Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Boston Federal Judge Accuses Government of Violating Constitution

The First Amendment is arguably the most important part of the Constitution, as it allows the people to criticize the government without fear of retribution. Without free speech, there is not much separating the United States from a dictatorship. Previously, the curtailing of First Amendment rights was something advocated for by voices on the left. The logic was that certain opinions could be too harmful and offensive. Now, voices on the right also seem to be advocating for fewer free speech rights despite previously criticizing their left-wing opposition for similar stances. In January of 2026, a Boston federal judge criticized the current administration for attempting to deport students because of their opinions. Could a Boston defense attorney help those who face these threats?

Federal Judge Calls Deportation Efforts a “Unconstitutional Conspiracy”

A U.S. District Judge did not mince words when he expressed his opinion over the attempted deportation of students on the basis of their political views. The 85-year-old called the debacle an “unconstitutional conspiracy” that targeted specific people. 

These comments stem from a lawsuit involving the deportation of various university students across the country, including those attending Tufts University in Massachusetts. The federal government targeted these students because they supported one particular Middle Eastern country and criticized another. Of course, targeting people based purely on their political views is not supposed to be legal under the Constitution. 

Court Order Prevents Further Immigration Status Changes

In addition to ruling against the federal government, the judge ordered immigration authorities to provide “clear and convincing evidence” when attempting to change the legal status of the students in the future. This could effectively prevent their deportation under sham pretenses. When explaining this rationale, the judge described the government’s conduct as “authoritarian.” 

The judge also opined that the First Amendment applies to US citizens and non-citizens such as students. The actual impact of the decision is somewhat unclear. The plaintiffs say that they continue to face threats of deportation from the federal government, and critics argue that the judge cannot interfere with the decisions of immigration courts. 

A notable moment during the trial came when a Department of Justice attorney told the judge that he had no power to affect any of these immigration decisions. The attorney also referenced a similar case in which the court concluded that district court judges have no power to issue orders that impact deportation proceedings. 

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me Avoid Deportation?

If you face deportation because of an alleged crime, a Boston defense attorney could help you avoid conviction and stay in the country. Consider scheduling a consultation with one of these legal professionals to discuss your situation in more detail. Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law may be able to offer legal assistance to students in need. Reach out today to schedule your consultation. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Appellate Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Used Snapchat to Violate Protective Order in Massachusetts

In January of 2026, an appellate court in Massachusetts concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a defendant had used Snapchat to violate his protective order. This case highlights the fact that it is very easy to impersonate other people online, and defendants could potentially face false allegations because of this. If you are facing criminal charges because of an alleged protective order breach, consider speaking with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Boston. 

The Background of Commonwealth v. Bustard

This case involves a defendant who faced allegations of violating a protective order against his ex. Throughout their relationship, the pair communicated through the popular social media app Snapchat. During this time, the defendant used a very specific username with a “bitmoji” of a man with slicked-back hair and a beard. After their breakup, the ex blocked this account and prevented the defendant from communicating with her through this channel. 

Next, the ex received a Snapchat message from a different account with a different name. This account also featured a similar bitmoji to the defendant’s blocked account. The message was simple: “Miss me.” She then obtained a protective order against the defendant, preventing him from communicating with her “directly or indirectly,” including through other people. 

Years later, the ex posted about her upcoming birthday and engagement party plans. She then received further communication from the same account that had sent the “miss me” message. The second message read: “You happy.” The ex’s sister then viewed the account using her device and discovered the display name had changed to the defendant’s first name. 

Evidence Did Not Show That the Defendant Sent the Message “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

The trial court found the defendant guilty of violating the protective order. The defendant then appealed the conviction, and the appellate court reviewed the decision. The key question was whether the trial court established that the defendant was the same person who sent the “you happy” message beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Although the court recognized that only a “preponderance of evidence” is required to establish authentication, the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard applies to identity. In order to establish both, prosecutors need to show evidence of familiarity between the two individuals, such as pet names and references to things that only the defendant and the ex knew about. 

The appellate court concluded that “you happy” was an extremely short message with no real context, and it is therefore impossible to determine whether the defendant sent it. As a result, the appellate court concluded that the trial court should have found the defendant not guilty. 

Can a Defense Attorney in Boston Help With a Protective Order Violation?

If you are facing allegations of breaching your protective order because someone impersonated you online, it is imperative that you speak with a defense attorney in Boston as soon as possible. While this recent case shows that “mistaken identity” is a valid defense in the digital world, you may need to file an appeal after an initial negative decision in court. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law to learn more about your next steps. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Child Rape Charge Reversed Due to Indictment Error in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts appeals court has reversed a child rape conviction due to an error during the indictment process. In January of 2026, the court considered the permissibility of amending an indictment to change the subsection of a statute. In the end, they concluded that it was not permissible and reversed the child rape convictions. What are the implications of this ruling, and could a Boston defense attorney help you achieve similar outcomes?

The Background of Commonwealth v. McCaffrey

At the beginning of this case, a grand jury considered evidence that a defendant had sexually abused a child over the course of two years. During this time, the child was between the ages of eight and ten. After hearing this evidence, the grand jury indicted the defendant on six charges of aggravated child rape. 

Crucially, the court referenced statute § 23A [b]. This specific statute involves child rape in which the child is 12-16 years old, and the defendant is more than 10 years older. Realizing its mistake, the Commonwealth amended the indictments and referenced a different statute: § 23A [a]. This statute involves a child under the age of 12 and a defendant who is more than five years older. 

The defendant immediately objected. The case went before a jury, which found the defendant guilty on five of the six child rape counts.  The defendant appealed the decision, and eventually the appellate court agreed to review the decision. 

Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights

While reviewing the decision, the appellate court referenced Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. This document clearly states that it is unlawful to convict anyone of a felony before a grand jury indicts them for the correct crime. The wording is clear as day, and it is impossible to get around. 

Although it is possible to amend indictments, courts can only do this “with respect to form, not substance.” What exactly does this mean? As the appellate court explains, amendments of form do not change the “essential elements” of the underlying offense. Amendments of substance result in the defendant facing a different crime for which they were initially charged, and these amendments therefore violate Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. 

It is easy to see the logic here. If Article 12 did not exist, the authorities could potentially charge someone with burglary and then “upgrade” their charge to murder with no real justification. In the end, the appellate court had no choice but to reverse the child rape convictions. 

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help With Appeals?

If you want to file a similar appeal based on an indictment error, you may be able to do so with help from an experienced defense attorney in Boston. This case shows that errors at the beginning of your criminal case could potentially help you fight convictions at the end of your case. For help with appeals and additional education about criminal law in Massachusetts, turn to Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

NFL Player Faces Domestic Battery Charges After Allegedly Assaulting His Chef

In late December of 2025, CBS News reported that a well-known NFL player was facing charges of domestic battery after allegedly putting his personal chef in a chokehold. While the player vehemently denies these allegations, the case could affect his professional career and reputation. This case also illustrates the fact that domestic violence charges can stem from interactions between non-family members who live in the same household. If you face domestic violence charges in Boston, consider speaking with an experienced defense attorney. 

Female Chef Claims She Was Put in a Chokehold by NFL Star

Police in Dedham say that the alleged victim in this case first contacted them about an incident in early December of 2025. According to her, her employer (an NFL star) agreed to pay her weekly as a personal chef and gave her a bedroom in his home. After complaining about payment issues, the NFL star allegedly walked into her unlocked bedroom and confronted her. 

The woman says that during this confrontation, the NFL player slapped her across the face and put her in a chokehold. Police noted that she did not take any photographs of her injuries to support these claims. Eventually, she agreed to let the incident slide without taking action against the defendant. 

Days later, the alleged victim contacted the local police again and claimed that she had received unsettling communications from the NFL player’s girlfriend. This included a voicemail telling her not to go to the police about the incident. Whether this was the factor that made her change her mind or not, the personal chef then went to the police and agreed to proceed with charges against the player. 

Defense Attorneys Claim That These Claims Were Fabricated

The defense attorney for the NFL player suggested that the personal chef’s claims are fabrications, and that she was motivated to lie about the situation because of the earlier payment dispute. However this case proceeds, it is likely that the player will benefit from extremely strong legal representation. After all, his recent transfer to a notable NFL team was worth almost $70 million. 

Assaults Against All Household Members Can Lead to Domestic Violence Charges

This case shows how domestic violence charges may involve alleged victims other than family members. Massachusetts law states that domestic violence charges apply if the alleged victim was residing in the same household as the defendant, regardless of the nature of the housing arrangement. This could apply to live-in personal chefs, maids, and so on. 

Can a Defense Attorney in Boston Help Me?

A defense attorney in Boston may be able to help if you face allegations of domestic violence. This case shows that as long as an alleged victim is living in the same household as a defendant, domestic battery charges are possible. These situations might involve personal chefs, live-in nurses, butlers, and many other types of “domestic staff” commonly employed by high-net-worth individuals.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Governor’s Staffer Somehow Paid Over $30,000 After Cocaine Possession Charges

The government and residents of Massachusetts are still trying to figure out how a staffer received a payout of $30,000 after being fired for allegedly trafficking cocaine. The story raises difficult questions about the Governor’s connection to a man who seems to have been involved in criminal activities. However, it is important to note that those found with large quantities of cocaine are innocent until proven guilty. To learn more about the potential consequences of cocaine trafficking in Boston, contact a defense attorney. 

Payment to Alleged Drug Trafficker Was “Erroneous”

The Office of Administration and Finance says that it made a payment of $31,438 to an alleged drug dealer “erroneously.” This individual first garnered attention in October of 2025, when he was charged with cocaine trafficking. These charges came after police officers searched a government office building where the defendant worked and recovered 18 kilograms of cocaine. 

His subsequent arrest led to the immediate termination of his role as deputy director of the Governor’s western Massachusetts office, which he took in 2023. In addition to cocaine trafficking charges, the defendant also faces firearms charges. 

Police say that they first became aware of the defendant’s activities after intercepting suspicious packages at the Hotel UMass in Amherst. Investigators ostensibly linked the packages to the defendant and set up a “controlled delivery” at his new place of residence (the government building). It is not clear whether the cocaine seized was brought into the building by an undercover officer or informant. 

The controversy immediately raised questions about the Governor’s judgment and her choice of staffers. The defendant was earning well over six figures in his role as a staffer, and it is not clear whether he used some of this income to further his alleged drug trafficking activities. 

Perhaps the most notable detail of this story is an erroneous transfer of over $30,000 in vacation pay when the defendant was terminated from his position. The government is apparently trying to get the money back, and this adds to the overall embarrassment of the entire debacle. 

In terms of the actual drug charges, it is impossible to determine what might happen next. One would assume that the authorities want to make an example of this individual because of his close association with the government. However, it is important to remember that each defendant is innocent until proven guilty. 

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me?

If you face cocaine trafficking charges in Boston, consider contacting an experienced defense attorney at your earliest convenience. If nothing else, this story shows how drug trafficking charges can affect your professional reputation and career path. When facing these charges, many people only consider the possibility of fines and incarceration. To learn more about potential defense strategies, contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law today.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Hit-and-Run Case in Boston: Defendant Pleads Insanity in the Face of Premeditation Allegations

In January of 2026, NBC Boston reported that a well-known art collector had died in a hit-and-run crash. The man’s dog also perished. The driver now faces allegations of murder and animal cruelty, with authorities alleging that this was an intentional ramming attack. The case now serves as a notable example of the conflict between the insanity defense in Boston and allegations of premeditation. 

Defendant Allegedly Tracked Victim Down Before Fatal Collision

Prosecutors say that the defendant actively tracked the victim down before the fatal collision, stating that he questioned a passerby about the victim’s whereabouts before speeding off in his SUV. Based on the nature of the discussion between the passerby and the defendant, prosecutors allege that the pair knew each other before the incident. 

The defendant then allegedly drove onto a pedestrian pathway and struck the victim and his dog before speeding away. Prosecutors say that he subsequently stopped at a donut shop to dislodge the dog’s leash from his vehicle. Later, he and his brother visited a local police station and told officers that an accident had occurred. 

Defense Counsel Suggests a Change in Medication Could Have Caused the Accident

Although the defendant attempted to report the incident as an accident, prosecutors accused him of “deliberate and premeditated murder.” Defense counsel then suggested that the incident occurred because of a change in medication. In other words, the defendant is now attempting an insanity plea. 

A court psychologist examined the defendant and concluded that he has a mental illness for which he has been receiving psychiatric treatment. The court also heard testimony that the defendant changed his medication in August, and that this caused ongoing problems. His brother claims that this change made it difficult for the defendant to distinguish between “reality and fantasy.” 

The Defendant Faces Considerable Evidence of Premeditation

The defendant’s insanity plea faces considerable evidence of premeditation. This evidence includes not only the conversation with the passerby as he allegedly searched for the victim, but also the defendant’s seemingly calculated decisions after the incident. 

If this man was mentally ill, then would he have the mental capacity to seek out the victim and question a passerby about their whereabouts? Did the two men actually know each other before the alleged ramming attack, or was this a random act of violence between strangers? 

What kind of side effects are associated with the new medication this man was taking? Why did this man attempt to remove the dog leash from his vehicle? Why abandon the vehicle if you were not aware that you did anything wrong? These are just a few examples of some of the difficult questions this defendant will likely face in an upcoming trial. 

Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me Fight Murder Charges?

If you face murder charges after a hit-and-run, it makes sense to get in touch with a Boston defense attorney as soon as possible. These legal professionals can help you assess potential defense strategies, including insanity pleas. To expand on this discussion, consider contacting Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law.

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Brian Walshe Murder Trial in Massachusetts Ends With Guilty Verdict

On December 15th of 2025, multiple sources reported that the jury in Brian Walshe’s Massachusetts murder trial had returned a guilty verdict. The trial had taken many twists and turns before this point, and the defense successfully raised many interesting points, particularly in the context of DNA evidence. Why was Brian Walshe convicted of murder, and what does this teach us about murder cases in Massachusetts?

The Background of the Case

In 2023, Ana Walshe disappeared in Cohasset. Brian was subsequently arrested by law enforcement for misleading investigators, although he eventually faced murder charges. Ana’s body remains missing. After obtaining a search warrant, investigators found blood on a damaged knife in the family residence. Investigators also searched a family iPad and found search queries like “How long before a body starts to smell.” 

The Defense Strategy Explained

The defense used an interesting strategy, claiming that Brian merely discovered his wife dead in her bed on New Year’s Day. Brian also pleaded guilty to two charges and admitted to moving his wife’s body after discovering her in a lifeless state. However, he and his lawyers insisted that he never actually harmed her. 

The defense also strived to push back against DNA evidence raised during the trial. This evidence included items found in dumpsters with blood belonging to Ana Walshe. However, the defense successfully pointed out that there was no way of telling how the DNA ended up on these items. During cross-examination, the defense also managed to get a forensic scientist to admit that the DNA could have been transferred from one object to another while in the dumpster. 

Testimony Points to Romantic Affair

During the trial, a witness also came forward and claimed that he was having a romantic affair with Ana before her disappearance. This man says that he first met the woman when he sold her a condo in Washington, D.C. From there, the two began an illicit affair. Brian may have known about the affair, and the pair of lovers didn’t exactly try to keep it a secret. 

Brian even called the man with whom his wife was having an affair and asked him if he had seen his wife after her “disappearance.” During cross-examination, the defense led this man to admit that he was not aware Ana was planning to tell Brian about the affair. Ana was the primary breadwinner in the family and often spent many days away from home on business in Washington, D.C. 

Contact an Experienced Murder Defense Attorney in Boston

If you have been searching for an experienced murder defense attorney in Boston, consider reaching out to Edward R. Molari. The recent verdict shows that various defense strategies have the potential to help defendants push back against murder charges, especially in regards to DNA evidence. Contact us today to discuss the specifics of your case in more detail. 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

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

Pages