Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

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

Authorities Crack Down on “Highly Organized” Fentanyl Trafficking Ring

Authorities across the country are cracking down on fentanyl due to widespread community concerns. In a recent drug bust, 20 people were charged with participating in what officials called a “highly organized” trafficking ring. Some of these individuals have already accepted plea deals, but they still face decades in prison. What can you do if you were accused of trafficking fentanyl in Massachusetts?

Man Pleads Guilty to Distributing Fentanyl and Cocaine After Major Bust

In May of 2025, a Boston resident pleaded guilty to distributing fentanyl and cocaine. The individual in question was just one of 20 individuals arrested in connection with a major drug bust earlier in the year. Authorities described the operation as extremely well-organized, noting the businesslike manner in which the defendants ran it. 

The operation featured a phone-line system that allowed customers to order drugs in a streamlined manner. At the top, the aforementioned defendant coordinated runners to deliver the drugs in person. Police tracked at least 14 of these transactions involving the delivery of crack cocaine to customers in Manchester. At the time of his guilty plea, the defendant faced up to 20 years in prison. 

During the initial drug bust, police recovered over 1.5 kilograms of cocaine and 250 grams of fentanyl, a quantity of cash, and a number of firearms. The bust occurred after authorities conducted controlled buys, and eventually, investigators purchased drugs from these dealers more than 50 times. At the top of this family-run drug ring was a 53-year-old defendant, his son, and his younger brother. 

Although the ringleader faced up to 20 years in prison, he was sentenced by a federal court to eight years behind bars instead. This is probably due to the fact that he pleaded guilty, as did at least 15 other co-conspirators. 

Even though eight years is much better than 20 years from the defendant’s perspective, this still represents a considerable sentence. Defendants in Boston should know that authorities take fentanyl very seriously due to the number of overdoses associated with these drugs. 

Can Defense Attorneys Help With Guilty Pleas for Trafficking Charges?

Yes, a defense attorney may be able to help you negotiate your plea deal effectively. Defense attorneys can communicate with prosecutors on your behalf and help mitigate your penalties. In many cases, a guilty plea is the right decision. This is especially true if the evidence against you seems overwhelming and impossible to refute. 

Can a Drug Defense Attorney in Boston Help Me?

If you were accused of trafficking fentanyl in Boston, consider speaking with an experienced drug defense attorney right away. These legal professionals may be able to help you with defense strategies, plea deal negotiations, and much more. Remember, your discussions with a lawyer are confidential due to the attorney-client privilege. Schedule a consultation with Edward R. Molari today to learn more about the next steps.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense
Fentanyl
Drug Trafficking

New Trial Ordered After Rideshare Driver’s Miranda Rights Violated in Cambridge

In 2022, a Lyft driver was convicted of rape in Massachusetts. However, he was acquitted of indecent assault and battery, and he subsequently appealed the conviction. In April of 2025, the Commonwealth concluded that his Miranda Rights had been violated during a police interview, and they ordered a new trial. 

The Background of the Case

In the summer of 2019, a 20-year-old college student and Boston resident became highly intoxicated after drinking a bottle of wine at a friend’s apartment. She then booked a ride home using the Lyft app, citing the need to take care of her elderly dog. Because of her intoxication, she entered the wrong address and could not correct it. As a result, she decided to verbally tell the driver her address when she got into the car. 

At this point in time, Lyft drivers often transported multiple passengers together in different vehicles. When she got in, the driver took her to the incorrect address she had entered. She then instructed the driver to drive to Beacon Street so she could point out her apartment building. The driver agreed, but stated that he needed to drop off the other passengers first. Accepting this, the passenger sat back and passed out. 

When she awoke, many hours had passed. She was still in the vehicle, and it was now 7:00 AM. The driver demanded a high payment for being in the vehicle for so long, but agreed to drop her off. She then texted the driver asking about what had happened, implying that she was concerned about a potential rape. 

Next, she visited the Massachusetts General Hospital, where white fluid was removed from her vagina. The police became involved and questioned the Lyft driver. During an interview, the driver told police that he had not raped her. Detectives subsequently took a DNA sample from the man, and they later alleged that this DNA was a possible match. The DNA profile of both the sperm and the cheek swab was “extremely rare,” according to the authorities. 

This led to the defendant’s arrest. At this time, officers informed the defendant of his Miranda rights. The defendant agreed to another interview, but only if the detectives could not show him proof that the DNA samples matched. The detectives failed to provide the defendant with the DNA report but continued with the interview anyway. 

This proved to be a vital detail. When the defendant appealed his conviction, the court agreed that his subsequent admissions during that interview should not have been entered into evidence. This led to the Commonwealth deciding that a second trial should take place. 

Can a Criminal Defense Attorney Help With Rape Allegations?

Rape is one of the most serious charges one can face in Massachusetts. If you find yourself in this situation, you should consider contacting an experienced defense attorney in Boston. These legal professionals may be able to help you execute various defense strategies and file successful appeals. For more information, consider contacting Edward R. Molari today.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

BRIC Information-Sharing Plan Leads to “Surveillance State” Accusations

The Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) is a highly controversial law enforcement tool, and this surveillance apparatus has gained even more infamy after recent plans to share data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The encroachment of both the federal government and new technological surveillance tools is something that everyone should be wary of, including Boston criminal defense lawyers, defendants, and the general public. 

Boston Mayor Demands Answers From ICE After “Secret Police” Allegations

In June of 2025, Mayor Wu issued a strong statement against recent activities by ICE, accusing them of carrying out “secret police tactics.” This comes after several arrests by ICE agents within the City of Boston. Along with this statement, the mayor signed an executive order promising to constantly file FOIA requests to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The goal of these FOIA requests will be to find out who is being detained by ICE officers in Boston – and why.

City Council Questions Information-Sharing Agreements Between ICE and BRIC

Mayor Wu’s actions come just a few months after a City Council hearing about information-sharing agreements between ICE and BRIC. During this meeting, law enforcement officials in Boston assured councilors that they only share this information in cases involving serious crimes, such as human trafficking and gun smuggling. 

However, not everyone was convinced. One councilor claimed that she had evidence of extensive intelligence-sharing activities between the two organizations – particularly in the context of political protests within Boston. Other civil rights activists also challenged the notion of “limited” intelligence-sharing between BRIC and ICE. At this point in time, hundreds of Massachusetts residents had already been deported by ICE officials.  

Understanding the Extent of BRIC 

BRIC was first created as a “fusion center” after 9/11, when law enforcement agencies around the world became hyper-focused on domestic threats within the United States. It is a surveillance apparatus that would send shivers up George Orwell’s spine, and it involves cameras watching virtually every square inch of Boston and the surrounding areas. It also leads to innocent people being targeted for insignificant infractions like illegally tinted windows, often leading to multiple traffic stops per day for a single person. Once you have been identified as a potential suspect by BRIC, it can be difficult to avoid police scrutiny. 

The potential for abuse is accelerated once this data falls into the hands of ICE. But in many ways, BRIC was a federal operation all along. It was started with federal funding, even though it is operated by local law enforcement organizations. Although many argue that introducing BRIC was a mistake in the first place, it is undeniably dangerous to share this data any more than it needs to be. 

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me?

If you face charges that stem from questionable surveillance under BRIC, consider a consultation with a criminal defense attorney in Boston. Some of this surveillance may be unconstitutional, and much of the footage captured by cameras should be inadmissible in court. Contact Edward R. Molari today to discuss your defense strategy in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Identities of Brothel Customers Named in Controversial Massachusetts Hearing

 

In late March of 2025, The Harvard Crimson revealed that the identities of 34 brothel “clients” had been named by a hearing in Massachusetts. The case highlights not only the involvement of several public figures, but also the loss of subtlety and confidentiality in the Commonwealth. Not too long ago, a judge might have handled this issue in private while protecting the identities of the defendants in Massachussets. What changed, and what can this hearing teach us about the future of the Commonwealth Court System?

The Background of the Harvard Brothel Case

Although we won’t name the identities of the various defendants attached to this case, it is fair to say that they come from the elite ranks of Harvard and the Cambridge City Council. Among these individuals are assistant professors and city councilors. 

Initially, police only sought charges against 28 individuals – but they soon expanded their net and charged a total of 34 defendants. The purpose of the March hearing was to determine whether there was enough evidence to “formally” charge these individuals, although The Harvard Crimson notes that these misdemeanors are extremely unlikely to lead to jail time, whatever happens. 

More serious charges were reserved for the so-called ringleaders, who were arrested in 2023. These individuals faced federal charges, with one defendant receiving a four-year prison sentence and a $5 million fine. 

Numerous Defendants Plead Not Guilty

In May, the Crimson reported that 14 of these defendants pleaded not guilty. In June, a further 10 individuals also pleaded not guilty. At around the same time, another ringleader was sentenced to two years in prison by a federal court. 

The Real Story Behind the Controversy

Although it is easy to focus on the taboo nature of Harvard professors attending brothels, the real story is the lack of confidentiality in the initial clerk-magistrate hearing. In previous years, a judge might have held this hearing in a relatively informal manner. Not only did this allow for some degree of subtlety and privacy, but it also facilitated compromises. 

Unfortunately, the introduction of technology has made these informal proceedings impossible. Other courts require that certain motions include the audio recordings of the clerk, making these backroom conferences a thing of the past. 

One has to remember that regardless of the outcome of this case, this initial hearing did not prove anyone’s guilt. And even if some or all of these people are guilty, they will likely pay $500 fines with no jail time. One has to wonder whether there might have been a better way to deal with this situation. 

Can a Criminal Defense Lawyer Help Me Protect My Identity?

If you are concerned about confidentiality during a criminal case in Massachusetts, an experienced defense attorney may be able to help. Although private discussions between judges and the respective parties have become relatively rare, it may still be possible to resolve certain allegations behind closed doors. To learn more about potential defense strategies, consider contacting Edward R. Molari today. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Pages