Published on: | by

According to reports, Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was denied release on his first degree murder charge during his appeal to be released on bail.The decision, which was handed down by a superior court judge upheld the prior ruling of a district court judge shortly following Hernandez’s arraignment for the murder charge and five additional weapons charges in relation to the alleged killing of Odin Lloyd. The evidence for weapons charges allegedly stems from the recovery of .22 and .45 caliber ammunition recovered from a condo where Hernandez had allegedly been present recently.

In the ruling, the judge expressed the opinion that although circumstantial, the current evidence suggests that Hernandez committed the crime in a cold-blooded manner, suggesting that he does not conform to societal rules, and is therefore a potential flight risk should he be released on bail.

Hernandez’s next scheduled appearance in relation to the charges is tentatively set for July 24 for a probable cause hearing, although there is a chance that prosecutors could schedule a grand jury prior to then in order to proceed with a formal indictment.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Melanie’s Law was enacted to impose harsher penalties and sanctions against people that are charged with Operating Under the Influence in Massachusetts. The law has created new offenses that were not present prior to 2005 when it was signed into law. For instance, if someone who already has their license suspended for a previous operating under the influence (OUI), is arrested for operating under the influence again, they may now be charged with two offenses at the same time: OUI and OUI with a suspended license. This charge requires a mandatory jail sentence of at least one year and can be up to two and a half years, as well as a fine between $2,500-$10,000. In addition, a new crime was created for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol while there was child under the age of 14 in the vehicle. The driver can be charged with not only OUI, but also child endangerment while OUI. The punishment for a first offense is 90 days to 2.5 years imprisonment, a fine between $1,000-$5,000, as well as a yearlong suspension of the driver’s license. The crime of Manslaughter by Motor Vehicle was also created and implemented by Melanie’s Law. If a driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol while operating a vehicle commits manslaughter, the driver will be charged with Manslaughter by Motor Vehicle. The minimum sentence is 5 years imprisonment and can be up to 20 years, as well as a fine up to $25,000.

Under Melanie’s Law, if a person has been convicted of OUI two (2) times, and is eligible for a hardship license, or in order to have their license reinstated, the driver will be required to have an Ignition Interlock Device installed in any vehicle that that person owns, leases or operates. The driver is required to pay for the expenses to install the device as well. The device requires that the driver have a blood alcohol reading of less than .02 in order for the vehicle to start. If the driver registers higher than .02, the vehicle will not start. The driver must report to company that installed the device every 30 days at which point the vendor uploads the data from the device and transmits it to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. If the device is necessary under the hardship license requirement, then the device must be used for the entire life of the hardship license, as well as an additional two (2) years after the license has been reinstated. If the driver is simply eligible for license reinstatement, then the device will be required for a mandatory two years. If the driver does not comply with the requirements, their license will be revoked for a minimum of 10 years, with the possibility of the revocation being for life.

Melanie’s Law does not specifically relate to just OUI offenders either. It is also applicable to persons that allow or hire an unlicensed individual or an individual with a suspended license to operate a motor vehicle. If an employer hires an individual with a suspended license to operate a motor vehicle, there is a $500 fine for the first offense, and up to one year in jail for a second offense. If person that owns or is in possession of a vehicle allows an individual that is unlicensed to operate the vehicle, the first offense is a sentence of one-year imprisonment and a fine up to $500. The same penalty is applicable if someone allows a person with an Ignition Interlock restriction to operate a vehicle without the device.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Just before two in the afternoon on Saturday, over a dozen state police cars pulled up to the home of New England Patriot’s tight end Aaron Hernandez, which is located in North Attleboro. While some investigators remained outside, many members of the K-9 and State Police Crime Lab units were seen entering the home. Reporters on the scene stated that police were executing a search warrant. The search is believed to be in connection with the death of the semi-professional football player Odin Lloyd.According to reports, three search warrants were issued in relation to the investigation earlier in the week, but the details have not been made public.

A District Court clerk magistrate further stated that while no arrest warrant had been filed for Hernandez, a local radio station reported that one had been issued on an obstruction of justice charge. The charge is reportedly related to destruction of video surveillance evidence from Hernandez’s home and his cell phone, which was allegedly turned over to authorities “in pieces.”

It was not clear whether police planned to execute that warrant simultaneous with the search.

According to family members of the victim, Lloyd was friends with Hernandez, and the two were reportedly together the day that Lloyd was allegedly murdered.

Police reportedly already searched in and around the home earlier last week. Additionally, police in nearby Providence, R.I., said they they were working with Massachusetts state police and North Attleborough police, specifically with regard investigating at a local strip club named “Club Desire.” The connection to the case has not been reported.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In Massachusetts, the terms operating under the influence (OUI), driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI) are synonymous. The official charge is Massachusetts is known as Operating Under the Influence (OUI). This charge is a criminal offense in which a person is found to be operating a vehicle after having ingested any alcoholic beverage or chemical substance which impairs their ability to drive safely.Additionally, with the passage of Melanie’s Law in 2005, the penalties for OUI can be incredibly harsh. First time offenders may face a potential sentence of up to 2.5 years in prison, license suspension for one year, and an accompanying fine of $500-$5,000. However, if it is your first offense, your attorney may be able to convince the court to allow you to complete an alcohol education course in order to reduce your license suspension period.

Many individuals may be surprised to learn that the OUI laws apply not only to operation of a car or other motor vehicle on the roadway, but also to any other motor vehicle, such as a boat. Boating under the Influence (BUI) also carries a potential penalty of up to 30 months in prison and/or a $1,000 fine,in addition to loss of license and registration for up to a year. Additionally, if convicted of a BUI which also caused substantial bodily injury, an individual could face up to 10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $5,000. Furthermore, Massachusetts law explicitly states that, by choosing to operate a vessel on the state’s waters, you have given your implied consent to submit to alcohol testing if you are arrested for a BUI.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

A Boston man was recently charged with burglary in connection with several Massachusetts jewelry store robberies, and authorities believe that he may also be responsible for several more.The suspect pleaded not guilty in Salem District Court on Monday to two counts of each of breaking and entering, malicious destruction of property, and to being a fugitive from justice. His bail was set at $750,000.

The charges stem from incidents which occurred at the same Beverly jewelry store, roughly one week apart, in December and January. During both instances, a fifteen to twenty pound dumbell was found within the store, which authorities believe was used to smash open glass doors and display cases. Police believe that the suspect may be responsible for more than a dozen similar “smash and grab” robberies in New York and New England, in which almost $500,000 of merchandise was taken.

Prosecutors said that the man’s blood, and thus DNA, was found at the store involved in the crime. The man’s attorney pointed out that this was the only evidence tying him to the alleged incident.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

The United States Supreme Court handed down somewhat of a shocking decision this week in the case of Maryland v. King, regarding the constitutionality of law enforcement collecting DNA of arrestees without a warrant.

At issue was a Maryland state statute, which allowed for the warrantless collection of DNA from a suspect following an arrest for a “serious offense,” which under Maryland law includes crimes of violence or burglary.

Here is what is deeply disturbing about this decision, and why all Americans should be concerned– this law does not require a warrant for the taking of your DNA. Under this law, and those being passed across the country, the collection of DNA is being treated in the same manner as the collection of your finger prints or booking photograph.

What’s so wrong with that, some might ask? What’s troubling about that is the fact that the burden for making an arrest is already low, and the potential for misuse or misplacement of DNA samples, and thus potential for abuse to an individual’s unique DNA is incredibly high. Leaving wholly aside the way in which this revelation could completely circumvent constitutional rights of individuals implicated in other crimes, we are now saying that it is ok to collect DNA after what could be an almost non-existent criminal case.

For example, if an individual happens to be present at the scene of the crime, and the police arrive following an anonymous 911 tip, the fact that the person is there could alone raise a strong suspicion, and thus provide a probable cause for an arrest. Even if you were not involved in the burglary at all, the fact that you are there could supply the probable cause for an arrest, and now the government can lawfully collect your DNA. Does that scenario bother you? It should. So much so that one of, if not the, most conservative justices on the court, Antonin Scalia, sided with three of the most liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonya Sotomayor, in a scathing dissenting opinion, which he personally read aloud in the courtroom.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Boston authorities announced the allegedly successful execution of a series of raids, which they referred to as “Operation H.”

The crackdown targeted various individuals suspected of drug trafficking, gang activity, and violent crime.

A spokesperson for the local district attorney’s office said that 75 people are potentially facing charges, which includes the 33 arrested Tuesday.

The Police Commissioner said in a statement, that this operation evidences the departments commitment to get drugs and violent criminals off of the street. He further stated that detectives have been videotaping the suspects selling illegal drugs in various location, by means of an undercover operation.

Thus far, at least 40 defendants have been arraigned pursuant to these raids, with bail set between $500 and $7,500.

Police stated that as of Tuesday night, they were still looking for 10 suspects.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Earlier this month, four criminal defendants pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a September 2011 armed robbery and shooting, which resulted in the injuring of an on duty police officer.The men pleaded guilty to various charges, which included:

  • armed assault with intent to murder
  • masked armed robbery
  • assault & battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury
  • larceny
  • possession of a firearm while committing a felony

Two of the men additionally pleaded guilty to misleading a police investigation and being an accessory after the fact to masked armed robbery. The four defendants received sentences ranging from 7-8 years in state prison to 25-30 years in prison, all with probation following prison time.

They were additionally ordered to refrain from any contact with any witnesses or victims, and were ordered to pay restitution for the lost wages and medical expenses of the two police officers involved in the shooting.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

A little known fact within the Massachusetts criminal justice system, is the potential for any criminal defendant to be put on pretrial probation in lieu of criminal charges. You read that right, any potential defendant.The relevant statute reads as follows:

The superior court, any district court and any juvenile court may place on probation in the care of its probation officer any person before it charged with an offense or a crime for such time and upon such conditions as it deems proper, with the defendant’s consent, before trial and before a plea of guilty, or in any case after a finding or verdict of guilty;

Therefore, in addition to stating that any person may be placed on probation, it also states that the terms of such probation to be those that it deems proper. This allows the court the flexibility to customize the terms based upon the individual case at hand. As you can imagine, however, the reality of actually securing a pretrial diversion in lieu of criminal charges depends upon a variety of factors. Most notably among these is the experience and persuasiveness of your defense attorney.

In practice, the pre-trial probation, which is technically referred to as pre-trial diversion, is a court approved agreement reached between the defendant and the prosecutor prior to trial or the entering a guilty plea. Therefore, if you enter a guilty plea prematurely, such as if you decide to forego the advice of counsel, you effectively waive your right to this potential option.

According to the terms of a pre-trial diversion agreement, the defendant is placed on probation under the care of a probation officer, either supervised or unsupervised, for a defined period of time, and according to certain agreed upon terms. Once the defendant successfully completes the probation term, the charges will be dismissed completely.

However, if the defendant violates any condition of his probation, the charges will not be dismissed, and the case will proceed normally. Meaning charges will be formally filed, and the defendant could face a trial, and potentially jail time. However, a defendant cannot be jailed for violating this pretrial probation, since technically, that individual has not been found guilty of anything yet. However, the court could then decide to hold a person without bail, if it so decides.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the area of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) evidence collection, and the rammifications of the case are certain to have an impact on police departments everywhere.

The case, Missouri v. McNeely, dealt with an ordinary enough sounding traffic stop. The defendant in the case, Tyler McNeely was pulled over by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing over the centerline. He then exercised his right to refuse a breathalyzer test (the refusal of which the Supreme Court ruled, in South Dakota v. Neville, is permissible as evidence against a defendant in a subsequent trial, and could potentially be construed as evidence of guilt). He was then arrested and transported to a nearby hospital for blood testing. He refused consent, but the officer directed the lab technician to take the sample anyway. His blood tested significantly above the limit, and he was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

McNeely motioned to suppress the blood test results, arguing that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights against a warrantless search. The trial court and state supreme courts agreed with McNeely, stating that there was no evidence of exigent circumstances justifying the officer’s failure to first secure a search warrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, holding that the warrentless nonconsensual test violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment rights. The opinion holds that the natural metabolization of alcohol is not a sufficient exigent circumstance to justify a per se rule that warrantless nonconsensual blood tests are permissible in every case. It further remarks on the fact that the metabolization argument is flawed for the fact that the process will occur during the transport from traffic stop to hospital anyway.
Continue reading

Contact Information
90 Canal St 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-367-0450Fax: 781-523-5454

We accept the following credit cards

Credit cards

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design