Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

What if I Accidentally Shot Someone While Defending Myself in Massachusetts?

Few deaths are more tragic than those that involve innocent bystanders shot by crossfire. These victims die despite having nothing to do with the altercations that claimed their lives, and it is difficult to see their shooters in a positive light. The real question is whether this constitutes murder. If you accidentally shoot someone while defending yourself against an armed attacker, should you face murder charges in Massachussets? This is a subject that a case in Massachusetts recently explored. 

Tragic Death Leads to New “Transferred Intent Self-Defense” Law in Massachusetts

In October of 2025, a major decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts effectively created a new “transferred intent self-defense” law. The decision stems from a tragic incident that claimed the life of an innocent bystander. This individual was shot by someone exercising their right to self-defense. 

In January of 2023, a shooting occurred at a shopping mall in Holyoke. Police arrived to find the shooter and arrested him without incident. They also found a mall employee nearby who had been struck and killed by a single bullet to the chest. 

During the arrest, the defendant admitted to firing the shot and noted that he was a licensed firearm owner. He also explained that he had been approached by an ex-boyfriend of his current girlfriend, who threatened him with a firearm. The defendant then fired from his pistol to eliminate the perceived deadly threat. One bullet struck the employee, and the ex-boyfriend fled the scene uninjured. 

This story was cast into doubt when the “ex-boyfriend” claimed that he was actually the current boyfriend of the woman at the scene. The intended target also noted that he had only slapped the defendant before he responded with deadly force. 

The defendant’s murder case is ongoing, although he was indicted and is set to argue self-defense. This situation requires the Supreme Court to determine whether a successful self-defense argument would also eliminate potential penalties for the death of the bystander. 

The Commonwealth then concluded that the right to self-defense “may” excuse the death of a bystander. The Commonwealth followed up by stating that a person in this situation could still face a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter with wanton or reckless conduct. This creates a new defense to murder, where the victim is an innocent bystander during a shooting in self-defense. 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Attorney Help Me?

If you face murder charges after accidentally shooting a bystander, you may want to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney in Massachussets. These legal professionals can help you assess whether your right to self-defense also allows you to avoid penalties for murder in this situation. Based on the recent decision in Massachusetts, one would think that this represents a viable defense strategy. However, each case is slightly different, and you might want to discuss your unique circumstances with Edward R. Molari.

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

What Is “Joint Venture Liability” for Massachusetts Firearms Offenses?

In October of 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision on the subject of “joint venture liability” for firearms possession in Massachusetts. Although the underlying laws regarding this decision are nothing new, they may be surprising to numerous defendants. The general idea is that you do not necessarily need to “own” a firearm to face charges for possession. Instead, you only need to participate in a crime that involved that firearm. To learn more about this subject, consider speaking with a criminal defense attorney in Boston.

The Background of the Case

This case stems from an incident involving two shootings after a party in a Lawrence apartment. When a fight broke out at the party, the defendant and another individual left in the defendant’s vehicle. They then returned to the party, at which point the other individual fired a single shot through the front door of the apartment. The shooter then returned to the defendant’s vehicle. 15 minutes passed, and an individual emerged from the apartment and approached a van. The defendant and the other individual then drove up to the van and shot at it. Police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant, but the firearm and the other individual were not present. 

The Importance of a License in “Constructive Possession” Cases

After being convicted of possessing a firearm without a license (among other things), the defendant argued that the judge failed to instruct the jury properly. Specifically, the defendant argued that the judge should have instructed the jury that for a conviction, the prosecutors must show that the defendant lacked a firearms license.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, noting that the judge should have instructed the jury in this way. The court also noted that this represented a substantial miscarriage of justice. The normal course of this action would be a new trial, but the defendant also argued that under the principle of double jeopardy, he should not face a new trial. The Commonwealth essentially agreed with this argument. 

The Commonwealth then goes on to argue that “in any event,” the defendant’s constructive possession can be affirmed by sufficient evidence. The only real requirement in this scenario is to establish that the defendant knew about the firearm and intended to exert control over it. The Commonwealth argues that the defendant exhibited this control and knowledge when he drove the shooter around during two separate shootings. 

In the end, the court affirmed some of the defendant’s convictions while reversing the charges related to firearms possession. Perhaps the most notable detail of this case is the fact that no firearm was ever recovered at the scene. This shows that possession charges are possible with no recovered firearm. 

Can a Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston Help Me?

A criminal defense attorney in Boston may be able to help if you face firearm possession charges. This recent decision shows that you may face these charges even if it is not “your” gun. As long as you participate in a crime involving a firearm, you may face possession charges. This is true even if the “true owner” admits that the firearm belongs to them. Continue this discussion with Edward R. Molari. 

Tags: 
gun crimes
Criminal Defense
Firearms

Juveniles Fail to Convince Commonwealth of Excessive Force Allegations

In July of 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard a case involving three juveniles who were charged with resisting arrest in Boston. These minors had been arrested by police officers following early dismissal from Brockton High School. Although the teens raised valid points, these arguments failed to convince the court that excessive force was involved in their arrests. The court did, however, agree that the arresting officer did not “permit at least a good-faith judgment” that probable cause existed. This paved the way for a motion to dismiss or for a required finding. 

Early High School Dismissal Leads to Multiple Arrests Near Brockton High School

In October of 2019, Brockton High School students flocked to the streets after an early dismissal at 11 AM. Numerous fights between students over the past week meant that local law enforcement was already on high alert, and they responded in force. Multiple fights broke out, and a large crowd of juveniles amassed on Florence Street. 

An officer approached the scene but could not travel faster than five miles per hour due to the density of the crowd. At this point, a student is alleged to have stuck his head through an open window in the police vehicle and yelled abuse at the officer. The officer then exited the vehicle and questioned the student. Another student put her phone inches from the officer’s face and accused him of harassing them. 

Students began to surround the officer, and the officer began shoving them away. Other officers came to assist, and eventually, numerous students were placed under arrest. In making their arrests, the officers engaged in violence such as kicking, shoving, and the use of a taser. 

Students Tell a Different Story During Trial

During their trial, the students told a very different story from the one presented by law enforcement. The first student denied having shouted into the officer’s vehicle. They also claimed that they were the victims of excessive force, and they presented video footage in an attempt to support these claims. Ultimately, these attempts failed to convince the lower court, although one juvenile experienced positive outcomes due to a jury instruction error. 

The Supreme Judicial Court was equally unimpressed. Aside from the single aforementioned concession, the court affirmed all of the juvenile’s charges, including resisting arrest and assault and battery. 

The court made a few noteworthy comments, however. It stated that the involvement of a second officer does not automatically mean that the defendant involved is resisting arrest, which is an argument that the Commonwealth tried to make. Specifically, the Commonwealth contended that the fact that the arresting officer needed assistance was sufficient evidence of a struggle associated with resisting arrest. The court noted that there are many other circumstances in which a second officer might assist another officer. 

From the perspective of the defendants, a less encouraging decision involved the student who had put a phone inches away from the officer’s face. The court defined this as a form of resisting arrest, even though the officer may have slapped the phone out of her hands multiple times before she actually touched him. 

Speak With an Experienced Defense Attorney in Boston

Issues like these often demand the attention of a criminal defense attorney in Boston. To learn more about the definition of resisting arrest in Boston, consider speaking with Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Committee for Public Counsel Services Releases Helpful Chart for Murder Sentences in Massachusetts

Murder sentences for younger people in Massachusetts can be difficult to understand, as the sentence depends on a range of complex factors. Even the average criminal defense attorney in Boston might struggle to understand this sentencing system, which shows how difficult the criminal justice system can be for the average young defendant. Thankfully, the Committee for Public Counsel Services has released a helpful chart that simplifies this sentencing system. 

The Legal Definition of “Emerging Adult”

The Committee begins by defining the legal term “emerging adult.” This category includes people between the ages of 18 and 20. This definition is important because the United States Supreme Court has decided that young people should not face the same punishments as adults. The Supreme Court has opined that young people lack mental maturity and a sense of responsibility while being more vulnerable to negative influences like peer pressure. Perhaps most notably, the Supreme Court has found that death penalties for children are unconstitutional. 

The Committee then notes that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts went one step further, holding that life without parole for children is also unconstitutional. As a result, people between the ages of 18 and 20 cannot face life without the possibility of parole in Massachusetts. The next question is obvious: If these individuals cannot be sentenced to life without parole, then what will their murder sentences be?

Sentences Depend on the Time of Conviction and Degree

The chart released by the Committee for Public Counsel Services shows that for young adults charged with murder, sentences depend both on the conviction date and the degree of the charge. 

First, those sentenced before August of 2012 can become eligible for parole within 15 years, regardless of the degree of their murder charges. Next, those sentenced between August 2012 and July 2014 can also become eligible for parole within 15 years, but courts may extend this eligibility wait to a maximum of 25 years.  The court can use its discretion in these circumstances. 

Finally, those sentenced after July 2014 become eligible for parole at different times depending on the degree of their murder charges. Those sentenced to first degree murder become eligible for parole after between 20 and 30 years. Those sentenced to first-degree murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty can only become eligible for parole after serving 30 years. Finally, those convicted of first degree murder with deliberate premeditated malice aforethought become eligible for parole after between 25 and 30 years. 

Can a Defense Attorney in Boston Help With Murder Charges?

If you have been accused of murder, consider speaking with a criminal defense attorney in Boston as soon as possible. While this new chart simplifies the murder sentencing system, understanding your potential sentence is only one aspect of your defense. You also need to determine how to avoid or mitigate these penalties if possible. Continue this conversation by contacting Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Defendant Acquitted of Drug Charges in Massachusetts Because of Hearsay Issue

As most people know, hearsay is not permitted as evidence in criminal trials. Despite this age-old legal rule, hearsay has a strange habit of making its way into criminal trials. Such was the case in a recent case involving a lawyer who was accused of smuggling drugs into a prison, and this hearsay evidence led to a conviction. However, an appeal exposed the legal error and led to the vacation of the conviction. What does this case tell us about drug trafficking charges in Massachusetts?

The Background of the Case

This case revolves around a 2018 case involving a lawyer who allegedly delivered suboxone to an inmate. This controlled substance was allegedly disguised as legal papers, and two officers confiscated these substances. Described as “orange strips,” the substances were then analyzed by analysts at a crime lab. One analyst at the lab concluded that based on her testing, the orange strips contained suboxone. A supervisor reviewed these conclusions but did not personally carry out the tests. 

Substitute Chemist Testifies During Trial

During the trial, the prosecution tried to call upon the analyst who had performed the tests. However, the prosecution then called upon the supervisor instead as a “substitute chemist.” During the trial, this substitute chemist explained that she had reviewed the testing procedures carried out by the first analyst but admitted that she did not carry out any of these tests personally. During cross-examination, she also admitted that in stating that the tests were accurate, she was relying entirely on the data provided by another person. 

Defense Tries to Strike Substitute Chemist’s Testimony

The defense tried to strike the testimony of the chemist, arguing that she was simply repeating what someone else had said. The defense also noted that the actual person who had performed these tests was not available to testify at the trial, making it impossible to cross-examine them. However, the judge denied the motion to strike and allowed the testimony to stand. 

Supreme Court Decision Makes Appeals Court Reverse Course

The appeals court upheld the conviction. However, a major decision by the Supreme Court in 2024 changed everything. In Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court upheld a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. This is also known as the Confrontation Clause, and it is part of the United States Constitution. This case forced the appeals court in Massachusetts to rethink its decision, and the defendant’s conviction was eventually vacated because they never had the chance to confront the chemist who actually carried out the tests. 

Contact an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston

This case highlights a valid defense strategy that other defendants can potentially use in drug trafficking trials. When the personal who analyzed the alleged drugs does not testify in trial, a “substitute expert” cannot testify in their place. Those who have experienced similar issues may be able to file similar appeals with help from Boston defense attorneys. Contact Edward R. Molari today to learn more. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Drug Possession Case Highlights How the Fourth Amendment Works in Massachusetts

The Fourth Amendment is an important aspect of the United States Constitution, and it prevents police officers from illegally searching or seizing the property of Massachusetts residents. However, this important safeguard doesn’t necessarily protect you from constitutional violations. Even if you are aware that your constitutional rights have been violated, you may need to file numerous appeals before achieving justice. This is exactly what one defendant recently did in Massachusetts, and he eventually experienced relief. An experienced Boston defense attorney may be able to help you achieve the same results. 

The Background of the Case

In late June of 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts reviewed a case involving cocaine possession after a traffic stop. The case stems from a 2019 traffic stop in Wilbraham. At about 9:30 PM, a police officer noticed the defendant in a grey sedan and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. According to the police officer, the defendant was moving at more than 60 miles per hour. After activating his police lights, the officer pulled over the sedan and approached the defendant on foot. 

Based on footage from the police officer’s dashcam, it appears that the defendant then stepped on the gas and drove away. The officer then re-entered his cruiser and pursued the defendant. Moments later, the defendant lost control of his vehicle before exiting and fleeing on foot. After an on-foot pursuit into a wooded area, the officer recovered a bag of cocaine allegedly dropped by the defendant. Although the defendant initially escaped, the authorities then searched his vehicle and recovered documents with his identification information. A subsequent investigation led to the defendant’s arrest. 

Superior Court Finds that Traffic Stop Was Unlawful and Unconstitutional

Two evidentiary hearings determined that this traffic stop was unlawful and unconstitutional. A motion judge described the reason for the stop as a “mystery,” noting several inconsistencies about the pursuing officer’s testimony. In short, there was not enough evidence to establish that the defendant was doing anything wrong at the time of the initial traffic stop, and GPS data seemed to cast doubt on the speeding allegations. 

Initially, a trial judge tried to argue that the defendant’s decision to flee made the bag of cocaine admissible as evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, noting that the defendant’s decision to flee an illegal traffic stop was valid. The Supreme Court also noted that the officer’s testimony was unreliable, even going so far as to imply that this might have been the result of racial profiling. 

Can a Massachusetts Defense Attorney Help With Fourth Amendment Violations?

This case highlights how the Fourth Amendment works in Massachusetts, and it provides hope to numerous defendants who may have faced unreasonable traffic stops. If you feel as though a police officer violated your constitutional rights, you may want to contact an experienced Boston defense attorney. As this case illustrates, it is possible to appeal a decision on Fourth Amendment grounds to achieve relief. Contact Edward R. Molari for more information.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Search and Seizure
Fruits of Illegal Search

Assault and Battery Case in Massachusetts Illustrates How Castle Doctrine Works

“Castle doctrine” has become something of a buzz phrase in recent years, and it is mired in the controversy of gun rights and self-defense. A Massachusetts resident defending themselves against an attacker does not have time to consider the potential controversy of their actions, however – and these implications only become important during subsequent criminal cases. A recent assault and battery case in Massachusetts illustrates how castle doctrine may be applied in the Commonwealth. 

Defendant Fails to Reduce Murder Charges After Stabbing Roommate

In June of 2025, the Appeals Court in Massachusetts neglected to reduce a second-degree murder charge to voluntary manslaughter for a defendant accused of stabbing his roommate. This case stems from a 2018 incident involving the defendant and his roommate, who were living together in the same apartment at the time. The defendant was living in a makeshift bedroom sectioned off from the rest of the apartment with a curtain, while the other roommate occupied a “real” bedroom. 

On the night of the incident, the defendant was reportedly listening to loud music and accessing inappropriate websites on his computer. The roommate became angry at this because his daughter and granddaughter were trying to sleep in another room. After repeatedly asking the defendant to turn down the music and computer audio, the other roommate then ripped down the curtain and smashed his laptop with a blunt instrument. 

Moments later, the defendant was spotted by another occupant of the apartment with a knife. The other roommate lay on the ground, wheezing and struggling to get up. The defendant then ran from the apartment before arriving at a friend’s house with blood on his clothing. Meanwhile, the roommate passed away from multiple stab wounds. 

The defendant was arrested and charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon (ABDW) and first-degree murder. At the end of the trial, the defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury on castle law (castle doctrine). However, the judge only provided instructions on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. The jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and ABDW. 

On appeal, the defendant tried to argue that the person he stabbed made an unlawful entry into his dwelling. In other words, he argued that tearing down the curtain of his makeshift room is equivalent to kicking down the front door of a house. The appeals court was not convinced. The appeals court noted that the roommate who died never made physical contact with the defendant’s body, and that the defendant “failed to satisfy his duty to retreat.” 

Under Massachusetts’ castle doctrine, there is no duty to retreat if someone unlawfully enters your home. Although the defendant argued that his curtain-divided room represented a separate dwelling, the court opined that both parties were “guests” lawfully living in the apartment. In other words, the court defined the “dwelling” in this context as the whole apartment, not the defendant’s separated living space. This key distinction maintained the defendant’s duty to retreat, and it lead to the denial of his appeal. 

Contact an Experienced Assault Defense Attorney in Boston

If you face assault and battery charges and you believe that you were acting in self-defense, it might be worth speaking with an experienced defense attorney in Boston. The complexities of castle doctrine can be challenging to understand through online research alone. Expand on this conversation by contacting Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Special Projects Unit Issues Practice Advisory in Massachusetts

The recent decision in Commonwealth v. Donnell has forced the Special Project Unit to issue a “practice advisory” in Massachusetts. This advisory highlights the wide-ranging implications of the 2025 case, which dealt with out-of-state residents facing firearms offenses in Massachusetts. Some observers also believe that this decision may affect Massachusetts residents, and it is a situation worth discussing even if you do not currently face firearms charges. If you do currently face firearms charges, contacting a firearms defense attorney in Massachusetts could be a logical next step. 

Defendants May Be Entitled to Vacatur and Dismissals

In May of 2025, the Special Projects Unit released an “important update” regarding out-of-state firearms offenses in Massachusetts. The update references the recent decision in Commonwealth v. Donnell. During this case, the “may issue” wording of the state’s licensing scheme was found to be unconstitutional. The case also involved an out-of-state defendant who had brought firearms into Massachusetts. 

The update tells defense attorneys that if they represented an out-of-state defendant under similar circumstances, they may pursue “vacatur and dismissal” of those charges. In other words, Commonwealth v. Donnell set a precedent that other defendants can take advantage of. This is something that defendants should take full advantage of, as a gun charge can seriously affect one’s professional reputation and rights. 

This new change revolves around the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and an early case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen). Although this decision occurred in a different state, it has affected the Commonwealth and many other similar cases. 

What Is Vacatur and Dismissal?

Vacatur and dismissal involves vacating a judgment. This process “cancels” the previous decision, allowing the court to make a new decision instead. Vacatur and dismissal mean to cancel a previous judgment and dismiss the charges altogether. Those who are incarcerated can use this process to achieve immediate release. Those who have already been released by the authorities can use this process to clear their criminal record. 

Note that this process does not happen automatically after the decision in Commonwealth v. Donnell. Instead, defendants and their attorneys must file motions to vacate. There is also some debate over whether the Commonwealth will apply this decision retroactively, or whether this pathway toward post-sentencing relief only applies to defendants charged with out-of-state gun charges after the decision in Commonwealth v. Donnell. 

If you believe that this decision could impact your case, you should discuss it with an experienced gun charge attorney in Massachusetts. This new development will likely lead to a slew of new motions to vacate, and you could benefit. 

Can a Massachusetts Firearms Defense Attorney Help Me?

Whether you face out-of-state firearms charges in Massachusetts or you mare facing allegations as a resident, Commonwealth v. Donnell could impact your case. To discuss the implications of this decision in more detail, consider contacting an experienced firearms defense attorney in Boston. Edward R. Molari has considerable experience in this area, and you can contact him today for more answers. 

Tags: 
gun crimes
Criminal Defense
Firearms

Massachusetts Case Shows That Dangerousness Hearing Testimony is Not Always Inadmissible

A dangerousness hearing occurs when the Commonwealth attempts to keep a defendant in jail without bail. During this hearing, the defendant has a chance to argue that they do not represent a danger to the community, and that they deserve to be released before their trial begins. Generally speaking, testimony from a dangerousness hearing is excluded from the subsequent trial. However, as a case in Massachusetts shows, this is not always the case. An experienced defense attorney in Boston may be able to explain this concept in more detail. 

Testimony Fails to Qualify as an Exception to Hearsay Rules

A notable case occurred in 2009, and it involved a domestic violence incident. The defendant was accused of various acts against an alleged victim, and this victim testified in a dangerousness hearing at the beginning of the case. The Commonwealth found that a district judge did not abuse their discretion when they allowed the defendant’s motion to exclude this testimony from the trial. 

This victim had died before the trial began, although they did testify during the dangerousness hearing. During this hearing, the victim’s medical condition cast doubt on her ability to respond to questions. On at least one occasion, the victim stated that her medicine was impeding her ability to answer questions. 

This was an important decision, because the victim could not testify at the actual trial. She died before the trial began, so the prosecution could only rely on her testimony during the dangerousness hearing. 

Certain Testimony From Dangerousness Hearings Could Still Be Admissible

Despite the defendant’s positive outcome in this case, the truth is that some dangerousness hearing testimony can still be admissible. Specifically, this testimony might be admissible if the witness is not available to testify once again during the later trial. 

If the witness in the aforementioned case had not struggled with a compromised state of mind due to her medication, her testimony might have been admissible. As a result, this case does not represent a clear “rule” that dangerousness hearing testimony is never admissible. 

Why a Dangerousness Hearing Could Be a Bad Time to “Show Your Hand”

The dangerousness hearing comes at the very beginning of the case, which is a bad time to show your hand. That's why it generates a dilemma for all the defendants who feel like they have something valuable for the grand jury to hear.  Do you testify or call witnesses and get them locked into a story, or do you just let the state present what it wants and fight it later?

Can a Massachusetts Defense Attorney Help Me?

Whether you need to have testimony admitted or excluded, a defense attorney in Massachusetts may be able to help. These legal professionals can make sure your trial involves evidence that benefits your case, while attempting to exclude less favorable evidence. You can discuss these potential steps in more detail with Edward R. Molari. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Is Interfering With ICE Illegal in Boston?

Many Boston residents do not agree with new immigration policies, including more aggressive ICE activity. Those who witness people taken off the streets by ICE may feel obliged to stand up and push back. But is it illegal to interfere with ICE in Boston? A recent case in Boston shows that you might face numerous charges for this type of behavior, and these charges could cause issues for the rest of your life. Can a defense attorney in Boston help in this situation?

Numerous Residents Have Been Arrested for Interfering With ICE Officials

Since these new policies have come into effect, many Boston residents have been arrested for interfering with ICE officials. A notable incident occurred in May of 2025, when at least two individuals were arrested for standing up to ICE officials in Worcester. The interaction was captured by an individual with a smartphone camera, and it involved a large crowd of individuals surrounding an ICE vehicle. 

The car contained a woman who had recently been taken into custody by ICE. The crowd prevented the vehicle from leaving, and federal agents report that some of these individuals became physically violent toward them. One woman was captured on camera holding her baby in front of a vehicle, thereby preventing the federal agents from leaving the scene. This defendant then allegedly kicked the vehicle, and she was arrested on numerous charges – including child endangerment. 

Another woman was also arrested for pushing officers and throwing liquid in their faces. She faces charges such as assault and battery on a police officer. The mayor of Worcester sided with the crowd, stating that he was devastated to hear about ICE breaking up a family. 

In another incident reported by AOL, ICE agents were filmed leaving a young child on the side of a street after arresting an adult. The adult had been walking with the child when the masked ICE agents appeared. A city councilor of Waltham City expressed similar frustration to the Worcester mayor. This incident happened at around the same time as the incident in Worcester. 

Interfering With ICE Agents May Be Illegal

Although you have the right to protest and exercise free speech, you could face consequences if you interfere with ICE agents in certain ways. Assault is always a criminal offense, even if you try to physically prevent an ICE agent from taking someone else into custody. You might also face consequences for providing a false report to an ICE officer, perhaps when trying to save someone you care about. 

If you face any of these charges, you might want to contact an experienced defense attorney in Boston. It may be possible to mitigate your penalties.

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help After an ICE Incident?

A Boston defense attorney may be able to help if you’re facing criminal charges after an ICE incident. Whether you merely interfered with ICE officers or you assaulted them, you should not face excessive punishments. An experienced lawyer may be able to help you mitigate penalties with various strategies. Learn more by contacting Edward R. Molari today.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Pages