Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

Supreme Judicial Court Issues Important Ruling on the Use of DNA Evidence

In a recent decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, DNA evidence has again entered the spotlight of criminal proceedings and post-trial challenges to convictions. In an opinion released last month, the Court has determined that criminal defendants may retest DNA evidence in order challenge their convictions.

The Role of DNA Testing in Criminal Trials

Increasingly, prosecutors and police investigators rely on DNA evidence to catch catch criminal culprits. Based on a biological sample collected at the scene of a crime--such as a drop of blood or a strand of hair--forensic specialists can examine the DNA and compare it to the DNA of a suspect in the crime. The key to DNA testing is the idea that that no two people share the same DNA. Thus, if law enforcement can match the DNA of a criminal suspect to DNA gathered at the scene of a crime, they have evidence that the criminal suspect was present. For this reason, DNA evidence offers compelling information as to whether a suspect is associated with a crime.

The Role of DNA in Proving Innocence

A growing use of DNA evidence has been to prove the innocence of already convicted criminals. In these cases, criminals were convicted before the wide use of DNA testing based on other evidence of their guilt. By testing biological evidence gathered from the scene of the crime and still in storage today, these convicted criminals have shown that their DNA in fact does not match DNA associated with the crime. In hundreds of cases, this new DNA evidence has led to the release of suspects from prison who were wrongly convicted.

DNA Evidence Only as Good as the Laboratory Techniques Used

Because DNA testing is complicated, the veracity of such evidence depends largely on the laboratory methods employed by forensic experts. If the laboratory is sloppy, or if technicians fail to follow accepted testing practices, such DNA evidence may prove false and unreliable.

Those Relying on DNA Evidence Get a Second Chance

In examining the use of DNA testing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that defendants in criminal cases may have biological evidence retested in certain circumstances. The reason is that DNA testing methods and techniques have evolved over time to become more and more accurate. Thus, where a person was convicted on DNA evidence gathered by a particular testing technique, that person can subsequently retest the evidence using newer testing techniques in order challenge the reliability of the earlier test.

As Associate Justice Fernande R.F. Duffy wrote, a person’s request for a new test “should not be denied on the ground that the evidence sought to be tested has been subjected previously to a method of testing, if the accuracy of that testing has materially improved the test’s ability to identify the perpetrator of a crime.” In short, those convicted of crimes based on DNA evidence may have an opportunity to re-examine and challenge the evidence against them.

Getting Help When You Face Criminal Charges

If you believe you have been wrongly charged or convicted of a crime based on DNA evidence, it is critical that you speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer right away. A skilled criminal defense attorney can help you understand your rights, provide sound legal advice, prepare you for trial, defend you in court, and help you with post-trial challenges to your conviction. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS LIMITS DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Can the Police Search Your Cell Phone When Arresting You?

 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in two cases involving cell phone privacy. The critical question of law in both instances is under what circumstances the police can search the contents of your phone.

Search Incident to Arrest

In general, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant before searching for evidence of a crime. The Supreme Court, however, has recognized a number of exceptions to this warrant requirement, including a search incident to arrest. This exception allows police to search the person and immediate surroundings of someone being placed under arrest. The rationale behind this exception to the warrant requirement is to prevent the last-minute destruction of evidence, as well as to protect police officers from the use of hidden weapons.

The Ubiquitous Cell Phone

For most people, a search of their person would turn up a cell phone. Cell phones may contain large amounts of personal information. For example, cell phones may include contact lists, call history, and the contents of text messages and emails sent and received by the caller. Smart phones, with their plethora of apps, may also include such information as GPS data that tracks the movements of the person, photographs, financial transactions, social media postings, and the like.

The key question is whether the police should have access to such large amounts of information merely upon an arrest. Many argue that, given the variety and quantity of private information contained in people's cell phones, the police should have to acquire a warrant before searching such devices. They point out that in many cases, when a person is arrested, their cell phone may be seized and held until a warrant is obtained. People on the other side of the argument, including many law enforcement officers, point out that cell phones may include valuable evidence of a crime, evidence that may be erased by the time a warrant is obtained.

What Will The Supreme Court Decide?

It can be difficult to guess how the Supreme Court will rule, even after listening to oral arguments. The two cases at issue involve two different styles of phones: an older flip phone and a more modern smart phone. Some suggest that the Justices may decide that it is okay to search older style flip phones (which include contact lists and call histories) and not smart phones (which include a larger amount of private information). Any decision that relies on the type of technology used by suspects is likely to quickly grow outdated, given the present pace of innovation. The Supreme Court will release its written opinion in early summer.

Getting Help When You Face Criminal Charges

If you have been charged with a crime in Massachusetts, it is critical that you speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer right away. A skilled criminal defense attorney can help you understand your rights, provide sound legal advice, prepare you for trial, and defend you in court. Any delay in getting the help you need could damage your case and lead to long-term consequences. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

SJC REQUIRES WARRANT FOR CELL PHONE LOCATION INFORMATION

MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS LIMITS DEFENDANTS RIGHTS

 

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Erasing a Criminal Record

Everyone has parts of their past that they regret, but for some that past involves a crime. Even when a person has left the errors of their youth behind them, a criminal record can follow them for years and years.

Common Stigmas for Past Crimes

Those who have a criminal record face a number of societal stigmas. For job seekers, it is particularly challenging to find good positions with a criminal record. Most potential employers ask about past crimes or conduct a criminal background search. It may be difficult to explain a past criminal record, or potential employers may pass on such employees altogether.

In addition to job challenges, there are other instances where people with criminal records face judgment or stigma. A criminal record may prevent people from joining community service groups or other organizations. In some instances, a criminal record may even dictate where a person can live.

Petitioning to Have Your Criminal Records Sealed

For some people, asking the state to seal the criminal records of their conviction is an option. If your criminal records are sealed they will not be available to the public, and you will not have to disclose the fact of your criminal conviction under most circumstances. The circumstances under which your criminal records may be sealed will depend on the nature of your crime and the amount of time that has passed since your conviction.

  • Misdemeanor offenses - You may petition to have your criminal records sealed after five years from the time of your misdemeanor offense, including any time for which you were incarcerated. To qualify you must not have committed any other crime during the five year period.

  • Felony offenses - You may petition to have your criminal records sealed after ten years from the time of your felony offense, including any time for which you were incarcerated. As with sealing the records of a misdemeanor offense, you must not have been found guilty of any crimes during the ten year period.

  • Sex offenses - You may petition to have your criminal records sealed after fifteen years from the time of your sex offense, including any time for which you were incarcerated. However, if you have been classified as a level two or level three sex offender, you may not have your records sealed. As above, you must not have committed any other crimes during the fifteen year period.

  • Offenses no longer considered criminal - If you are convicted of a crime that is later decriminalized, you may petition right way to have your criminal records sealed.

It is important to note that some offenses are not eligible for sealing, no matter how long it has been since your conviction. For example, certain crimes related to the possession or sale of firearms may not be sealed.

Get Help Sealing Your Criminal Records

If you possess a criminal record and have an interest in getting your criminal record sealed, you should speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE ON SEALING CRIMINAL RECORDS

MASSACHUSETTS MAKING STEADY PROGRESS IN REFORMING MANDATORY MINIMUMS

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

The Burden of Proof in Criminal Trials

Innocent until proven guilty. This is a central tenant of our criminal law system. The state has the ultimate burden of proof when it comes to trying criminal defendants. Satisfying this burden of proof is not easy. In reality, the burden of proof involves two separate burdens, the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. A prosecutor (e.g., the attorney representing the state) must clear both of these hurdles in order to find a defendant guilty of a crime. 

The First Hurdle: The Burden of Production

The first hurdle that a prosecutor faces in reaching a criminal conviction is the burden of production. This burden requires that the prosecutor introduce a sufficient amount of evidence to suggest that the defendant may have committed the crime. This evidence may include testimony, documents, objects, or the like. Before the trial begins, the prosecutor must enumerate the crimes charged against the defendant and must detail the basis of facts the prosecutor intends to prove to support the criminal allegations. It is the role of the trial judge to determine whether the prosecutor has met this burden of production. If the prosecutor has not satisfied the burden of production, the trial judge will dismiss the case and the defendant will be acquitted.

The Second Hurdle: The Burden of Persuasion

The second hurdle that the prosecutor faces in reaching a conviction is the burden of persuasion. In short, this burden requires that the factfinder--usually a jury in a criminal proceeding--is persuaded that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence offered. The jury will reach their decision after careful deliberations. If the jury is not persuaded by the evidence presented at trial, the defendant will be acquitted of the crime charged.

Production vs. Persuasion

One might ask how it is possible that a prosecutor can satisfy the burden of production without also satisfying the burden of persuasion? The answer to this question rests on the ability of the jury to weigh each piece of evidence differently than the judge. For example, the prosecutor may introduce eyewitness testimony that the defendant committed a burglary. Because the prosecutor has introduced some evidence of the alleged crime, the burden of production is satisfied. The jury, however, may not be persuaded by the evidence introduced. They may find that the eyewitness is not credible, or that the testimony of the witness is contradictory. Thus, the burden of production may be satisfied without persuading the jury that the defendant actually committed the crime.

Getting Help When You Face Criminal Charges.

If you have been charged with a crime in Massachusetts, it is critical that you speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer right away. A skilled criminal defense attorney can help you understand your rights, provide sound legal advice, prepare you for trial, and defend you in court. Any delay in getting the help you need could damage your case and lead to long-term consequences. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS LIMITS DEFENDANTS RIGHTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT CLARIFIES DRUG POSSESSION LAW IN LIGHT OF MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

MASSACHUSETTS BANS “UPSKIRTING” AFTER CONTROVERSIAL SJC RULING

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that “upskirting,” the practice of secretly photographing under a woman’s skirt or dress, was not prohibited by state law. According to a story in The Boston Globe, the SJC found that a state law intended to prohibit “Peeping Tom” voyeurism of completely or partially undressed people did not apply to people who take pictures of people who are fully clothed.

The law in question prohibited secretly photographing a person who was “partially nude,” so the SJC did not feel it applied to upskirting. The decision came in a case involving a man who allegedly took photos under the dresses of women on Green Line trolleys. Trolley riders alerted MBTA Transit Police in August 2010 that a man appeared to be taking photographs of women, including one instance in which he appeared to be attempting to photograph a woman’s crotch area.

Transit Police set up a decoy operation the next day involving a female undercover officer wearing a skirt. Robertson allegedly took pictures of her, focusing on her crotch area, and he was arrested. The defendant was charged in 2011, and filed a motion to dismiss in 2012. That motion was denied by a Boston Municipal Court judge, and the SJC decision reversed that ruling.

The SJC decision drew criticism for allegedly parsing the language of the current statute in such a way that probably conflicted with the intent of the Legislature. Immediately following the SJC ruling, House Speaker Robert DeLeo strongly criticized the decision and vowed that the Legislature would look into ways to close the legal loophole that allowed upskirting to remain legal. He said that the SJC’s ruling was against “the spirit of the current law,” and that the state’s statutes need to be updated to “conform with today’s technology.”

The Legislature wasted no time in following through with DeLeo’s promise. Just a day after the SJC ruling, the House and Senate passed legislation making it a misdemeanor to “photograph, videotape, or electronically surveil” another person’s sexual or intimate parts without that person’s consent. The crime would be punishable by a maximum penalty of 2 ½ years in jail and a $5,000 fine. Governor Deval Patrick quickly signed the bill into law. Going forward, actions like that of the defendant in the SJC case would probably be banned under the new statute.

The upskirting law uses a reasonable person standard, declaring it illegal to take pictures of those parts of their body that such a person would believe would not be publicly visible. Distributing such pictures or images could lead to felony charges and prison time. In addition, the statute expands penalties for secretly taking photos and videos of “the sexual or other intimate parts of a child.”

If you have been charged with voyeurism or a similar crime, and you believe this charge to be in error, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

SJC REQUIRES WARRANT FOR CELL PHONE LOCATION INFORMATION

WHAT IS A CRIME?

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS LIMITS DEFENDANTS’ RIGHTS

One of the fundamental principles of modern criminal procedure is that evidence acquired in violation of the law is not admissible in court, even if it is reliable in every other way. The so-called “exclusionary rule” is designed to prevent police and prosecutors from bending the rules in order to obtain a conviction, even in cases where all the evidence points to the guilt of the defendant.

In order to conduct a lawful, warrantless search of a suspect, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the search will produce evidence of a crime. If the officer conducts a search without reasonable suspicion, even if the search produces incriminating evidence, the fruits of that search will be inadmissible in court. Generally, if a suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that expectation is infringed upon without reasonable suspicion, the Constitution has been violated.

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects against unlawful searches and seizures, while Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides for even stronger protections for residents of the Commonwealth. The exclusionary rule often comes up in drug arrests, in which officers find drugs on suspects and charge them with violating drug possession laws. Occasionally, in a twist on the usual scenario, the question arises as to whether one suspect has standing to challenge the search and seizure of another suspect.

That is the issue that the Massachusetts Court of Appeals had to address last week in Commonwealth v. Negron. The defendant was charged with distribution of a controlled substance after a police officer witnessed what looked like a hand-to-hand exchange between the defendant and an alleged buyer. The officer searched the alleged buyer, seized four bags of crack cocaine from his person, and arrested him for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Based on the drugs found on the alleged buyer, the defendant was arrested and charged with distribution.

The defendant asserted that he had standing to challenge the warrantless search of the alleged buyer, and moved to suppress the drugs found on him. Under federal and Massachusetts law, a defendant has standing to challenge the search and seizure of evidence when possession of that evidence is deemed to be an essential element of guilt. In Negron, the court analyzed the language of the statute and reasoned that possession is not an element of distribution.

Therefore, the defendant did not have standing to challenge the search and seizure of the alleged buyer. The court did not address the question of whether the defendant could suppress the evidence, since he did not have standing to challenge it in the first place. This decision, which appears to value statutory literalism over common sense, severely limits the rights of criminal defendants in the Commonwealth.

If you have been charged with a crime after what you feel was an unconstitutional search or seizure, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

Supreme Judicial Court Rules on Criminal Procedure Question in Massachusetts Bank Robbery Case

Search and Seizure in the Digital Era: Warrantless Searches for Electronic Communication

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

SJC REQUIRES WARRANT FOR CELL PHONE LOCATION INFORMATION

As cell phones have become ubiquitous in our culture, the law has often struggled to catch up to these and other technological innovations. In particular, it has been unclear what steps law enforcement agencies need to take to gain access to cell phone records and information about customers held by cell phone companies. A recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) states that local and state police will often need to acquire a warrant before attempting to track the cell phones of Massachusetts residents.

Whenever a cell phone user makes or receives a phone call, their location data is automatically generated and stored by the cell phone company. This data is known as cell site location information (CSLI), and can be used to track and reconstruct a person’s movements and location over time. Cell phone service providers often turn these records over to law enforcement without asking for a warrant, usually after receiving an administrative subpoena. Major cell phone companies turn over thousands of CSLI records every year.

Last month, in Commonwealth v. Augustine, the SJC found that the Commonwealth’s attempt to obtain two weeks’ worth of CSLI about the defendant without first getting a warrant violated the state constitution’s Article 14 warrant requirement. The SJC reasoned that "the tracking of [Augustine's] movements in the urban Boston area for two weeks was more than sufficient to intrude upon [his] expectation of privacy safeguarded" by the state’s Declaration of Rights. The fact that the CSLI technically belongs to the third-party cell phone companies does not negate the need for a warrant.

The holding in Augustine effectively means that, going forward, police will be required to acquire warrants for many situations in which they want to look at a suspect’s CSLI. The decision does allow for some warrantless searches of CSLI, but significantly narrows the scope of these searches. The defendant in Augustine was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts. ACLU of Massachusetts legal director Matthew R. Segal had the following to say about his organization’s victory:

"Today's ruling is an enormous victory for privacy in the Commonwealth, and it means that Massachusetts is taking an important lead in dealing with the privacy implications of the digital age. Under this ruling, turning on a cell phone does not justify warrantless local and state surveillance of when, where and how you use it. The ACLU took this case because people carry their phones everywhere and use them constantly, so the government can learn much about who we are by finding out where we are while our phones are in use. We argued that this sensitive information deserves the protections of the state's warrant requirement, and the Court agreed."

This ruling entrenches the privacy rights of Massachusetts cell phone users. If you have been arrested after being the victim of an illegal, warrantless search, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

Supreme Judicial Court Rules on Criminal Procedure Question in Massachusetts Bank Robbery Case

Search and Seizure in the Digital Era: Warrantless Searches for Electronic Communication

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE ON SEALING CRIMINAL RECORDS

In 2010 the Massachusetts legislature passed (and the governor signed) the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Reform Act. The statute went into effect on May 4, 2012. Among other provisions, the new law shortens the waiting period before one is eligible to seal certain felonies and misdemeanors and puts greater limits on criminal record information given to employers and others.

Massachusetts differs from many other states in that its laws do not provide for expungement of criminal records. Expungement effectively erases records of criminal convictions, arrests, and police reports as if they never existed. Sealing, on the other hand, simply keeps those records confidential on some level. In addition, the sealing process in Massachusetts only applies to court and probation records and does not affect the records of the police or other arresting agencies.

Criminal Records that Are Eligible to Be Sealed

The sealing process generally does not happen automatically, and only applies to certain types of court and probation records. The following types of records may be sealed:

1.    Certain convictions or admissions, after the obligatory waiting period.

2.    Cases that were dismissed without probation, or that resulted in a not guilty finding. These records may be eligible to be sealed immediately.

3.    A recorded offense that is no longer a crime.

A defendant or attorney should request the relevant criminal records before applying to have them sealed, just to make sure they are eligible for sealing. There are numerous specific crimes for which, if you are convicted, you are not eligible to have the records sealed or the process for doing so is much more arduous than usual.

Changes to Record Sealing After CORI Reform

The CORI reform law makes the following changes to the process of sealing court records after a waiting period:

1.    Lowers waiting period to seal felonies from 15 to 10 years.

2.    Lowers waiting period to seal misdemeanors from 10 to 5 years.

3.    The clock on the waiting period now begins to toll either on the day the defendant is released from custody, or (if there is no incarceration) on the date of disposition. Under the old law, the clock did not beginl until the end of all court supervision, including incarceration, parole, and probation.

4.    Any new criminal conviction causes the waiting period to start over again. A defendant cannot get his criminal record sealed until the obligatory waiting period has passed since any criminal conviction.

5.    To apply to have a criminal record sealed, the petitioner should submit a one-page petition (available online) to the Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

As always, anyone attempting to navigate the criminal justice system will want to find quality legal representation with expertise in criminal law. If you have a criminal record in Massachusetts and are interested in having it sealed, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

MASSACHUSETTS MAKING STEADY PROGRESS IN REFORMING MANDATORY MINIMUMS

“WILL THIS GO ON MY RECORD?”: UNDERSTANDING CORI ACCESS 

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

SCHOOL ZONE RESTRICTIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS DRUG LAWS

On August 2, 2012, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law an omnibus crime bill that had been passed by legislature. The bill consisted of many disparate crime-related provisions, including a new “three strikes” statute called Melissa’s Law. Within Melissa’s Law was an important provision that drug policy reformers had been advocating for years; namely, the law included a reduction in the size and time requirements for drug violations that take place within school zones.

School zone provisions essentially add on an extra sentence for drug crimes that occur within what the legislature designates as a school zone. The previous law set the boundary at a 1,000 feet radius of any school. Criminal defense attorneys and justice reform advocates pointed out for years that, in parts of Boston and other Massachusetts cities, it was nearly impossible to not be within 1,000 feet of a school at any given time. In addition, the law made no distinction between drug crimes that took place during school hours and those that did not. The statute effectively allowed prosecutors to charge a large percentage of drug offenders with school zone violations, thus increasing the Commonwealth’s plea bargaining power and the length of sentences.

The 2012 amendment to the school zone provision reduced the area of the zones from 1,000 feet to 300 feet from a school. The new statute’s restrictions encompass headstart facilities, elementary, vocational, and secondary schools. The law now also provides a time exception, by excluding drug crimes that take place between midnight and 5 a.m. from the school zone statute. Reform advocates believe these changes better capture the spirit of the original law, by focusing on keeping drugs away from places where children congregate, during the time of day when children are likely to be there.

Anyone caught possessing or selling illicit drugs (under other provisions of the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act) between 5 a.m. and midnight,  and within 300 feet of a school or 100 feet of a public park, can be charged with violating the school zone provision. The new law actually increased the mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of violating the school zone provision. The minimum sentence these drug offenders can expect is a two year jail term along with a $1,000 fine. Defendants cannot use lack of knowledge of school boundaries as a defense when they are charged with a school zone violation.

Under the new statute, an offender convicted of a school zone violation is generally eligible for parole after serving half of the maximum sentence (15 years) he could have received. However, offenders who utilized guns during their crimes, who supervised another felon, who sold drugs to minors, or who supervised minors in selling drugs, are not eligible for parole, as these are considered aggravating factors. A Supreme Judicial Court decision from late last year found that the new law applies retroactively, thus providing relief for some defendants and prisoners.

If you have been charged with violating Massachusetts drug laws, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

MASSACHUSETTS MAKING STEADY PROGRESS IN REFORMING MANDATORY MINIMUMS

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT SCHOOL ZONE AMENDMENT APPLIES RETROACTIVELY

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

MASSACHUSETTS MAKING STEADY PROGRESS IN REFORMING MANDATORY MINIMUMS

In the early 1980s, the Massachusetts legislature passed the commonwealth’s first mandatory minimum laws for drug offenses. These laws took discretion out of the hands of prosecutors and judges and created fixed sentences based on the specifics of the crime committed. The length of the sentence is usually based primarily on the weight of the drugs with which the defendant was caught. The mandatory minimum laws were a response to a perceived increase in drug abuse in Massachusetts, and also a belief that other types of crime (including violent crime) tended to follow drug crime.

Over the past 30 years or so, mandatory minimum laws for drug offenses have become increasingly controversial, both in Massachusetts and around the country. Low-level drug offenders have wasted away in prison, while the overall rates of drug addiction and drug crime have either risen or stayed the same. The legislature has gradually reformed the drug sentencing laws to make them somewhat less harsh. Most recently, on August 2, 2012, the governor signed the 2012 Massachusetts Drug Sentencing Reform Law, which reduced the mandatory minimum sentences that courts must impose on drug offenders.

The 2012 law covers a series of drug distribution and trafficking offenses, and lowers the minimum sentence that a judge must impose on someone convicted of these crimes. The Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act divides illicit drugs into five classes: Class A (including heroin, morphine, codeine, and ketamine), Class B (cocaine, crack, amphetamines, methadone, LSD, and PCP), Class C (peyote and mescaline), Class D (marijuana), and Class E (non-narcotic prescription drugs).

The reform law shortened mandatory sentences for drug offenses by up to one-third. For example, the minimum sentence for someone convicted of a second time of distribution of a Class A substance is now 3½ years instead of five years. The minimum sentence for trafficking 100 to 2,000 pounds of marijuana was reduced from three years to two years. And the mandatory minimum for trafficking 100 to 200 grams of certain Class B substances was changed from 10 years to eight years.

In addition, the law significantly reduces the minimum fines that the court must impose. While the changes only apply to those who are convicted after August 2, 2012, the reforms will also have an impact on drug offenders who were already in prison when the new law was signed. Convicted drug offenders are now eligible for earlier parole, work release, and earned good time. While the 2012 law and some of the other previous reforms are steps in the right direction, the ultimate goal of sentencing reform advocates is to eliminate mandatory minimums altogether. This would restore judges’ discretion to determine sentences in each specific case, and would bring back some basic fairness to the justice system.

If you have been charged with violating Massachusetts drug laws, or have been given an excessive mandatory minimum sentence, you should immediately seek out the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, today for a confidential consultation.

See Related Posts:

Supreme Judicial Court Clarifies Drug Possession Law in Light of Marijuana Decriminalization

Supreme Judicial Court Rules that School Zone Amendment Applies Retroactively

 

Tags: 
Criminal Defense

Pages