Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

How Police Can Turn an Unlawful Stop into Admissible Evidence

Published on: August 8, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In Massachusetts, prosecutors bear the significant responsibility of proving that any evidence used against a defendant is admissible before it can be presented to a jury. This process ensures that the rights of the accused are protected and that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained. Generally, evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in court, but there are instances where such evidence can still be considered. Recently, the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed an appeal by a defendant who argued that the evidence used against him was gathered following an illegal stop by the police. Despite the initial illegality, the evidence was ultimately deemed admissible.

In the case in question, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained after he was stopped by police, arguing that the stop was unlawful. Initially, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, agreeing that the evidence should be suppressed. However, upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision, finding that despite the illegal stop, the subsequent actions by the police and the nature of the evidence justified its admission. The defendant then appealed this decision, seeking to have the higher court re-evaluate the lower court’s ruling.

The Appeals Court undertook a thorough review of the case, focusing on the standards that must be met for evidence obtained after an illegal stop to be admissible. One of the key considerations was whether the connection between the illegal stop and the discovery of the evidence was sufficiently attenuated, meaning that the evidence could be considered independently of the initial illegality. The court evaluated several factors, including the passage of time between the illegal stop and the gathering of evidence, the presence of any intervening circumstances, and the degree of police misconduct.

Defense Attorneys Must Keep up with Technological Advances in Surveillance and Data Collection

Published on: August 6, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In today’s rapidly advancing technological landscape, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors have access to a growing array of tools and methods to investigate and gather evidence. With the advent of artificial intelligence and sophisticated data analytics, traditional methods of crime-solving are being supplemented and often surpassed by new digital techniques. However, as technology progresses, legal protections against search and seizure sometimes struggle to keep pace. Courts are continually called upon to interpret and establish what types of warrants and legal processes are required to obtain different forms of digital evidence. Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed these issues in an appeal where the defendant argued that his location and cell phone ping data were unlawfully obtained and used to convict him.

The case in question was filed after an apparent murder in 2012. On that day, the defendant allegedly shot and killed a woman in her car in Fall River, Massachusetts. The victim’s body was discovered in her vehicle, with evidence of a robbery gone wrong. She had been carrying drugs, which were found both on her person and beneath her body. The victim’s cell phone was notably missing from the scene, setting the stage for the digital trail that would later play a crucial role in the investigation.

To track down the defendant, police relied heavily on data from the victim’s phone. The call logs revealed a phone number linked to the defendant, indicating that he had been in contact with the victim shortly before her death. The defendant, identified through his call history, was found to have made a call to the victim just before the shooting. Through further investigation, including witness statements and physical evidence such as a bloodstained T-shirt and a handgun found in the defendant’s possession, the case against him began to build. The defendant filed motions to suppress the cell phone records and related data, arguing they were obtained without a proper warrant, but these motions were denied. Ultimately, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder based on the theory of felony murder, with armed robbery as the underlying felony.

How Do Lewdness and Public Indecency Laws Apply to Behaviors Witnessed Only Virtually

Published on: August 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In today’s digital age, technology has revolutionized countless aspects of our lives, including the ways in which the legal system in Massachusetts addresses public indecency and related offenses. Surveillance cameras, smartphones, and social media have made it easier than ever for law enforcement and prosecutors to monitor and prosecute behavior that was once private. However, this rapid technological advancement often outpaces the evolution of the legal statutes intended to regulate such behavior, resulting in complex legal challenges for those accused of crimes.

Recently, a case brought before the Massachusetts Court of Appeals highlighted a significant legal question: can a person’s behavior be considered “open” for the purposes of a lewdness statute if it was captured on a surveillance camera rather than witnessed in person? This case centered on a defendant accused of masturbating in front of a camera inside a client’s home. The prosecution sought to apply an old statute designed to address in-person conduct to this new, virtual situation. The central issue was whether the defendant’s actions could be deemed “open” under the law, given that they were only seen on recorded footage rather than observed live.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, The defendant was a painter hired to work in the victim’s home, and he was accused of masturbating in various rooms while looking into the surveillance cameras installed by the victim. The cameras were not monitored in real-time but recorded the events for later viewing. The prosecution argued that because the defendant was aware of the cameras, his behavior should be considered “open” lewdness as defined under Massachusetts General Laws. Essentially, they contended that the presence of cameras implied that the defendant’s conduct was “public” enough to warrant charges.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Addresses Reasonable Suspicion Requirement for Detaining Suspects of Drug Crimes

Published on: July 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement, which can include unlawful arrests or detainments. In the event of an unlawful search or seizure, the law mandates that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in the prosecution. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently heard a case that challenged the suppression of evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the Defendant was stopped by police under suspicion of involvement in a drug transaction. The defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during the stop, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge ruled in favor of the defendant, suppressing the evidence. However, the Commonwealth appealed the decision, leading to a reversal by the Supreme Judicial Court.

The background of the case provides context for understanding the court’s decision. A police detective, with extensive experience in narcotics cases, conducted surveillance in a parking lot known for drug activity. The detective observed the defendant engaging in what he believed to be a drug transaction based on specific behaviors and contextual factors. Despite not witnessing an actual exchange of items, the detective’s observations, combined with information from a fellow officer regarding the defendant’s reputation as a drug dealer, led him to suspect criminal activity.

The Uphill Battle of Pursuing an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim after a Massachusetts Conviction

Published on: July 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Anyone accused of a crime in Massachusetts may have several opportunities to challenge the accusations lodged against them. Sometimes, charges are dismissed based on evidentiary issues before a trial occurs. At the close of a trial, defendants may be successful in asking the court to acquit them without sending the charges to a jury. After a conviction, defendants may be entitled to relief by an appeal if an error was made below. In situations where a defendant’s trial counsel made mistakes that resulted in a conviction, defendants may be entitled to relief by making a claim on appeal of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Although it is a high bar to meet, it is possible for someone to be completely exonerated by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed a defendant’s claim that their counsel was ineffective by failing to request a new trial before they were convicted of a violent assault crime.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the defendant was charged with assault after she was found by a family member next to an unconscious man in an apartment. After the defendant was confronted by the man’s friends, other individuals intervened and allowed her to escape. Later, the alleged victim found a wallet that appeared to belong to the assailant, and she was tracked down and arrested. The defendant was later convicted at trial, although she took issue with her defense counsel’s performance and appealed the conviction to the state appeals court.

On appeal, the defendant’s motion for a new trial and claim of ineffective assistance of counsel were denied. She argued that her lawyer failed to inform her about the possibility of a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF). However, a new trial can only be granted if justice likely was not served, and such motions are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The trial judge, who also ruled on the motion, found no evidence of ineffective assistance. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show their lawyer’s performance was significantly below standard and likely deprived them of a substantial defense.

Can a Dramatic In-Court Identification Unfairly Influence a Jury?

Published on: July 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In the world of legal dramas as known by pop culture, we’ve all witnessed those intense courtroom scenes where a victim or witness dramatically points to the defendant, solidifying their guilt in the eyes of the jury. However, what these shows and movies often fail to depict is the complexity and unreliability of eyewitness identifications. Contrary to popular belief, these identifications aren’t the infallible evidence they’re often portrayed to be. In reality, they can be influenced by many of factors, leading to potentially flawed convictions.

Massachusetts law recognizes the inherent pitfalls of eyewitness identifications and imposes strict guidelines regarding their admissibility in court. Controlling legal precedents underscore the importance of these safeguards, as demonstrated by a recent case where a man’s attempted murder conviction was overturned due to an improper in-court identification that may have wrongly influenced the jury in his case.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was arrested and charged with felony assault and attempted murder after he was identified by witnesses as the person who returned to a party and shot at a home where the alleged victim was injured by gunfire. The witness identified the defendant as the shooter while being interviewed by the police, and then testified in court that the defendant was the person she saw committing the crime. The defendant was convicted of the charges at trial, but appealed the court’s allowance for the witness to identify the defendant in a dramatic in-court fashion.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Gives Broad Access to Law Enforcement Seeking Cellular Phone Location Data

Published on: May 15, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Criminal investigations have changed drastically in the last 30 years. The rise of cell phones and smartphones has created a new field of evidentiary law related to these electronic devices. Cell phone providers can track the location and behaviors of their customers, and police often seek this information to place suspects at crime scenes. However, both cell phone companies and their customers have a Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure of their phones or data. Therefore, law enforcement must obtain a valid warrant and demonstrate probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found before they can compel a cell phone company to turn over the data. The Massachusetts Court of Appeal recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that had suppressed some evidence of assault crimes that was obtained with a warrant from the defendant’s cellular phone provider.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant had been suspected of a chain of assaults over the course of about two weeks, based on a tentative identification by one of the crime victims. After another victim notified police that they saw their assailant in public, the police apprehended and questioned the defendant. Based on other evidence, the police sought a search warrant for the data related to two phone numbers associated with the defendant. Although the warrants were issued, the defendant’s counsel successfully challenged the warrants and the evidence would not be admitted, but for the State’s appeal.

On appeal, the Court discussed the requirements for a valid search warrant for cell phone data to be issued. Law enforcement must establish probable cause that the suspect committed a crime, that the suspect’s location data would be helpful in solving or proving the crime, and that the suspect had a cell phone at the relevant times. This requires demonstrating the suspect’s association with the cell phone and showing that location data from the phone is relevant to the investigation.

How the Severity of an OUI Accusation May Affect Evidentiary Requirements

Published on: April 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Driving under the influence (OUI) cases are complex legal matters that require a thorough understanding of state laws and procedures. In Massachusetts, OUI laws are stringent, and recent judicial opinions shed light on critical aspects of these cases, particularly concerning authorities who perform blood alcohol testing without the consent of the defendant.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on an OUI case where the defendant challenged the admissibility of blood test results used in his prosecution. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was involved in an accident that resulted in the death of one victim, and the defendant was suspected of OUI by the officer. After the accident, the defendant’s blood was drawn at the hospital as part of routine treatment. The following day, law enforcement obtained a search warrant to collect the defendant’s blood samples for a blood alcohol content (BAC) test, which revealed a significant level of alcohol in the defendant’s system.

The defendant, facing charges including operating under the influence (OUI) causing serious bodily injury and manslaughter, sought to suppress the BAC results, arguing that the test was conducted without consent. However, the court upheld the admissibility of the BAC results, citing Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 24(1)(e).

How the Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination Can be Sidestepped in Boston OUI Cases

Published on: April 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects criminal defendants from being compelled to testify against themselves when being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. The Massachusetts state constitution and code contain similar provisions that are designed to protect residents who are suspected of crimes from being coerced into making incriminating statements. To ensure the federal constitutional right is functionally protected, courts have ruled that a criminal suspect, as part of a “Miranda warning,” must be notified of their right against self-incrimination before being arrested for a crime.

Failure by law enforcement to properly give and comply with the Miranda rights of a suspect may result in the exclusion of any evidence gained from the improper questioning. A Massachusetts man convicted of an OUI offense recently challenged the court’s admission of evidence that was obtained before he was given a proper Miranda warning, which was then used to obtain a conviction against him.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant was pulled over while driving because his registration tags were expired. After the stop, the responding officer suspected that the defendant was intoxicated and spoke with the man, observing the defendant’s speech was slurred. This observation was made before the man was arrested or given his Miranda rights. The evidence of the defendant’s slurred speech was admitted at trial, and the defendant was convicted of OUI by the finder of fact.

The Crucial Role of Legal Counsel in Expunging Criminal Charges in Massachusetts

Published on: April 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In the area of criminal law, expungement can be a vital tool for individuals seeking to move forward from past mistakes and rebuild their lives. However, a recent judicial opinion from the Massachusetts Appeals Court highlights the complexities involved in the expungement process and underscores the importance of obtaining legal counsel to navigate these challenges effectively.

The case in question sheds light on the hurdles individuals may face when petitioning for expungement without proper legal representation. The appellant, appearing pro se, appealed the denial of his petition for expungement under G.L. c. 276, § 100K. His petition was based on the claim that the criminal record stemmed from demonstrable errors by law enforcement, specifically alleging an unlawful arrest and interrogation without Miranda warnings.

Despite the appellant’s earnest efforts, the court found his petition lacking in sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the charges against him were the result of law enforcement errors. The opinion emphasizes the importance of presenting a strong case supported by evidence and legal arguments—a task that can be challenging without the expertise of a seasoned criminal defense attorney.