Case Results » Theft Crimes

Our client is a builder with a large portfolio of homes throughout Massachusetts. In May of 2022 he was stopped by loss prevention officer at a Home Depot. He was accused of going through the self service checkout kiosk without paying for a significant amount of items. Loss prevention went back over a year checking security footage seeing if our client had committed similar crimes before at that store. As it turns out, footage disclosed several incidents of theft by this client with losses in the thousands. The man was summonsed and charged with larceny by scheme in violation of G.L. c. 266 section 30. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get these charges continued without a finding (CWOF) on the condition that he make restitution. Once restitution is made the case will be dismissed. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Our client is a software developer at a large company. She has a doctorate in computer engineering. In late May of this year this woman was caught stealing in excess of $1,200 worth of goods from several stores in a suburban Boston mall. She summonsed for a felony arraignment charging her with larceny over $1,200. This is a felony under G.L. c. 266 section 30. She retained Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent her. Today, the day of the arraignment we succeeded in getting all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Theft Cases

Our client is a college student with a 3.9 GPA at a top 10 university in the Boston area. In March of this year he was at a department store known for its high end clothing. Succumbing to temptation, the man secreted a designer jacket in a bag that he had from another store. The jacket cost over $1,200, thereby making its theft a felony in Massachusetts. Loss prevention personnel saw the activity and confirmed it on security videos. Our client was detained and questioned. He admitted to his criminal activity and received a summons for a clerk magistrate hearing charging him larceny over $1,200 in violation of G.L. c. 266 section 30. Our office was hired to defend him. Today, we convinced the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. There will be no record of this individual's criminal activity. 

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings 

Our client is a paramedic who has been working for the same company for over a decade. In August of last year our client was caught on videotape taking two fishing poles from a boat docked at a well known marina. The police were able to identify our client from footage showing him taking the items and placing them in his car. The license plates revealed our client to be the owner of the car and registry images confirmed his identity. He was charged with two counts of larceny under $1,200, G.L. c. 266 section 30, both misdemeanors in Massachusetts. We were able to convince the district attorney's office to agree to a general continuance, often called pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed in a few months. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Just a couple of weeks ago we succeeded in getting this client pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. She had been charged with attempted larceny by check G.L. c. 266 section 37, forgery under G.L. c. 267 section 1, uttering a false check in violation of G.L. c. 267 section 5. Identical charges issued in this court. This prosecution took place in another court as the bank the crimes were committed at was in a different town. We obtained the same result in this case, pretrial probation. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Our client is a pharmaceutical student who cannot have a criminal conviction of any sort. Over the past 6-8 months she was involved with a man who had been scamming elderly people. His employment took him into assisted living facilities. There, he befriended the residents, obtained their trust and convinced them to write checks to himself. This man then used women with whom he had relationships. He would sign the checks over to them. He would then ask them to cash the checks. He told them he could not do this as all of his bank accounts had been frozen after someone hacked his accounts and stole his money. All of this was untrue but nevertheless convinced our client and others to unwittingly assist with his plan. Our client tried to cash the checks at two branches of the bank on which the checks were written. She was denied at both and subsequently received a complaint for forgery G.L. c. 267 section 1, uttering a false check G.L. c. 267 section 5 and attempted larceny by check G.L. c. 266 section 37. Convincing the district attorney's office that our client was in fact unknowingly participating in this they agreed to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed and our client can continue with her education. 

Read More in Pretrial Probation 

Back in February of this year police were called for a report of a large scale shoplifting operation at a major department store. When they got to the scene loss prevention had detained a woman who had concealed and placed into her car nearly $10,000.00 worth of goods. The officers reviewed security footage of the incident. An investigation followed. The results revealed that this woman had done this at this store and similar stores for over a year stealing nearly one hundred thousand dollars worth of goods. She was charged with larceny over $1,200 under G.L. c. 266 section 30. Establishing some several financial hardship for the woman, we convinced the district attorney's office to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor with the right to have disparate recommendations before the judge. We prevailed on getting a continuance without a finding (CWOF) for our client. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Our client was the business manager/accountant for a small business in a Boston suburb. The owner of the business suspected him of stealing large sums of money. She went to the police department and met with a detective who assisted her in successfully applying for a criminal complaint. The man was charged with larceny over $1,200 G.L. c. 266 section 30, credit card fraud over $1,200 G.L. c. 266 section 37C and conspiracy G.L. c. 274 section 7. Our investigation took over three years due to the "victim" consistently interfering with our discovery efforts. Nevertheless, we prevailed on the district attorney's office to agree to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 for a period of 90 days. All charges will be dismissed before the end of the year. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Nearly a year ago, our client, an independent truck driver, came to Massachusetts to pick up a load of goods. When he arrived at the designated location he was met by police officers. Apparently, the goods he was to pick up were purchased with a stolen credit card. The police then searched the truck and found thousands of dollars of stolen appliances in the truck. The man was driving a truck that was unregistered and uninsured. The plates were concealed and the man did not have a valid driver's license. He was arrested and charged with attempted larceny G.L. c. 266 section 30 and G.L. c. 274 section 6, receiving stolen property over $1,200 G.L. c. 266 section 60, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle G.L. c. 90 section 10, operating uninsured G.L. c. 90 section 34J and concealing plates G.L. c. 90 section 23. We arranged for pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 for the attempted larceny for a period of six months and all other charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is an entrepreneur involved in several lucrative businesses. One of these businesses involves the purchase and resale of commercial fencing. The defendant would buy surplus fencing on the internet or from wholesalers, store them and resell at opportune times depending on market demand. A competitor was searching the internet for similar products. He came across the defendant's listing and made false and unsubstantiated claims that the fencing the defendant was selling was his and had been stolen from him. Unscrupulous police officers seized this opportunity to obtain a search warrant for the defendant's property. Naturally the fencing was on the property as advertised and it was seized. We successfully argued a motion to suppress the unlawful search. Today the case came before a judge who agreed that without the fencing the district attorney could not prosecute the defendant for these charges, receiving stolen property in excess of $1,200.00 in violation of G.L. c. 266 section 60. As a result our motion to dismiss was allowed. 

Read More in Search and Seizure

Our client is a graduate at a top rated university working towards his PhD. On May 31, 2021 he and a friend were in Boston near a construction site. They were celebrating being vaccinated and being able to go out more freely. The men had been drinking. They decided to enter the construction to climb up a newly constructed building to get a view of downtown Boston at night. Someone observed the man scale the construction fence and enter the building. The police were called. Both men were apprehended and charged with Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime With the Intent to Commit a Felony in violation of G.L. c. 266 section 16. We were hired. We moved the arraignment back and met with the district attorney's office seeking pre-arraignment diversion pursuant to G.L. c. 276A. The prosecutor and the judge agreed with this resolution. The defendant was not arraigned and all charges have been dismissed. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Our client is a college student. In February of 2021, around 3:00 a.m. he was seen walking down a street looking into car windows. The person making the observation followed him and called the police. The witness saw the man enter a pickup truck and remove several items and then discard them in a trash can. The police arrived and corroborated the witness' report. The man was charged with Breaking and Entering With the Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor under G.L. c. 266 section 16A. Attorney Neyman was retained. Today, our office was able to get pre-arraignment diversion pursuant to G.L. c. 276A. There will be no record of this event in his criminal history. 

Read More in Diversion

In April of 2020 police in an Eastern Massachusetts city responded to a call for a larceny. They met with the victim, a local truck driver who routinely delivers cigarettes to convenience stores. While  inside a store making a delivery the driver's truck padlocks were broken and cases of cigarettes were stolen from the inside of the truck. An eyewitness working across the street informed the police of his observations. Additionally, a security video from the store was obtained. It captured the entire incident. The suspects escaped into a vehicle registered to our client. The detectives investigating this incident tried to contact the car owner, our client. They were unable to do so however they did contact her children who identified the car as hers. They also told the police that our client never permitted anyone to drive the vehicle. Based on this information our client was charged with larceny over $1,200 a felony under G.L. c. 266 section 30 and conspiracy G.L. c. 274 section 7. Today we prevailed on a motion to dismiss. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is a software engineer in his early twenties. In late December he was in an argument with a former girlfriend. She asked him to leave her house. He did. He then went out to several bars, got drunk and in the early morning hours went back to her home. He made a forced entry into the home by breaking down the front door. A neighbor heard the noise and saw the man entering the home. The police were called and the defendant was arrested and charged with unarmed burglary under G.L. c. 266 Section 15 and malicious destruction to property over $1,200 in violation of G.L. c. 266 Section 127. Attorney Neyman was retained to represent the man. Our office had information that our client may have been drugged. Following up on that lead we had him tested. Date rape drugs, probably intended for someone else were found in his system. Our toxicology expert provided a report, evaluation and analysis consistent with our client lacking the criminal intent to commit these acts. The district attorney's office accepted this representation as did the victim and all agreed to this case being dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

In 2010 the defendant was enrolled in law school in Massachusetts. He got engaged to a woman and wrote a check for thousands of dollars to a local jeweler to pay for the engagement ring. The check never cleared. The defendant left Massachusetts and continued law school in another state. The deficient check prompted the jeweler to contact the district attorney's office and charges of larceny by check over $250 under G.L. c. 266 Section 37 issued. This is a felony in Massachusetts. The defendant never answered to the charges and was defaulted. Just a few weeks ago this case surfaced and threatened to derail the defendant's legal career. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to represent the defendant. Attorney Neyman negotiated a settlement with the jewelry store and the district attorney's office. The jeweler was paid full restitution and the district attorney's office agreed to nolle prosse (dismiss) prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is a college student from out of state. She was involved in a sophisticated theft operation involving cell phones. She and others had accessed a database revealing the names and cell phone numbers of subscribers to a particular cell phone company. The defendant was also able to access their account numbers and other significant identifying information through this database. With that information she went to various Apple stores throughout the northeast where she would get new phones and charge them to the accounts that she had infiltrated. She would then sell the phones. A Massachusetts Apple store manager became suspicious when the woman tried this scam not knowing that the actual subscriber had just made a purchase at another Apple store. The police were called and the investigation led to charges of larceny over $1,200 G.L. c. 266 section 30 and forgery under G.L. c. 267 section 1. Both crimes are felonies in Massachusetts. The woman was also charged with misdemeanors. Specifically identity fraud G.L. c. 266 section 37 and receiving stolen property under $1,200 in violation of G.L. c. 266 section 60. All charges were continued without a finding without conditions. The case will be dismissed in a few months.

Read More in Continuance Without a Finding

The defendant is a non-citizen nurse. She works at nursing homes taking care of elderly people with dementia. In January a pawn shop owner called the police when our client tried to sell him some jewelry that had very personal engravings on them. He suspected that the items may have been stolen. The police were able to track the items to someone who identified them as belonging to his mother, an eighty-eight year old woman living in a nursing home with dementia. The police obtained our client's name from the nursing home and got her driver's license photo to show to the pawn shop owner. He made a positive identification of our client. Detectives learned from the victim that our client had stolen the items from her. A summons for a clerk magistrate hearing charging receiving stolen property under G.L. c. 266 Section 60 issued. Attorney Neyman was hired. Today, after a clerk's hearing we were able to convince the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint.

Read More in Receiving Stolen Property

The defendant is a non-citizen professional. He is married with two children and holds a doctorate in electrical engineering. In December he was at a high end supermarket that sells alcohol. He purchased some items at the self service kiosk and concealed over $1,200 in alcohol making the crime a felony. He was charged with violating G.L. c. 266 Section 30. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to convince the clerk magistrate to hold the complaint. If the defendant remains free from criminal legal trouble the case will be dismissed in six months. This will have no impact on any citizenship applications and will not be on his CORI.

Read More in Larceny Over $1,200

In April of 2016 an individual went to the Somerville, Massachusetts police station complaining that he had engaged a local contractor, paid him over $10,000 and that no work was ever done. Another victim complained that the same contractor had stolen money from him using the same tactics. It was later determined that the contractor was not properly licensed. Text messages verified the complaints and the officers filed criminal charges against the contractor. Specifically, a count of larceny by scheme in violation of G.L. c. 266 Section 30 was filed. The defendant hired our office to represent him. Today, the prosecution agreed to pretrial probation pursuant to G.L. c. 276 Section 87. All charges will be dismissed shortly.

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is a legal alien from China. She does not speak English. The prosecution alleged that in February of 2017 a seventy-eight year old man from upstate New York received a call from a person purporting to be a lawyer. The called stated that he was representing the man's granddaughter who had just been arrested and charged with marijuana distribution. The man asked the man to transfer a substantial sum of money to a bank account for legal fees. The victim complied. He quickly learned that he had been scammed and that the caller was not in fact a lawyer. Subsequently, after a lengthy police investigation it was determined that the defendant and her daughter-in-law had been part of the scam. They were caught spending the proceeds of the theft at several stores in Massachusetts, one of them a Target Store in Easton. Store security videotape confirmed the suspicions and the defendant was arrested and charged with larceny from a person over sixty, G.L. c. 266 Section 30(5), larceny by scheme, G.L. c. 266 Section 30(1) and receiving stolen property, G.L. c. 266 Section 60. A loss would have resulted in jail and deportation. Attorney Neyman was able to get the first two counts dismissed prior to trial. The remaining count was tried to a jury and the defendant was found not guilty.

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is a middle aged man with a significant criminal history. In August of 2015 members of the Boston Police observed the man in the company of known drug users. All parties were trespassing on private property. Officers confronted the man and conducted a pat frisk for weapons. In the course of this activity they came across a stolen ipad valued at over one thousand dollars. The man was arrested. While at the police station a more thorough search of the man followed. During this process the man fled from the station hitting an officer to ensure his escape. He was charged with receiving stolen property, G.L. c. 266 Section 60, trespass, G.L. c. 266 Section 120, escape from lockup G.L. c. 268 Section 15A and resisting arrest, G.L. c. 268 Section 32B. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the defendant. Today, these charges were dismissed.

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is a twenty-one year old college student who works two jobs to pay his bills and tuition. In May of 2017 the victim reported leaving her laptop in a truck she rented from a reputable truck rental company. The company was not very accommodating. The defendant was an employee of that company. The victim was subsequently notified by Apple that someone had emailed them, posing as the owner of the stolen Macbook and trying to access the device. The email address matched an email address similar to the defendant's. The device was later pinged to a location extremely close to the defendant's home. The victim's cell phone number was on the laptop. The defendant's cell phone number appeared on the victim's cell phone as a missed call. A Cambridge detective investigating this case applied for a felony complaint against the defendant charging him with receiving stolen property, a violation of G.L. c. 266 Section 60. Attorney Neyman was retained to represent the defendant. Today, we were able to persuade the clerk magistrate not to issue the felony complaint.

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

The defendant owns and operates a large successful Boston centric sports gear, apparel and paraphernalia store. In late 2016 an investigation firm contracted by the National Football League attended local fairs and mall kiosks looking for counterfeit apparel. The investigation led the investigators to the defendant's facility. In February of 2017 the investigation company enlisted the services of the Woburn Police and other police departments as well as Homeland Security agents. A search warrant was obtained and the defendant's facility was raided. The search resulted in the seizure of several thousand items that authorities claimed to be the product of criminal counterfeiting in violation of G.L. c. 266 Section 147. Attorney Neyman was immediately retained. He successfully continued the arraignment on two occasions and filed a motion to dismiss the case prior to arraignment. The motion was successful and today the prosecutor filed a nolle prosse officially dismissing the case.

Read More in Search and Seizure

In July of 2014 investigators at a local utility company learned that a local businessman had been purchasing large quantities of wifi thermostats and reselling them for a discount through social media listings. He would follow up by applying for and receiving the permitted rebates. In total, the man accepted over eight thousand dollars worth of the rebates, a sum far exceeding the threshold for felony larceny. The arraignment was scheduled for today. Attorney Neyman was able to get pretrial probation for the man pursuant to G.L. c. 276 Section 87. He will have no criminal record.

Read More in Pretrial Probation

The defendant has been living out of state for over ten years. In 1999 he was charged with larceny over $250.00, a felony in Massachusetts.  A warrant issued for his arrest yet he was never apprehended. Recently, while living in New York and trying to renew his driver's license he learned that he was in default in Massachusetts. He retained Attorney Neyman to represent him. We went into court today and removed the default and the warrant. The man was released on personal recognizance notwithstanding the gravity of the crime. Specifically, it is alleged that he stole over $14,000.00 from a local financial institution.

Read More in Default Warrant Removals

On August 15, 2014, at 5:30 a.m. Boston, Massachusetts police responded to a call for a breaking and entering in a neighborhood adjacent to a major local university. They observed the defendant banging on a door and apparently under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The officers observed substantial damage to the dwelling including a broken front door. Witnesses at the scene identified the defendant as the person who broke the door and gained entry to the property. As the officers approached the suspect he fled. He was ultimately caught by one of the officers who claimed that he was struck several times by the defendant. The officer was taken to a local hospital and was out of work for a significant period of time. The suspect was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, breaking and entering in the nighttime, malicious destruction to property and other crimes. Many of the crimes are felonies in Massachusetts. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. Today our office was able to secure pretrial diversion for the defendant pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276A.

Boston Municipal Court # 09-7440. The defendant is a local college sophomore. The prosecution claimed that on October 8, 2009 Boston Police Officers were dispatched to a local high end retail store. They were met by store security who witnessed the defendant attempt to leave the store with over one thousand dollars worth of merchandise she had concealed in a large handbag. When the officers searched the bag they found the items and over one thousand dollars worth of items apparently stolen from other local retail stores. The police detective assigned to investigate the case contacted the other stores and learned that the defendant had in fact stolen the items from those establishments as well. Our office was hired yesterday to defend the case. Attorney Neyman was able to get the client pre-trial probation. All charges will be dropped after our client performs some community services and successfully completes her probationary period.

Brockton District Court: Authorities alleged that on December 21, 2009 officers in a security video room were monitoring customers in a Brockton store. They observed a woman walking up and down various aisles, picking up and examining items and placing them in various parts of her clothing. She was also secreting the items within items she was purchasing. The woman then proceeded to a self-checkout line where she was further observed placing items on her person rather than scanning them for purchase. After paying for some of the products store security and a detailed police officer contacted the woman and found the items in her possession. She was charged with shoplifting. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed at a Clerk's Hearing.

Middlesex Superior Court Criminal Number: 2006-0815. The prosecution alleged that our client, a Lowell, Massachusetts man was involved in an elaborate scheme to defraud a national retail store of over fifty eight thousand dollars. Specifically, the district attorney stated that our client and others were inflating paychecks and giving their manager and payroll officer a portion of the proceeds stolen in exchange for issuing the unearned money. Prior to arraignment our office negotiated a resolution of this case with the prosecution wherein a portion of the proceeds were repaid. In return the defendant was never arraigned on the indictments and the case was nolle prossed, or dismissed at the request of the district attorney.

Boston Municipal Court Docket # 09-2339. On March 26, 2009 Boston police were called to an upscale retail store in Boston's Back Bay. They were met by store managers who had detained a local female college student. The authorities alleged that the female had stolen over $1,200 worth of merchandise. She was witnessed by store security cameras placing dresses in a bag and walking out of the store without paying for the goods. Officers then observed several other items in the bag bearing tags from another local retail store. Our client was unable to produce a receipt for those items and the manager of that store was contacted. It was subsequently learned that those items were also stolen and had a value of $1,250. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the judge to impose pre-trial probation for a period of one year. If the defendant remains free from criminal trouble during that time period the case will not be prosecuted.

Quincy District Court Docket Number:  09-1115.  The prosecution alleged that the defendant, a former insurance claims adjuster called them to modify various terms in his automobile insurance policy.  The company complied.  Subsequently, and within a few weeks the company began getting insurance claims from the defendant that implicated the newly obtained terms.  The insurance company began making payments. When the claims kept coming in they became suspicious and launched an investigation.  They determined that the defendant had been fabricating the claims and a complaint issued.  Today our office succeeded in getting the case continued without a finding.  If the defendant stays free from criminal legal troubles over the next eighteen months the case will be dismissed. 

Roxbury District Court. Police at a local college investigated allegations that the defendant had been stealing credit cards and using the credit cards to make online purchases. The goods were sent to a designated location where they were accessed by an accomplice and subsequently sold for cash. In addition, it was alleged that the defendant had stolen money from another student at the school. The defendant was summoned to court for a clerk's hearing. At that hearing Attorney Neyman persuaded the clerk magistrate to dismiss all charges.

Boston Municipal Court # 09-1497. The prosecution alleged that on February 28, 2009 our client, an eighteen years old college freshman entered an upscale boutique and stole a significant quantity of merchandise. When the woman exited the store security alarms were activated. Store security personnel stopped her found the property and obtained a statement wherein she admitted to the theft. The next day our office was retained to represent the woman in court. On March 3, 2009 Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the client pre-trial probation. Provided that she remain free from trouble for six months the case will be dismissed.

Plymouth District Court Docket Number: 09-1180. Authorities alleged that on April 5, 2009 police were dispatched to the Wal-Mart for the report of a theft. The loss prevention manager stated that the suspect had taken several items, removed the packaging and attempted to conceal them and remove them from the store. The police approached our client, a resident alien and questioned him about the incident. He admitted to having committed the crimes and was arrested. Police found additional items in his possession that were reported stolen from another store. Attorney Neyman negotiated the dismissal of all felony charges. The remaining counts were continued without a finding for one year. Provided that our client remain free from criminal legal trouble all of these charges will be dismissed as well.

Hampton District Court # 08-1245. On May 18, 2008 Seabrook, New Hampshire police received a report of a car break at a local restaurant. An individual reported that the window to his BMW had been smashed out and several items taken from the vehicle. A description of the suspect vehicle was reported. Shortly thereafter police located the vehicle being driven by the defendant. Officers observed items they recognized as having been reported stolen in recent car breaks. The police searched the vehicle and found property that was stolen from cars in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. The defendant was charged with a felony. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the charges reduced to a misdemeanor. If the defendant remains free from criminal trouble for the next three (3) years the conviction will be vacated.

Waltham District Court. On April 20, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. Weston Police responded to a call regarding information on a stolen canoe. Six days earlier the victim reported that her canoe had been stolen. In response to the call, the police observed the defendant and two other Weston High School students operating the canoe in a local pond. The officers questioned the defendants and based on the information given charged all three with receiving stolen property. Attorney Neyman convinced the Clerk Magistrate to refrain from issuing a criminal complaint against his client.

Boston Municipal Court # 08-1481. The prosecution alleged that on February 15, 2008 at 2:20 a.m. Boston Police Officers responded to a radio call for a B&E in progress at 50 Congress Street. Upon arrival officers learned that the defendant was unlawfully inside the victim's Lincoln Navigator with an apparent to commit a felony. The gearshift had been broken as well. Officers confronted the defendant who attempted to flee and resist efforts to arrest him. It was further learned that the defendant had pushed the owner of the Lincoln while the police were en route. Our office succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Waltham District Court # 07-2402.  The prosecution claimed that on August 22, 2007 in the course of a stolen car investigation Weston Police drove by a home where it was believed that the owners were on vacation overseas.  The police approached the home and observed high school aged people having what appeared to be a party.  When the police were detected many of the people scattered through the woods.  Ultimately, the defendant, a Weston High School senior was located in the home, passed out and apparently under the influence of alcohol.  At the time, he was on probation for a prior drunk driving conviction.  Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution of the case whereby the defendant will not have a criminal record and all charges will be dismissed in August of this year.

Plymouth District Court # 07-4111.  On April 9, 2008, over a three day period Attorney Neyman tried a fourth offense drunk driving case in the Plymouth District Court.  The prosecution alleged that on December 15, 2007 Plymouth Police Officers responded to a 911 call stating that a car was driving at night on State Road with its lights off.  Responding officers made the same observation and the defendant was stopped.  When questioned the defendant was unable to respond to simple commands, did not know where he was going or where he had just been.  He failed three separate field sobriety tests and admitted to having consumed a considerable amount of alcohol.  The trial lasted three (3) days.  The jury returned on three (3) occasions to advise the Court that they were hopelessly deadlocked.  Each time, the judge requested that they resume their deliberations.  The defendant was convicted and sentenced.  Three (3) days later our office learned that a court officer made inappropriate comments to the jury about their deliberation process.  During the improper communication the jurors told the court officer that they were deadlocked at 3-3.  We immediately filed a motion to vacate the conviction.  Today, the prosecution agreed to our motion and the case will be retried in a few months. 

Framingham District Court # 08-0780.  The prosecution alleged that on February 23, 2008 at 1:07 a.m. Hopkinton police responded to two 911 calls report "a possible domestic in progress".  Upon arrival police were met by the alleged victim.  She reported that the defendant was upset about their children having written on the wall.  She claimed that as the argument escalated the defendant pulled off his belt, wrapped it around his hand and struck her with it in the face.  The defendant was charged and retained our office to defend the case.  We quickly obtained all discovery materials and scheduled a jury trial.  That day, all charges against the defendant were dismissed.

Brighton District Court # 08-0260.  The prosecution alleged that on February 7, 2008 a Massachusetts State Police officer was conducting queries on random license plates.  He conducted a query of the defendant's car and observed a female operating the vehicle.  The query revealed that the vehicle owner had a revoked driver's license due to an out of state drunk driving conviction.  The officer located the defendant, a Boston Public School teacher at her residence, interrogated her and learned that she had in fact been the operator of the vehicle he queried.  Charges for operating after suspension subsequently issued.  Today, Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the prosecution to dismiss all charges.

West Roxbury District Court.  The prosecution alleged that on April 20, 2008 at 12:25 a.m. Boston Police responded to a radio call of complaints that there was a loud argument in the area of Huntington Avenue and Shepherd Street.  Upon arrival the police observed a large crowd in front of 2 Shepard Street and a larger crowd inside the residence.  The majority of the crowd was consuming alcohol and most appeared to be under the age of twenty-one (21).  While attempting to gain control of the crowd the police observed the defendant, a college freshman attempting to flee from the rear of the residence while drinking alcohol.  When approached the defendant produced an out of state driver's license bearing the name of another.  The defendant was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol and providing a false name to police.  Our office succeeded in having the charges dismissed in their entirety prior to arraignment. 

Quincy District Court # 07-4879.  The defendant, a Quincy man was charged in August of 2007 with possession with intent to distribute a class "B" substance as a second and subsequent offense, conspiracy and school zone violation.  The nature of the charges mandates Superior Court jurisdiction and a minimum mandatory three (3) year sentence to state prison plus and additional two (2) year mandatory sentence for the school zone violation.  Prior to the day of trial Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the prosecution to keep the case in the district court and refrain from indicting the case.  Accordingly, that portion of the possession with intent charge alleging "second and subsequent offense" was dismissed.  Also prior to trial, Attorney Neyman investigated the matter and learned that the alleged violation was not within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school zone and the prosecution agreed to a dismissal of that count in the complaint as well.  On the day of trial our office succeeded in having the remaining charge dismissed.

Suffolk Superior Court # 06-10587.  In August of 2000, represented by another law office, the defendant was convicted of carjacking, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  He was sentenced to 5-6 years in state prison and received probation from and after that sentence for a period of four (4) years.  After release from prison the defendant failed to report to probation, failed to report his whereabouts, failed to pay his probation supervision fee, failed to perform community service, failed to report every two weeks and failed to participate in an inpatient drug treatment course, all in violation of his probation.  In fact, the defendant had moved to Florida and started a new life, completing schooling for massage therapy.  When he attempted to get licensed the Florida licensing authorities were alerted to the outstanding probation warrants in Massachusetts.  The defendant retained our office and, with the assistance of Attorney Neyman surrendered to the Massachusetts authorities.  Our office succeeded in getting the probation terminated, thereby ending the defendant's Massachusetts probation obligations and permitting him to lawfully return to Florida

Chelsea Court # 08-0263.  On January 31, 2008 Chelsea police responded to an anonymous call for a domestic violence disturbance at the defendant's home.  The officers knocked on the door and were met by the victim.  She was crying and her eyes were bloodshot.  She had a cut on her left cheek leading from her nose to the corner of her mouth.  There was wet blood on her chin and a cut underneath her chin.  The defendant made inculpatory statements to the police during the course of the investigation.  On the day of trial Attorney Neyman secured a dismissal of all charges against the defendant.

Ayer Court # 07-2375.  As early as May 2007 employees for the Town of Ayer began to notice that various items in the water treatment department had been missing.  The observations were reported to town officials and ultimately the police were called in to investigate the thefts.  Several town employees were interviewed and the investigation led to the defendant as being a prime suspect in the theft of various items.  Two key witnesses told the police that the defendant had admitted to them to taking some IT equipment for his personal use.  Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution of the case whereby the defendant will not have a criminal record and all charges will be dismissed in six (6) months.

Lynn Court # 07-3738. In June of 2007 Lynn Police and Massachusetts State Police were investigating a major heroin distribution ring centered in Lynn, Massachusetts. During the course of surveillance they observed the defendant, an aerospace engineer and his girlfriend drive to an area known for high incidents of narcotics offenses. The vehicle was operated in a manner consistent with counter surveillance techniques. The defendant finally stopped the car in front of a house suspected as a storage facility and distribution point for heroin. Two males approached the vehicle and were seen engaging in a narcotics transaction with the defendant. Specifically, police observed one of the men provide two bags of heroin to the defendant. Surveillance continued and when the defendant drove away from the house backup officers conducted a stop. In the defendant's control was a quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Attorney Neyman negotiated a disposition where the charge of knowingly being present where heroin is kept was dismissed and the possession of heroin will be dismissed in 9 months.

Lynn Court # 07-4083. On June 10, 2007 Lynn Police were involved in a heroin trafficking investigation targeting numerous large scale North Shore heroin dealers. In the course of their investigation they encountered the defendant, a Saugus business owner and his entrepreneur girlfriend, purportedly attempting to sell top of the line brand new stolen computer equipment. Police detectives located a Visa Credit Card receipt for the equipment bearing the name of a New Hampshire resident in the defendant's possession. Officers contacted the victim and learned that his credit card had in fact been stolen while he had been at a gym in New Hampshire. The victim further told police that unauthorized purchases in excess of $2,500.00 were charged to his account. Police investigators next went to the store where the illegal purchases were made and through a security videotape were able to make a positive identification of the defendant. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed on the day of trial.

Brockton Court # 05-8315.  The prosecution alleged that on December 8, 2005 they were dispatched to a Laundromat on Main Street in response to a 911 call.  The caller, an employee of the Laundromat, claimed that the defendant entered her store and asked her if she wanted to buy some "flave", a street name for crack cocaine.  When she refused he made lewd sexual remarks and left the store.  The woman called the police who immediately responded and found the man in his car outside the Laundromat in possession of fifteen bags of crack cocaine and four bags of marijuana.  The cocaine weight was 13.9 grams and the incident took place within 1,000 feet of a school zone.  A conviction would require a minimum mandatory 2 year sentence to the house of correction.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Lynn District Court # 07-7078.  The prosecution alleged that on November 18, 2007 they were dispatched to Emerson Place on a reported 911 call.  When they arrived at the scene they were met by a woman who was crying and shaking.  She claimed that she the defendant, a suburban Boston business owner, had been in a dating relationship and that in the course of an argument he smashed out the driver's window of her car.  She also claimed that he threw a rock at her and blocked her escape with a motor vehicle.  Our office succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Roxbury District Court # 06-6180.  Boston Police alleged that on December 9, 2006 they responded to a radio call to assist Northeastern University  police with a motor vehicle accident involving a possible drunk driver.  Upon arrival the police learned from witnesses that the driver had struck two cars.   The responding officers then located the defendant outside her vehicle, slumped and seated on apartment building stairs.  While attempting to ascertain the woman's physical condition the officers noted that she was unable to respond to questions, unable to stand and emanating a strong odor of alcohol.  The woman was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol.  On the day of trial Attorney Neyman convinced the judge to dismiss the charges.

West Roxbury Court # 07-2836.  The prosecution claimed that on September 12, 2007 police were called to Parker Street in Roxbury for shots fired.  Upon arrival the police observed a window that appeared to have bee shot out.  An investigation led Boston Police to the defendant, a local college student.  Witnesses told the police that the defendant had committed the act and law enforcement was directed to the weapon.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges continued without a finding.  If the defendant stays out of trouble for 1 year all charges will be dismissed and he will not have a criminal record.

Woburn District Court # 07-3083.  On October 8, 2007 around 10:50 p.m. a Massachusetts State Trooper was traveling Northbound on Route 93 in the Wilmington area at approximately 75 miles per hour.  The trooper observed two vehicles passing traffic in the right lanes at speeds estimated to exceed 90 miles per hour.  The operators of both vehicles were stopped and questioned.  One of the drivers admitted to drag racing.  The defendant had a prior criminal record.  The defendant was charged and at arraignment our office succeeded in persuading the prosecution and the judge to continue the matter without a finding.  The case will be dismissed in 6 months.

Lawrence District Court.  On October 27, 2007 the defendant, a Junior A hockey player selected for a Division I scholarship next year was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Route 93 Northbound in Andover, Massachusetts.  State Police responded to the scene.  Upon their arrival they noticed the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the inside of the defendant's vehicle.  Upon further investigation the officer located and seized a quantity of marijuana from the defendant's car.  At a clerk's hearing Attorney Neyman convinced the Clerk Magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint.  Had a complaint issued it is likely that the defendant would have lost his scholarship offer.

Lowell District Court # 07-5478.  On August 6, 2007 an accountant was charged with five counts of larceny over $250.00.  The prosecution alleged that over a three month period through an elaborate scheme the defendant stole funds from her employer in excess of $11,000.00.  Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution of the case wherein the defendant will not have a criminal record and all charges will be dismissed.

Boston Municipal Court # 07-6457.  On September 26, 2007, the Boston Police arrested a sophomore at Northeastern University and charged him with malicious destruction of property and being a disorderly person.  According to the police report, the defendant allegedly kicked and damaged a wreath displayed in honor of nine firefighters that perished in a fire.  Prior to arraignment, this office negotiated that the case be dismissed prior to arraignment on the successful completion of agreed conditions. 

West Roxbury District Court.  Boston police alleged that on October 17, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. they observed the defendant, a professional light heavyweight boxer, standing on the sidewalk near the Forest Hills MBTA station.  A motorcycle arrived at which time police officers observed the driver pull up to the defendant.  The two hugged during which time the officers saw an exchange take place.  The defendant handed money to the other individual in exchange for two plastic bags.  It was later learned that the bags contained crack cocaine.  According to the police officers, upon arrest the defendant admitted to purchasing the crack cocaine for a specified sum of money.  At the clerk's hearing Attorney Neyman convinced the police and the clerk magistrate to continue the matter without issuing charges.  No complaint will issue.

Quincy District Court # 07-1985.  State police alleged that on August 24, 2007 while operating an unmarked cruiser a trooper observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle stopped at a traffic light.  The driver was smoking from a small pipe consistent with pipes used to ingest marijuana.  The car was pulled over on Route 93 near Granite Avenue.  Upon contact the trooper detected the strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana.  He observed the front seat passenger with a quantity of marijuana in her possession and he located the pipe and found it to contain marijuana and marijuana residue.  Attorney Neyman appeared at the clerk's hearing and succeeded in having all charges dismissed with payment of court costs.  No complaint will issue. 

Roxbury District Court Clerk's Show Cause Hearing. The defendant was charged with distributing alcohol to a minor at 11 p.m. on September 7, 2007. According to the police report, Northeastern University Police stopped the defendant and his companion after they exited a package store located off campus. The report alleged that the defendant was carrying a 30-pack of beer and a package of Mike's Lemonade. A Campus Police Officer reported that the defendant was seen passing another 30-pack of beer to an underage student. The defendant denied the charges. Following a show cause hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate declined to issue a complaint and the case will be dismissed in one year provided the defendant stays out of trouble.

Lowell District Court # 07-2104. On January 1, 2007 Tyngsborough, Massachusetts police responded to a home invasion occurring shortly after midnight. According to police, earlier in the evening two groups of young men engaged in an altercation at a New Years Eve party. The fight concluded and the combatants went their separate ways. Later in the evening, one of the groups sought revenge on the other and after midnight headed to another house where the rival group had gathered. The assailants went to the house, forcibly entered and began beating the occupants. Witnesses stated that they observed the defendant striking another individual during one of the confrontations. Home invasion charges against our client were avoided and he was charged with two (2) counts of assault and battery. Attorney Neyman structured a resolution where all counts against his client will be dismissed in one year.

Dedham District Court # 07-1077.  On March 16, 2007 a local police officer responded to a dispatch reporting a motor vehicle crash where the driver left the scene.  The car struck and severed a telephone pole and the license plate of the car remained at the scene.  Local police traced the plate to the defendant who lived a few miles away.  The police accident reconstruction determined that the vehicle ran off the right shoulder, running down a traffic warning sign and striking the telephone pole.  It was further concluded that  the vehicle crossed into the oncoming travel lane for one hundred seventy two (172) feet after which the defendant drove to his home without stopping in violation of Massachusetts law.  Police contacted the man who admitted operating the vehicle.  Emanating from his person was the odor of an alcoholic beverage, he was unsteady on his feet and his eyes were blurry and bloodshot.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the leaving the scene charged dismissed.  The negligent operation charge was resolved by continuing the case without a finding for one year.   Provided the client commits no crimes in the next year this charge will be dismissed as well.

Salem District Court # 07-0674.  The complaining witness reported to Salem police that on March 3, 2007 she had a verbal argument with her husband that turned violent.  Specifically, the woman reported that the defendant struck her on both sides of her head with an open hand.  The impact was so hard that she became light headed and fell to the ground.  The defendant then climbed on top of her and placed both hands around her throat and began to choke her.  The defendant subsequently picked up a dust pan and struck the complainant multiple times on her legs and thighs stopping only when the dust pan broke.  The defendant then purportedly grabbed the woman by the head and held her head up against the wall.  The defendant hired our offices and Attorney Neyman quickly moved to get the case scheduled for trial on September 12, 2007.  That day our office convinced the court to dismiss the case.

Somerville District Court Docket Number 07-0354.  On August 8, 2007 a Medford man applied for and was granted a restraining order against a woman from Stoneham.  The man told the District Court judge that he and the woman had been involved in a relationship for over five (5) years and that on several occasions she would physically assault him, scratch him, bite him and had attempted to stab him with a knife.  The complainant further stated that after the relationship ended the woman stalked him incessantly.  One month the woman supposedly text messaged him nearly two thousand (2,000) times.  On September 4, 2007 Attorney Neyman was hired by the woman to challenge the restraining order.  He succeeded in having the order vacated on September 11, 2007.

West Roxbury District Court #07-0844. On March 11, 2007 Boston Police responded to Ridge Street in the Roslindale section of Boston where they were met by the co-defendant's mother. The woman claimed that she and her daughter had a physical altercation pertaining to the defendant, an alleged drug dealer. The woman showed the police a sandwich bag containing crack cocaine that she found hidden in a fan in the defendant's bedroom closet. Drug Control officers were then called to the house. They were able to seize more cocaine, marijuana and firearm ammunition. A total of more than thirty (30) grams of cocaine was seized from the defendant's bedroom. Im Massachusetts, this quantity of cocaine requires a mandatory minimum sentence of five (5) years on state prison with an additional two (2) years for being within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school zone. The defendant faced a minimum mandatory seven (7) year sentence. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges against the defendant dismissed.

Lowell District Court Docket Number: 07-1879. After an 18 month investigation the defendant, a New York woman living in Massachusetts was charged with presenting a false insurance claim, attempting to commit a crime and false report of the theft of a motor vehicle. The prosecution alleged that in November of 2005 the defendant reported to the Lowell Police that her 1997 luxury vehicle had been stolen. The loss was reported to her insurance company as well. According to the prosecution the defendant stated that she had made no other claims in the previous three years and that she had no other vehicles registered to her or purchased in her name. The invesigation revealed that claims had been made in the recent past and that she owned three vehicles. Police were unable to find evidence of forced entry at the location where the car had been reported stolen despite the fact that the defendant claimed to have locked the vehicle and that only she had keys to the car. The car was ultimately located in Guilford, Connecticut. Forensic experts concluded that the car was not in fact stolen and charges were brought against the defendant. Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution that will result in the dismissal of all charges in one year. The defendant will have no criminal record.

Brookline District Court Docket Number 06-0859. The police alleged that in November of 2006 they went to the defendant's apartment in Brookline, Massachuetts to serve an arrest warrant. Upon arrival they noticed marijuana in an ashtray and began a search of the apartment purportedly with the consent of the defendant. During the search police located a package containing seventeen (17) ounces of marijuana. The package was addressed to the defendant. All of this took place within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school zone mandating a minimum two (2) year sentence were the defendant to be convicted of this charge. Our office succeeded in having this charge dismissed.

Dedham District Court Docket Number 06-0664. The prosecution alleged that in August 2006 police were approached by a taxicab driver who claimed to have just been assaulted by the defendant. The cab driver stated that he picked the defendant up in downtown Boston and drove him to Cleveland Circle in Brookline. During the ride the defendant became agitated with the cab driver due to the route he was taking. The defendant reached through the partition, punched the cab driver and began kicking the cab door causing substantial damage. Police located the defendant and upon their approach he was observed throwing a package containing marijuana packaged in a manner consistent with the intent to distribute. On the day of trial Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charges dismissed.

West Roxbury District Court Docket Number 06-2738. On September 4, 2006 Boston Police responded to a dispatch for a breaking and entering in a basement apartment on Boylston Street in Boston. Upon arrival the police encountered the victim who had been stabbed twice in the right shoulder area. The victim told police that when he arrived home at his apartment he found the defendant hiding and holding a knife. The defendant then stabbed the victim two times and fled out of the apartment through the rear door. The police canvassed the neighborhood and located the defendant hiding and covered in blood. As the police restrained the defendant they located a set of handcuffs on the floor behind him. During a booking search the police found a key that fit the handcuffs. After filing several motions and appearing at numerous court appearances, on the date of trial Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges against the defendant dismissed.

Somerville District Court

On March 18, 2007 Somerville Police officers responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at 2:15 in the afternoon. Upon arrival the police were met by the victim and defendant and learned that after an argument the defendant began hitting, scratching and biting the victim. Evidence supporting the allegations was found on the victim. At the show cause hearing Attorney Neyman convinced the clerk magistrate to order all charges dismissed. As a result, no complaint issued against the defendant and the matter is terminated.

Roxbury District Court. On January 4, 2007, while at work the defendant's supervisor contacted security and complained that she had been struck by the defendant in a dispute involving other personnel at a Boston hospital. The Boston Police were contacted and the defendant was summonsed to the Roxbury District Court for a clerk's hearing to determine whether or not a criminal complaint should issue. The victim and the Boston Police appeared at the hearing and related details of the incident to a magistrate. Our office succeeded in persuading the magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint and all charges were dropped.

Concord District Court # 06-2042. On November 27, 2006 Maynard Police officers responded to the defendant's home for a report of a domestic dispute in progress. The defendant's wife invited the police into the house where they found broken dishes and items strewn about the home, all indicative of a violent event. The wife reported to the officers that the defendant grabbed her by the neck and shoulder and threw her around the home in a violent rage. The couple's fifteen year old daughter called the police. The defendant was arrested and charged with assault and battery. Our office succeeded in getting the charges dismissed.

Roxbury District Court # 06-2079. On April 29, 2006 Boston Police responded to call regarding an altercation in the Roxbury section of Boston. Upon arrival the police spoke with a woman who claimed that while walking down the street with her boyfriend the defendant grabbed her buttocks in an aggressive manner and made lewd comments. The woman's boyfriend and the defendant then got into the altercation that prompted the police to respond. The defendant was arrested and during the booking search the police located eight (8) vials of marijuana. The prosecution further alleged that the defendant admitted to possessing the marijuana with the intention to distribute that substance. Attorney Neyman convinced the judge to continue the case without a finding. Provided the defendant remains free of legal problems for the next year all charges will be dismissed.

Concord District Court # 06-2121. The prosecution alleged that on December 14, 2006 police responded to a 911 call regarding a dispute between a man and woman. When the police entered the premises the complainant told them that she and the defendant were having an argument during which the defendant threw her to the floor and struck her about the head. Attorney Neyman's office succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Cambridge District Court # 06-2218.  The prosecution alleged that on October 1, 2006 City of Cambridge police officers responded to the defendant's home.  They were met by the defendant's wife who complained that during an argument the defendant struck her about the chest and face.  Police officers further claimed to have seen redness to the wife's cheek and ear.  At the time of this incident the defendant and his wife had been married for about one year.  The defendant, an alien resident had concerns about his work and immigration status should he be convicted of the pending charges.  During the third court appearance we had all charges against the defendant dismissed. 

Chelsea District Court # 99-1693.  On October 10, 2006 Attorney Neyman convinced a judge sitting in the Chelsea District Court to vacate a 1999 conviction against a Connecticut laborer and to order a new trial.  A deportation order requiring the defendant's removal from the country was pending at the time.  Trial was scheduled for December 4, 2006.  That day, our office had all charges dismissed and the case has been closed.

Newton District Court # 06-0959.  The defendant, a local attorney was charged with domestic assault and battery in the Newton District Court.  On the day of the alleged incident, the defendant's wife made a 911 call to the police and claimed that during an argument the defendant became agitated and assaulted her.  The wife subsequently applied for and obtained a restraining order prohibiting the defendant from contacting the wife and to vacate the marital residence.  All events were alleged to have occurred on October 18, 2006.  On November 21, 2006 Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all criminal charges dismissed and the restraining order vacated. 

Chelsea District Court # 99-1693.  In 1999 the defendant, a Haitian laborer, was convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  It was alleged that during the course of a racially motivated argument the defendant stabbed the victim causing seriously injuries.  Fearing an uncertain result after trial the defendant pleaded guilty to avoid jail time.  A few years later, the government obtained a deportation order requiring the defendant's removal from the United States, notwithstanding the fact that he was gainfully employed, married and the sole provider for his children ages 8, 10 and 14.  While that matter remained open on appeal, our office was contacted to vacate the plea in hopes of avoiding deportation.  After hearing the sentencing judge agreed to vacate the conviction and the matter was put on a trial scheduling track for resolution.

Boston Municipal Court # 06-2913.  The defendant, a 46 year old Pennsylvania man was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The alleged victim was his girlfriend.  The police reported that on May 1, 2006 they received a call from security personnel at a prominent Boston waterfront hotel.  Upon arrival they found the alleged victim who claimed that the defendant kicked her about the head and face several times with a shod foot and his fists.  The officers observed swelling and redness to the face corroborating the representations of the woman.  Trial was scheduled for October 4, 2006.  On that date all charges against the defendant were dismissed at the request of our office.

Boston Municipal Court # 05-5379.  The defendant was the assistant manager of a Boston clothing store.  The prosecution claimed that for an extensive period of time the defendant was falsifying time records for herself and other employees of the store, resulting in a theft estimated in excess of $8,000.00.  On October 28, 2005 a complaint issued charing the defendant with larceny of $250.00.  The crime carried a sentence of up to 2 years in the House of Correction or 5 years in State Prison.  On October 3, 2006 Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the case dismissed.

West Roxbury District Court # 06-2986.  The Boston Police alleged that on the date of this incident they responded to a house party after receiving a report that a person with a gun was at this residence.  When the police arrived at the scene they observed a crowd of approximately 100 people inside the residence and another crowd exiting the party and gathering on the sidewalk.  Fights on the sidewalk erupted and one of the police officers alleged that the defendant refused to leave the area notwithstanding instructions to the contrary.  It was further alleged that when the police tried to arrest the defendant for disorderly conduct he resisted arrest.  All charges will be dismissed in 6 months provided that the defendant complete a 90 minute alcohol awareness program. 

Boston Municipal Court # 06-5782.The Boston Police alleged in a report that after receiving a 911 call they arrived at the defendant's home and observed the purported victim holding ice to her mouth and complaining that the defendant had struck her and dragged her into his bedroom.  The defendant was arrested and charges of assault and battery issued.  On the day of arraignment all charges against the defendant were dismissed.

Roxbury District Court # 06-2207. Police charged a Boston man with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana. It was alleged that on May 6, 2006 a police officer observed the defendant's car parked in an area known for high incidents of drug activity. The officer approached and observed the defendant and two passengers making furtive hand movements and attempting to hide something under the seat. As the officer approached to investigate the defendant started his motor vehicle and fled at a high rate of speed. While doing so the defendant's vehicle struck the officer causing physical injuries. The officer radioed for assistance and subsequently the defendant's vehicle was stopped. During a search marijuana was found on the defendant. Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charges continued without a finding.

Roxbury District Court. On May 8, 2006 several college students were celebrating the culmination of their freshman year final exams by hosting a party in their dorm room. The party spread to the dormatory rooftop where police spotted the defendant consuming alcohol. The investigation further concluded that the students were in possession of stolen property and charges issued at the Roxbury District Court. All charges against the individual our office represented were dismissed by a clerk magistrate after hearing.

Roxbury Court Number:  05-1798.  On April 15, 2005 a local college student was charged in the Roxbury District Court with possession with the intent to distribute Class C and Class D substances and with doing so within 1000 feet of a school zone.  The charges carried a minimum mandatory two year period of incarceration.  The complaint stemmed from a four month investigation during which local police received numerous complaints that the defendant was selling marijuana and "psychedelic mushrooms".  On several occasions, police arrived at the defendant's dormatory room and smelled the odor of burnt marijuana.  Police learned from confidential sources that the defendant kept the marijuana and other substances in a gray lock box.  On April 15, 2005, armed with a search warrant, police searched the defendant's room and seized the lock box.  The lock box was forcibly opened and located inside were "psychedelic mushrooms", marijuana and other items consistent with drug distribution.  Our office filed and argued motions to suppress claiming that the search and seizure of the gray lock box was unlawful and in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.  A District Court judge agreed and on April 10, 2006 all charges were dismissed. 

East Boston Court # 05-0277.  On February 26, 2005 Boston Police responded to a call detailing an incident of domestic violence.  Upon arrival the police spoke with the victim who stated that the defendant had smashed her head off the interior window of his truck and attempted to throw her out of the vehicle while it was still moving.  The victim further told the police that the defendant had punched her in the mouth two times.  The police observed the woman to have swollen lips, and fresh red marks to the left side of her head and face.  The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and faced a prison charge of up to fifteen years.  Our office succeeded in getting all charged dismissed on the day of trial.

East Boston Court #05-0640.  In an undercover capacity Boston Police witnessed the defendant engaged in a drug transaction with a known female heroin user.  The police apprehended the woman and found a sizable quantity of heroin in her possession.  The woman admitted that she had just made the purchase from the defendant.  She provided law enforcement with his name and address.  The information she provided was corroborated by the undercover officers' observations.  In addition, in their report the police described the defendant as "known to officers, and sells heroin in the East Boston community".  The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with selling heroin in a school zone, a charge that mandates more than two years incarceration.  After trial the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

Salem District Court # 04-4351.  A Salem woman charged with trafficking a class A substance retained Attorney Stephen Neyman to defend her.  The police obtained information that the defendant, a paralegal, was receiving packages containing large quantities of narcotics at her place of employment.  Armed with a search warrant the police entered the office and seized a package addressed to the defendant.  The package contained controlled substances.  A few days later, again pursuant to a search warrant, police entered the office and located another package.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in having the trafficking charges dismissed and the case was disposed of by continuing the case without a finding to so much of the complaint as charged possession.  All charges will be formally dropped if the defendant remains free from all criminal legal problems for the next 18 months.

Hingham District Court # 02-0583.  The defendant was charged with possessing with the intent to distribute 25 pounds of marijuana.  Police contended that on the date of the arrest they had information from a confidential informant that a large quantity of marijuana would be transported from Saugus, Massachusetts to the Plymouth, Massachusetts area.  The police conducted surveillance and witnessed the defendant driving up to the house of the co-defendant at which time the co-defendant placed a large bag into the trunk area.  Surveillance followed the vehicle from the North Shore through Boston and on towards the South Shore where the defendant was stopped.  The police conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and located 25 pounds of marijuana.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the case dismissed.

Middlesex Superior Court # 2004-0323.  After a two week trial a Middlesex County jury acquitted the defendant of murder.  The government theorized that the defendant deliberately shot and killed the victim, a female, while engaging in a road rage related incident.  The defense contended that the shooting was precipitated by the victim who witnesses said appeared to be trying to run the defendant's car off of the highway.  The defense presented three expert witnesses to support its theory of the case.  An accident reconstructionist concluded that the victim was the aggressor on the highway and that she was overtaking the defendant's vehicle at the time of impact between the two vehicles.  This theory was corroborated by eyewitnesses located by the defense.  A firearms expert testified that the shot that was fired by the defendant was an impossible shot to make intentionally and that the impact of the collision likely caused the weapon to discharge.  A toxicologist testified that the victim's actions that evening were consistent with an abuse of crystal meth, a drug that witnesses identified as being used by the victim with frequency in the months leading up to the shooting.  The jury returned a verdict of involuntary manslaughter.

Suffolk Superior Court # 03-10244.  After nearly two weeks of trial and deliberations a Suffolk County jury deadlocked in the trial of a Boston man charged with first degree murder.  The government contended that the victim was a drug dealer with whom the defendant had frequent dealings.  It was further alleged that the defendant, along with others, conspired to rob the victim of either drugs or money by luring him out of his home on the pretext of buying some cocaine from him.  The defense succeeded in exposing the inadequacies of the police investigation.  Additionally, the defense elicited evidence that the police had compromised the crime scene and destroyed valuable and potentially exculpatory evidence.  The case will be retried on November 28, 2005.

Malden District Court # 04-2200.  The government alleged that the defendant was standing near a 7-11 convenience store when police observed him making a sale of narcotics to persons in a parked car.  The police stopped the purchasers who identified the defendant as the person having just sold them the drugs.  The defendant was arrested and charged with distribution of marijuana, a class D substance.  The charges carried a possible 2 year sentence to the house of correction.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charged dismissed on the day of trial.

Armed with a search warrant, Boston police entered the defendant's apartment, conducted their search and found him in possession of 8 bags of marijuana and a large sum of cash.  The defendant was ultimately charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in a school zone.  If convicted the defendant faced a mandatory two year sentence requiring incarceration.  Our office succeeded in getting all charges against this individual dismissed.

Ayer District Court # 2004-1989.  The government alleged that the defendant, a Harvard woman, flipped her husband's pick-up truck on Route 495 and fled the scene.  Police detectives investigating the matter determined that the defendant had been drinking whiskey when she lost control of the vehicle, struck a utility pole and caused the truck to flip over.  Shortly after discovering the vehicle the police located the defendant's husband who stated that the defendant had been out and that he had not seen her for several hours.  The police later found the defendant and noted fresh cuts and bruises on her face and body.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in having the charges dismissed prior to trial.

Suffolk Superior Court.  A Boston woman subpoenaed by the government to testify at a murder trial admitted to defense investigators to having lied before the grand jury investigating the case in the summer of 2002.  Faced with a possible life sentence for the crime Attorney Neyman asserted the woman's Fifth Amendment privilege.  The trial judge initially denied the request and the matter was litigated in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  Despite their order that the witness testify, Attorney Neyman convinced the trial judge to reconsider his ruling and allow her to assert the privilege.  Reconsideration was allowed and the witness exercised her constitutional rights. As a result, the witness was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony at trial.

Framingham District Court 04-2534. After a routine motor vehicle stop the defendant was charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and using a counterfeit Florida drivers license. The prosecution contended that Florida officials confirmed that the license number sequence was invalid and that the document was in fact counterfeit. Massachusetts General Laws defines the crime as a felony, punishable by five years in state prison. During the second court appearance Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charges against the defendant dismissed.

Dorchester Docket Number 04-5488. The complaining witness alleged that on September 12, 2004 she met the defendant and another man at a nightclub in downtown Boston. The woman accompanied the two men to an apartment where she claimed to have been raped twice. Specifically, the woman complained to police and medical personnel that the defendant 'physically forced himself upon her and twice penetrated her vaginally with his penis'. After two court appearances we succeeded in having all charges dismissed.

Brighton District Court Docket Number 04-1240. The defendant, a graduate of Penn State University was with several friends attending the Penn State/Boston College football game. Authorities alleged that the defendant was unlawfully consuming alcohol in the stands, and when asked to leave the stadium became loud, agitated, refused to leave and resisted arrest. After two court appearances our office was successful in getting the government and judge to agree to dismiss the case.

Docket Number SUCR 2003-10808. A Charlestown man charged with armed robbery and armed home invasion was acquitted after a jury trial in Suffolk County.  The government presented civilian and police witnesses identifying the defendant as having entered the victim's home at 6:00 a.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003.  It was alleged that the defendant placed a knife to the throat of the victim and rummaged through his parents bedroom, fleeing with money taken from a pair of the victim's father's pants.  The defendant was facing a mandatory life sentence as a habitual offender.  Through cross-examination Mr. Neyman effectively attacked the accuracy and integrity of the identification and the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all counts.

Lawrence District Docket No. 03-7912. After an evidentiary hearing Mr. Neyman succeeded in convincing a judge to dismiss all charges against a local attorney charged with drunk driving, assaulting a police office and resisting arrest.  During the hearing Mr. Neyman was able to prove that the defendant was not drunk, had not operated the car, never struck the police officers and never resisted the arrest.  In a lengthy decision castigating the responsible police officers the District Court Judge held "regrettably, in this case all of the training, all of the policies and all of the professionalism failed.  The numerous violations of the defendant's statutory and constitutional rights by the …police on the evening in question…cannot be justified and in fact must be called into question.  They leave no effective alternative remedy but to dismiss the complaint in its entirety".

Newburyport District Docket No. 03-0849. Mr. Neyman was successful in obtaining an acquittal for an architect charged with second offense drunk driving.  The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant was swerving his car in and out of solid dividing lines and operating at an extremely high rate of speed on a downtown Amesbury street.  It was further alleged that the defendant needed to support himself by leaning on his own car, could not adequately perform simple field sobriety tests such as reciting the alphabet and walking heal to toe in a straight line.  At trial Mr. Neyman asked the officer to perform such tests. The officer used the witness stand box to support himself, shook nervously while demonstrating the field sobriety tests and himself failed to complete the heal to toe test. The jury deliberated less than one hour before returning a not guilty verdict.

Lawrence District Docket No. 03-4341. After a two day trial a CEO of a Boston based corporation was found not guilty of second offense drunk driving by an Essex County jury. State police officers stated that defendant crossed lines and weaved in and out of lane several times. Police testified that defendant had "stench of booze" on his breath and that the odor permeated the entire police barracks. Through receipts, the testimony of a bartender and defense expert toxicologist Dr. David Benjamin Mr. Neyman was able to affirmatively establish sobriety. Jury returned not guilty verdict in less than twenty minutes.