Published on: | by

According to an announcement by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, there has been a significant drop in crimes in Boston during the first quarter of the year. The Commissioner believes that this is due in large part to dedicated police work and inclement weather, which keeps people inside.

According to police department statistics, crime rates from January 1 through March 18 of this year are as follows:

  • 7 homicides (compared with 8 during the same period last year)
  • 25% decrease in rape/attempted rape
  • 7% decrease in robberies
  • 16% decrease in aggravated assaults
  • 8% decrease in burglaries
  • 17% decrease in larceny
  • 14% decrease in vehicle thefts

However, shootings and firearm-related arrests are on the rise. By March 18, there were six shooting deaths in Boston, compared with five in the same period last year; nonfatal shootings are up 20 percent and firearm-related arrests are up 11 percent. Police believe that these sorts of incidents are typically the result of retaliatory action.

Authorities also credit the engagement of police officers within the areas they patrol, and the effectiveness of community watch organizations. But several prominent police authorities caution not to look too much into the declines, and warn that once the harsh winter clears, the lower numbers will likely not continue to trend.

Regardless of the true cause for the decrease, the police and many others within the community are satisfied that less crimes are occurring.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Investigators from local, state, and federal authorities announced last week that they have made an arrest inconnection with an extensive criminal operation, which involved identity theft, high end electronics, and counterfeit money. The suspect was arrested last Thursday on the Boston Common after he allegedly attempted to purchase counterfeit money.

The alleged criminal enterprise involved a man operating out of a kiosk located within a jewelry store, named “Time Products,” which is located at Downtown Crossing on Washington Street.

Authorities believe that the suspect would procure credit card information from people, or use their identities to apply for new credit card accounts. He would then use that information to purchase iPads, high end cell phones, and other high end electronics.

Attorney General Martha Coakley stated, among other things, that “Runners were paid [to use] those accounts to obtain smart phones and other high-end electronics at discounted prices from stores across the Commonwealth.”

It is believed that the runners would use the acquired identities or credit cards to purchase the high end phones at a discount, by for example agreeing to a two year service contract. A local news station reported that the credit cards may have also been used to purchase gift cards, which were then used to purchase merchandise. The products were in turn then sold, either from the kiosk or on the street, at a lower than market price.

Police said that an undercover investigation, which is ongoing, ultimately led to the arrest of the suspect. The Boston PD commissioner said that more arrests are expected, in addition to the at least two other men who have been arrested on unspecified charges.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

A 64-year-old North Andover man, who is described by prosecutors as the, “overall boss” of a loan sharking and illegal gambling enterprise has been sentenced to up to four years in prison.

Joseph Giallanella, who is also known as Jason Peters, was sentenced on Monday to serve time in stateprison for two to four years. The sentence follows Giallanella’s guilty plea on January 18 of this year, to two counts of conspiracy, two counts of accessory to larceny after the fact, managing of a gaming enterprise, criminal usury, and use of a telephone for gaming.

He was additionally sentenced to two years of probation upon release from prison.

Giallanella faces additional charges including assault and battery, attempted extortion, intimidation of a witness, and attempt to commit another to commit perjury. Investigations relating to this case resulted in additional indictments against 30 other individuals. His part of a criminal enterprise is noteworthy because it can potentially implicate the guilt of any co-conspirators involved in the criminal organization of which he is alleged to be a part of.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Last month Boston Firefighter Kenneth Veiga, a 24 year veteran, was facing potential charges for threats he made against his department following a requirement that he see a predetermined physician in order to return from his paid leave.

Veiga allegedly told his commander that he was thinking about smashing a fire truck into a wall, and further that,”I am Army trained and have weapons and ammunitions (sic) in a storage locker. Dorner will be child’s play.” The reference to “Dorner” being that of the former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner who killed several people last month, resulting in a man hunt and standoff prior to killing himself earlier last month. Boston Police also said Veiga additionally stated that he was “upset with City Hall, Fire Department Headquarters, and the Firefighters Union Hall.”

It was reported this week that no charges will be filed in the case.

Under Massachusetts law, in order to be criminally liable for making a threat, the prosecution must prove that a person has done all of the following:

  • the defendant expressed intent to injure a victim and/or his or her property;
  • the defendant intended to convey this to his victim;
  • the injury or harm that was threatened, would be a crime if carried out; and
  • the threat was expressed in such a way as to give the victim reasonable fear or apprehension that the defendant had the intent and ability to carry out what was threatened.

Thus, comments made merely in jest or as an expression of frustration, may not rise to the standard required under criminal law. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that in its case against a defendant, the government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, based on the limited information and evidence reported, it isn’t that surprising that the case was not pursued.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Last May, the Massachusetts Legislature passed an important piece of legislation regarding veterans’ rights, which has important implications for veterans facing criminal charges.

The complete formal title, “An Act Relative to Veterans’Access, Livelihood, Opportunity and Resources,” and is also commonly referred to as the Valor Act. Among the various provisions and benefits of the act, is a section providing for the assessment and pretrial diversion for qualifying veterans, active service members, and other defendants in criminal cases with qualifying military history.

According to the provisions of the law, and recent direction within the District Court, judges have discretion to recommend a pretrial diversion program for any individual who meets all of the following criteria. The person must be:

  • A veteran, active service member or person with other military history (meeting certain requirements);
  • Charged with a state crime, which carries potential prison time;
  • Since turning 18, has not previously been convicted of any state or federal crimes, with some exceptions for traffic violations, and has not previously served jail time;
  • Does not have outstanding warrants, continuances, appeals or criminal cases pending before any state or federal courts;

Continue reading

Published on: | by

It was recently reported that a new anti-crime task force will be established in western Massachusetts. Government officials hope that the group will lead to more efficient coordination of investigation into major crimes.

David Sullivan, the Northwestern District Attorney, discussed his hopes for the task force, which include enhancing the investigative capabilities of the Narcotics Unit of the Massachusetts State Police, in particular. The task force will be comprised of a coregroup of detectives from throughout the region, who will be able to better organize their efforts in order to obtain search warrants, audio and video surveillance, and otherwise coordinate undercover investigations and related activities.

The police departments for Greenfield, Montague, Amherst, Athol and Northampton and sheriff’s departments of Franklin and Hampshire will each contribute an officer or detective to the task force, for up to 25 hours each week. Additionally, Sullivan’s office recently received a grant for additional funding for the new task force. I applaud the state’s efforts to better coordinate investigations. Better organization will hopefully lead to a more efficient use of state resources.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

According to data recently released by Massachusetts and the FBI, gun crimes of all kinds are up, these include:

  • Murders committed with firearms
  • Aggravated assaults involving guns
  • Robberies involving guns; and
  • Gunshot injuries

Gun owner advocacy groups point to this data as evidence of the lack of efficacy of gun control laws.

Proponents of such controls argue that increasing violent gun crimes are the result of individuals being able to secure weapons more easily in neighboring states. UnlikeMassachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine do not require a permit or license to buy a gun. However, weapons bought at stores that are federally licensed, whatever the state, do require a background check. Additionally, there is increased concern regarding so called “straw man” transactions, whereby an individual lawfully obtains a weapon, only to turn around and sell it to another individual.

Increasing rates of gun related incidents are occuring despite the strict control laws passed in the state since 1998, which are touted as among the nation’s toughest. These laws include a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, stringent licensing requirements, and a mandate that firearms be stored safely.

Many gun rights advocates feel that these laws are misguided in that they only address the requirements for individuals who procure guns through the proper legal channels. The tragic shooting in Newtown has renewed the debate with fervor as we as a nation attempt to address how to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Massachusetts government and law enforcement officials have introduced proposals in the hopes of expanding the limits of secret wiretapping. The reasoning behind the expansion is the purported goal of more easily gathering evidence against criminal suspects, such as with drug crimes.

According to state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the current wire tapping law has not been revised since 1968, and officials feel that it has become outdated. Coakley’s office released a statement summarizing the proposed changes. Most notably, authorities would still need a warrant to wiretap suspects, but the targets would not have to be members of a bona fide organized crime group, such as the Mafia. Additionally, once a warrant has issued for a wiretap under the new law, the revisions would extend the amount of time it could be used from 15 days to 30 days, which the statement claims is consistent with federal law
As a defense attorney, these proposals raise many concerns regarding the rights of criminal suspects. The intended purpose for using wiretaps, is to target individuals who may have sophisticated methods of evading law enforcement, such as those involved in organized crime. The use of wiretaps could lead to monitoring of individuals’ private conversations for long periods of time, and may additionally impinge on the privacy rights of the innocent individual engaged on the other end of the conversation. This could amount to the sort of unreasonable searches and seizures that are protected against by the Fourth Amendment.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

It was reported today in the Patriot Ledger that two white males allegedly robbed the Marylou’s coffee shop located at 1501 Bedford Street in Abington, Massachusetts at around 11:00 a.m. on Thursday. According to the district manager for the store, Sunisa Loring, these men used a weapon believed to be a gun or a knife after walking into Marylou’s at about 10:30. A witness described the two men as white and both were apparently wearing gray hooded sweatshirts. They demanded money from the cashier then fled in a blue Dodge Neon with the cash according to the police. The vehicle, which was reported stolen yesterday, was said to be heading south. No one was injured at the time and the police continue investigate the crime scene by dusting the shop for fingerprints.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legal definition of the crime of armed robbery is found in G.L. c. 265, § 17. To be convicted of armed robbery in Massachusetts, the prosecution must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the defendant must have been armed with a dangerous weapon. Second, a threat must have been made by the defendant that put the alleged victim in a state of fear, or the defendant must have physically hurt or used force on the victim. Thirdly, the defendant must have taken the alleged victim’s possession intending to steal it. Fourth, the defendant must have taken the alleged victim’s possession out the victim’s control. The crime of armed robbery is a serious felony crime in Massachusetts. Punishment for conviction of the crime of armed robbery includes the a possibility of life in state prison or for any term of years and experienced criminal defense representation will be needed at once.

On the police investigation end, in a robbery such as this, time is of the essence. If the police find the stolen car and it is not torched, they will scour it for fingerprint or DNA evidence that could lead to identification potential suspects. Obviously, identification of the suspects is central to a successful prosecution of the case. The police will interview all witnesses at the coffee shop and will put together a photo array based upon the description that is given by the witnesses. They will pull from a pool of suspects fitting the description of the defendants, if any was able to be obtained in this case, since they were reported to be wearing hooded sweatshirts which may have totally or partially obscured their appearance. They will check to see if someone can make a positive identification. They will carefully review videotape evidence from the scene if they was a camera which is likely in this day and age. They will check adjacent businesses to see if they have a camera that may have picked up the perpetrators in another area with their hoods off of their heads that may provide for a better angle to identify them.

The police indicated that the car that the suspects were using was reported stolen at some point. They will canvas the area from where it was taken to see if any witnesses saw anything or anyone at that time. They will check with local businesses in the area to see if they had a video footage near or at the scene from where the car was taken or on the route that may have been used by the suspects. If the car was located at or near an MBTA station they will review videotape evidence and try to investigate whether the suspects used a Charlie card and try to obtain identifying information through the use of a bank subpoena. They will seek to question likely suspects. They will be looking for these potential suspects to make a mistake and talk with them and get them to confess. The police are highly trained to investigate suspects and solve crimes. They often use tactics that lull defendants into a false sense of security and then get them to talk after waiving their Miranda rights and without legal counsel present.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

On September 6, 2012, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth’s highest court, heard legal arguments on both sides of the issue of whether or not a judge should suppress the evidence seized from a defendant’s cellular telephone in circumstances where the phone was seized immediately from the defendant during a lawful arrest but searched about an hour later during the booking process at the police station without a search warrant.

The issue is one of first impression in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and one that other state courts and federal district courts have struggled with to find the proper balance between constitutionally protected privacy rights to significant information stored on a cell phone and allowing law enforcement to continue to do their jobs to further investigate crime. Neither the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts nor the Massachusetts Appeals Court have addressed the issue of whether or not a police officer is permitted to perform a warrantless search of a defendant’s cell phone content after the defendant has been arrested and the pending decision will have a significant impact on the search and seizure law in Massachusetts.

Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Boston based Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy presented oral argument before the seven justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of the Appellant, while Attorney Zachary Hillman presented the prosecution’s responsive argument.

Attorney Murphy stressed to the high court that the legal analysis must first begin by recognizing that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights guarantees all people protection from unreasonable searches of their possessions and any warrantless search by the police is per se unreasonable and evidence gained therefrom should be suppressed. Additionally, Attorney Murphy argued that although there is a search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, that exception only applies in circumstances where the officers are searching for weapons or in a situation where there is a danger of the loss or destruction of evidence.
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

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 © 2026, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design