was the person that she witnessed burglarizing her home on the surveillance footage. The defendant was then searched, revealing that he possessed items stolen from the victim’s home, and he was arrested and charged with burglary.

Defendant’s Firearm Conviction Reversed in Light of New Supreme Court Precedent

Published on: May 31, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of U.S. Citizens to keep and bear arms. These protections, while granted in the 18th century with the adoption of the Bill of Rights, are regularly open to reinterpretation by courts. The United States Supreme Court has the final say on constitutional issues such as the Second Amendment, and Supreme Court rulings may have an effect on state criminal prosecutions. The Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court recently released an opinion that addressed a defendant’s appeal of his firearm conviction in light of a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling which appeared to have broadened the protections of the Second Amendment.

According to the facts discussed in the recently decided opinion, the defendant in the case at issue was arrested and charged with firearms offenses after authorities responded to a tip from a confidential informant that the man possessed an unregistered firearm. After a trial in which the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the evidentiary and legal basis for the charges against him, the defendant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm. Although Massachusetts law exempts license holders from criminal liability under the statute, neither the defense nor the prosecution presented any evidence of the defendant’s possession of a valid license at the time of his arrest.

After the defendant’s conviction, the U.S. The Supreme Court decided the case of New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, in which the court found that the Second Amendment protected citizens’ right to possess a firearm outside of the home. On appeal, the defendant argued that in light of the Bruen decision, the government needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a valid license to possess the firearm for which he was charged. The state high court agreed with the defendant, finding that the previous law placing the burden on a defendant to prove licensure was no longer valid in light of the Bruen decision, which required the government to establish a lack of a license as an essential element of the crime. Based upon the appellate opinion, the defendant’s conviction was reversed, and verdicts of not guilty were entered on the charges against him.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Expands Relief from Egregious Misconduct by The Office of Alcohol Testing

Published on: May 14, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In the past decade, the criminal justice system in the state of Massachusetts has become infamous for egregiously dishonest conduct by state crime labs and prosecutors, resulting in thousands of criminal convictions being overturned. While the most well-known cases of this conduct relate to drug testing procedures by the state crime lab and two technicians who falsified testing results, there are other cases in which the law enforcement apparatus has been condemned by the courts for illegal conduct. One such case involves the state Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT), and their failure to honestly and faithfully supply both prosecutors and defense attorneys with exculpatory evidence to which they were entitled. A woman who was convicted of an OUI (operating under the influence) offense in 2013 recently challenged her conviction based on information that has come to light regarding the conduct of the OAT.

The defendant from the recently-decided appeal is a woman who was convicted of an OUI offense after being stopped at a DUI checkpoint in 2013. After being questioned, the woman submitted to a breathalyzer test which showed that she had a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. As a result of the breathalyzer results, the defendant was arrested and charged with OUI. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman was advised by her attorney at the time that the case against her was strong, and she took the attorney’s advice and entered a guilty plea to the crime as charged.

After she was convicted of the OUI offense,. It came to light that the OAT had been purposefully withholding test records for the particular breathalyzer machine (Alcotest 9510) used by the police in order to prevent defense attorneys from challenging the admission of the breath test evidence at trial. In a series of cases decided since 2015, Massachusetts courts have reversed thousands of convictions based on breathalyzer evidence supplied by the OAT during that time frame. The defendant was not permitted to withdraw her plea because she pleaded guilty before trial occurred. She then appealed her claim to the highest court in the state, arguing that she would never have pleaded guilty in the first place had she known that the OAT was violating disclosure rules and the test results may not have been admissible at her trial.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Trafficking and Prostitution Case

Published on: April 25, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent Massachusetts appellate court opinion regarding an appeal claiming insufficient evidence to support the conviction, the court upheld the trial court decision, affirming the conviction. At trial, the defendant and the co-defendant were convicted on various charges arising from the operation of a series of brothels in North Reading, Quincy, Boston, and Cambridge. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the information provided in support of a search warrant application was inadequate to establish a nexus between the alleged crimes and his home and cell phone.

Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, in January 2017, law enforcement began to investigate five different residences located in North Reading, Boston, Quincy, and Cambridge, where they believed illegal sexual services were being provided. Police located the apartments through advertisements for massage services on the website Backpage, and then contacted the leasing offices for those units. The defendant’s name was on the rental agreements for both the North Reading and Cambridge apartments as well as one of the Quincy apartments. The defendant also paid monthly rent for the apartments, using a check with his name and home address on it. On January 2, 2017, law enforcement officers stopped the defendant after observing him make an illegal U-turn. The defendant told police officers that he was coming from his primary residence to check the mail and empty the trash for his secondary residence. In the dumpster, the officers found a trash bag with used condoms, condom packaging, and small cards explaining how to use condoms in multiple languages.

For the next three months, the police watched the three locations, watching the defendant deliver groceries, and many men entering the buildings and leaving after several hours. The police interviewed several of the men after they left the apartments and the men admitted that they had gone to the apartments in response to advertisements knowing that sexual services were being offered. Officers obtained and simultaneously executed a warrant to search the five locations. At each location, condoms, ledgers, and other evidence were discovered on site. The defendant was charged and convicted of various charges stemming from operating brothels.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Narrows Collective Knowledge Doctrine, But Affirms Conviction Nonetheless

Published on: April 8, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The collective knowledge doctrine is a legal theory used in the state to give law enforcement officers expanded opportunities to legally perform a search on a criminal suspect without a warrant. Generally, the doctrine has allowed police and prosecutors to successfully argue that any single police officer involved in an investigation or pursuit is entitled to perform a warrantless search or arrest if any other officer involved in the investigation, or a combination of them, had sufficient knowledge to justify the apparent constitutional violation. This doctrine has been applied in the state even under circumstances where the officer performing the warrantless intrusion had not communicated with any other officers about what they knew.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently addressed an appeal challenging the application of this doctrine in light of state constitutional protections afforded by Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The defendant from the recently decided case was searched and arrested on suspicion of armed robbery after reports came in of a suspect that allegedly matched the description of the suspect, who police had encountered on the street. The search of the defendant revealed cash and a gun, and the victim of the crime later identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery.

At the defendant’s trial, his counsel moved to suppress the evidence found in the search, arguing that the officer who performed the search did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was actually the suspect. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, ruling that under the collective knowledge doctrine, the arresting officer could be imputed with all of the cumulative knowledge of any law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation, and with that knowledge, reasonable suspicion could be demonstrated. The defendant was ultimately convicted of the crimes he was charged with, and sentenced to a prison term.

The Potential Benefits and Consequences of Refusing a Breathalyzer Test in Massachusetts

Published on: April 1, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Crimes involving operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, together referred to as OUI offenses, are some of the most commonly charged offenses in the state of Massachusetts. OUI crimes are unique, as the evidence required to convict a defendant (blood alcohol or drug concentration) is often in the defendant’s body, and it may diminish over time. Because of this, law enforcement officers usually want to obtain a blood or breath sample from a suspected OUI offender as soon as possible after making a stop. Without a warrant, police are not permitted to force a defendant to give a blood or breath sample. Successful OUI prosecutions often rely on blood or breath samples that are consensually given to the police by a suspect.

Refusal to submit to a breath or blood test during a suspected OUI detention does not necessarily mean that a defendant will be let off the hook for a charge without consequences, although thousands of defendants in the state have had charges reduced or dismissed as a result of their refusal to submit to a test. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently heard an appeal that was brought by a defendant who failed to submit to a breath test but was convicted nonetheless.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was suspected of OUI after officers stopped to investigate an accident that he was involved in. The responding officers testified that the defendant appeared intoxicated and smelled like alcohol while he was being questioned. The defendant consented to perform field sobriety tests, which he failed, and he was arrested and charged with OUI. A breathalyzer test was never given to the defendant, and the prosecutors used other evidence of his intoxication to make their case at trial. During deliberations, the jury asked the court why there was no breathalyzer test performed, and the court instructed them that the lack of such a test should not sway their decision either way. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of OUI, leading to the appeal.

Domestic Violence Conviction Affirmed despite Questions about Victim’s Credibility and Effective Assistance of Counsel

Published on: March 15, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Domestic violence crimes are commonly charged in Massachusetts, and their prosecution often relies on the testimony of an alleged crime victim. It is more common in domestic violence cases for a victim to change their story as the case progresses. Victims regularly will recant the accusations made against their domestic partner in an effort to prevent the prosecution from going forward. State prosecutors are familiar with this pattern and work to secure enough evidence to support a conviction, even if the victim stops cooperating before a trial. A man recently convicted of domestic violence offenses appealed his conviction, arguing that the inconsistent testimony by the victim did not support the verdict.

The defendant in the recently decided case married the victim in 2009, and the parties were divorced in 2017. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the victim routinely suffered both physical and sexual abuse by the defendant throughout their relationship, and such abuse was sporadically and partially reported to authorities. Prior to 2015, the victim would make reports about the alleged abuse by the defendant but would then later recant her testimony, even submitting affidavits (drafted by the defendant or his attorney) requesting that the charges be dropped. In 2015, after the victim reported particularly serious injuries caused by the defendant, the current charges were brought.

The defendant stood trial on several charges, including aggravated assault, rape, sexual assault, and witness intimidation. After a trial in which the victim testified, he was convicted of several charges, while he was acquitted of other charges. The defendant appealed his convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The defendant specifically argued that his attorney should have made several objections to evidence, jury instructions, and the prosecutor’s closing argument at trial. The appellate court found that the defendant’s contentions had some merit; however, the court ultimately affirmed his convictions as the evidence was substantial and any mistakes by his trial attorney were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. As a result of the appellate decision, the defendant will be required to serve his sentence.

Defendant in Massachusetts Firearm Case Loses Appeal, Despite Argument Regarding Inadmissibility of Evidence

Published on: February 22, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent case before an appeals court in Massachusetts, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and improper storage of a firearm. Originally, the defendant was criminally charged after two police officers found a loaded firearm in his car; he was found guilty after a jury weighed the evidence at trial. On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury should not have heard about other crimes he had committed in the past, since it unnecessarily biased them in their decision-making process. Considering the evidence, the court of appeals disagreed and affirmed the guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two State troopers approached the defendant one afternoon when he was standing outside of a car, looking at the front bumper and making sure everything was working properly. The troopers had received a report that the car’s license plate was registered to another car and that the registration had been revoked because the owner had no insurance. For these reasons, the troopers pulled over and approached the defendant.

As they approached, the troopers noticed a firearm sitting between the driver’s seat and the center console. The defendant immediately admitted that he did not have a license to carry the firearm, and officers took him to the station for questioning.