May 2012

Attorney McCarthy Successfully Prevents Charge Of Conspiracy To Violate The Drug Laws From Issuing Against Client Following A Clerk’s Hearing

According to the police report, undercover police officers were conducting a drug “interdiction” in the parking lot of a local mall. The police observed the defendant approach a parked car and eventually place something into his left pocket and start to walk away. The police officers approached the defendant and questioned him. Ultimately, the officers retrieved two bags of “marijuana” from the defendant. The amount of marijuana was less than ounce.

Realizing that the defendant could not be charged with a crime because possession of less than one ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized in Massachusetts, the police summonsed him to appear for a clerk’s hearing in which they alleged he committed the crime of conspiracy to violate the drug laws. After hearing the facts and arguments of counsel, the clerk declined to issue the complaint and the charge was dismissed. The defendant did not fact any criminal charges.

Drug Felony Charge Of Possession With Intent To Distribute Heroin Dismissed

The police maintained that a concerned citizen called claiming to witness what she believed was a drug transaction in front of her house. The police arrived and approached the car that the defendant was in. According to the report, the police officer observed the driver’s shoulders and arms moving in a “downward motion” as he was staring at the officer. Eventually, the officer ordered the defendant out of the car. Following a search by the police and a “K-9”dog, seven bags of heroin, a BB gun, cotton balls, a needle and powdery residue was confiscated. The defendant was charged with a felony count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute.

Attorney McCarthy investigated the circumstance surrounding the stop, exit order and search of the car and the defendant. She filed a motion to suppress evidence and a motion to dismiss so much of the complaint as alleged “intent to distribute.” Following the filing of the motions the Commonwealth dismissed so much of the complaint that alleged “intent to distribute.” The misdemeanor charge of possession of heroin will be dismissed in one year provided the defendant satisfies certain conditions and does not get rearrested.

Shoplifting Charge Dismissed Against Client

The police alleged that the defendant concealed numerous pieces of merchandise in her pocketbook and attempted to leave the store. Upon being confronted by the loss prevention officers the defendant was remorseful. She was nevertheless arrested. On the client’s first appearance in court Attorney McCarthy negotiated a disposition whereby the case was dismissed on the payment of court costs. The defendant did not have to admit to sufficient facts and was not convicted of the criminal offense.

The defendant’s wife claimed that following a physical altercation the defendant pushed her on the ground and slammed her head into the floor multiple times. Despite the fact that the defendant denied the allegations, he was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery and a felony count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon.

After thoroughly investigating the case, Attorney McCarthy requested a quick trial date. The defense answered ready for trial. The Commonwealth answered not ready for trial and the judge dismissed the case for want of prosecution.

The police report alleged that the police responded to a report of a past assault on a female. According to the report, the female claimed that she and her husband were involved in a physical altercation inside of a car. She further asserted that her husband tried to grab the phone out of her hand when she tried to call the police for help. The husband was arrested on a warrant and charged with assault and battery and intimidation of a witness. The judge allowed Attorney McCarthy’s motion to dismiss after the wife asserted her marital privilege.

The police report alleged that the defendant “mooned” a resident assistant after being denied access to a college dormitory. The defendant was arrested and charged with the felony offense of open and gross lewdness.

Attorney McCarthy filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the facts, as alleged by the government, did not constitute open and gross lewdness. She also argued that since no individual had been charged with this offense based on this type of conduct in Massachusetts in the past, the charge must be dismissed because the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of her client. Following a hearing the judge allowed the motion to dismiss.

The defendant’s girlfriend, and mother of their child, reported that the defendant tried to block her way as she left a room and pushed her. She subsequently went to the hospital for treatment. The police report indicates that the defendant also unplugged the phone when the complaining witness tried to call the police, which prompted the authorities to charge the defendant with intimidation of a witness.

After investigating the circumstances surrounding the incident, including reviewing independent witness statements, the judge dismissed the charges against the defendant after the witness indicated that she could not go forward. All charges against the client were dismissed.

The defendant received a summons to appear at a clerk’s hearing in which a prior boyfriend claimed that she was threatening and harassing him. Attorney McCarthy represented the defendant at the clerk’s hearing. A complaint did not issue however, the client must refrain from contacting the witness for a period of time.

February 2012

The police report alleged that the police were dispatched to a home for a “domestic in progress.” The defendant’s wife claimed that the defendant struck her during an argument that lasted over the course of an evening. Although the defendant denied hitting his wife, he was arrested and charged. The incident allegedly took place in the presence of the couple’s child. For that reason, the Department of Family Services was contacted by the police and the charges were investigated by that agency.

The client contacted Attorney McCarthy who promptly investigated the allegations and counseled the defendant on the appropriate course of action. Attorney McCarthy became familiar with the defendant’s upstanding and impressive background and presented the information to the court. The case was dismissed.

The police alleged that the car driven by the defendant was “unable to stay in the middle lane.” The officer pulled the car over and claimed that the defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes and admitted to alcohol consumption. The police officer administered field sobriety tests that he claimed the defendant did not pass. The defendant took the breathalyzer which was well above the legal limit. Attorney McCarthy negotiated a disposition in which the case will be dismissed in one year provided the defendant satisfies certain conditions and does not get rearrested.

The defendant was charged with assault and battery following a domestic dispute that the complaining witness claimed turned physical. The witness claimed that the client and another co-defendant cursed at her and struck her causing injuries to her face. Witnesses were interviewed and the case was investigated with the expectation that the client would go to trial and be found not guilty. After thoroughly preparing, Attorney McCarthy answered ready for trial on two occasions. When the Commonwealth was not prepared on the second trial date the judge allowed Attorney McCarthy’s motion to dismiss.

According to the police report a Police Officer noticed a car precariously parked in grass on the side of a busy road. The curious officer approached the car and saw an individual in the car that appeared pale and gaunt. According to the officer as he approached the vehicle he noticed the occupant was sweating. Eventually, the officer searched the car and found what he believed were controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was arrested and charged with numerous drug offenses as a “subsequent offender.”

Attorney McCarthy conducted pre-trial investigation and interviews and became closely familiar with the defendant’s background. Despite the fact that the defendant had a lengthy prior record, the District Attorney’s Office ultimately agreed to place the defendant on a short term of pre-trial probation. The case will be dismissed provided the defendant stays out of trouble. The client did not admit to sufficient facts or receive any type of conviction.

The defendant’s wife alleged that the defendant hit her. The defendant was charged with a felony count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon. A conviction or admission to any type of felony would likely have had an effect the defendant’s employment. Attorney McCarthy conducted extensive interviews with the defendant and investigated the facts surrounding the case. Although the defendant’s wife desired to invoke her marital privilege and not testify against her husband, the District Attorney’s Office initially indicated that they would go forward based on the defendant’s statement and the contents of the “911” call. Attorney McCarthy presented arguments supporting that the “911” statements were inadmissible. The Commonwealth dismissed the charges against the defendant.

The police responded to a call for a domestic disturbance in which the defendant was accused of striking a family member in the face. The police arrested the female defendant and charged her with assault and battery. According to the police the defendant appeared to be “intoxicated” and made admissions relative to the assault.

Attorney McCarthy interviewed the client and became familiar with her impressive background and family situation. Armed with this information, Attorney McCarthy negotiated a disposition whereby the defendant was placed on pre-trial probation. Mindful of family obligations for the defendant, Attorney McCarthy ensured that she would be able to travel out of state for family purposes during this time period. The defendant was not required to admit to sufficient facts or admit guilt. As long as she does not get rearrested and satisfies certain conditions the case will be dismissed.

January 2012

Attorney McCarthy Successfully Argues For Extension Of 209A Restraining Order For Male Plaintiff

A male plaintiff retained Attorney McCarthy to represent him at an extension hearing relative to a 209A restraining order. The male plaintiff and the female defendant had been involved in a dating relationship on and off for approximately seven years and both of their names were on the deed to the house that they shared. Following an argument in which the plaintiff claimed the defendant pointed her finger in his face, head butted him and threatened to burn the house down with him in it, the defendant sought a temporary restraining order. The ordered required that the defendant stay away from the defendant and the home.

Upon receiving the order the defendant filed a motion to vacate the restraining order. During the hearing the defendant took the position that the restraining order was a method to improperly prevent her from living in her home. Attorney McCarthy successfully argued that although the male plaintiff was larger than the defendant and it is not typical for a man to be the plaintiff, he was in a no win situation if the order was not extended. In this case, the plaintiff, who testified that he was in fear that the defendant would harm him, risked becoming a defendant in a criminal case for assault and battery if he was forced to defend himself against the defendant. Following an evidentiary hearing and arguments from Attorney McCarthy the District Court Judge extended the 209A restraining order. The defendant must stay away from the plaintiff and out of the home until the order expires.

Attorney McCarthy Successfully Prevents Complaint Of Larceny Of Property From Issuing Following A Clerk’s Hearing

Local police received a report that a stolen electronic device was available for sale on the internet. Police officers, acting undercover, investigated and ultimately negotiated the purchase of the item from the defendant. The defendant appeared at a prearranged time and location to sell the device to what he believed was a legitimate customer. When the defendant arrived at the scene, the detectives approached him and he eventually admitted that he had stolen the item. The defendant received a summons to appear for a clerk’s hearing at a local courthouse.

The defendant, legitimately distraught over the incident, retained Attorney McCarthy to represent him at the clerk’s hearing. During the hearing Attorney McCarthy explained the positive contributions the contrite defendant had made to the town over the past few years and the defendant demonstrated his genuine remorse. Following the hearing the clerk declined to issue the complaint provided that the defendant wrote a letter of apology to the victim and the police officers and stayed out of trouble. The defendant was never charged with a crime.

Clerk Denies Complaint For Criminal Harassment Following Clerk’s Hearing

The defendant received a summons to appear for a clerk’s hearing in which she was alleged to have harassed a young woman. According to the police report, the defendant and the plaintiff were involved in a series of “harassment issues” over the past few years. The tension between the parties related to the fact that the defendant was dating the plaintiff’s former boyfriend.

Attorney McCarthy spoke to the defendant, reviewed evidence including text messages and other published information and conducted relevant interviews to prepare for the clerk’s hearing. During the hearing Attorney McCarthy successfully demonstrated that the defendant was actually the victim and the person that has been harassed over the past few years. Following the hearing, the clerk agreed with the defendant’s position and declined to issue the complaint against the defendant. Thus, the defendant avoided being charged with a crime and being arraigned.

Attorney McCarthy Represents Plaintiff And Successfully Argues For Issuance And Extension Of A Harassment Prevention Order

The plaintiff had been receiving offensive, disturbing and harassing messages from the defendant through a variety of electronic devices and outlets for a number of years. She retained Attorney McCarthy to assist her in applying for and presenting her case for a Harassment Prevention Order. Attorney McCarthy reviewed the information from the plaintiff and engaged in lengthy pre-hearing discussions. During the Harassment Prevention Order hearing the plaintiff was able to demonstrate that the defendant committed three or more acts that were willful and malicious, were aimed at her, were intended to intimidate her and did in fact intimidate her. The judge issued the Harassment Prevention Order which was extended for one year at the extension hearing.

Felony Count Of Possession With Intent To Distribute A Class “B” Substance Reduced To Possession And To Be Dismissed

According to the police report, the police responded to a call for a “domestic in progress.” Based on a description given by a citizen of the car that the perpetrator of the alleged abuse was driving a “BOLO” [be on the lookout] call went out for the defendant’s car. The police ultimately located the vehicle that the defendant was standing outside of. The police claimed that the defendant gave them consent to search him and they found a number of blue pills in his pocket. Based on the amount of pills on the defendant the police charged him with possession of a class B substance with intent to distribute.

Attorney McCarthy filed a motion to dismiss so much of the complaint that charged “with intent to distribute.” The District Attorney’s Office ultimately agreed to dismiss the felony portion of the charge and the misdemeanor count will be dismissed in one year provided the defendant stays out of trouble and satisfies certain conditions.