Boston Criminal Attorney Blog

As a Boston, Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I’ve seen a lot of horrific crimes. Truly, shocking acts. But what was discovered in Worcester this past few days, would leave anyone stunned beyond words: Not only was a 23 year-old woman found murdered in her apartment, but the 8 month-old fetus she was carrying had been cut out of her womb.

The murder victim and the baby's mother was Darlene Haynes. Apparently a rather troubled young woman, Haynes was, at age 23, the un-wed mother of three other children, age 5 years to 18 months, with the 18 month-old in the care of the state Department of Children and Families. The other two children, ages 3 and 5, were being cared for by Haynes’ mother. Police said the 23-year-old had apparently been dead for several days, and that she hadn't contacted family or friends since Thursday. The gruesome discovery of Haynes’ body was made by her landlord, William Thompson, who said a "horrifying smell" led him to her apartment, where he found her body wrapped in bedding in a closet. While her death was ruled a Massachusetts homicide, the exact cause of Haynes' death has yet to be determined pending toxicology tests, At this point, the autopsy indicated Haynes suffered head injuries.

Major developments in this murder case occurred yesterday, when the baby that had been cut from the victim’s uterus was located, and a suspect in this murder was arrested. Surprisingly, (some would say shockingly,) the baby appeared to be in good health. Julie Corey, 35, of Worcester, Massachusetts, and a male companion were arrested in the town of Plymouth, New Hampshire, where police found them with the baby. Corey was charged as a fugitive from justice and is to be arraigned in District Court in Concord, New Hampshire today. As of the time of my posting, Corey was in custody and could not be reached for comment; it is unclear at this point whether or not Corey has a lawyer. Police in New Hampshire said the man found with Corey was released, and is not a suspect at this time. (So much for the oft-stated claim by feminist groups, that women don't commit violent crime, but only men.)

Suspicions around Corey began to swirl when she reportedly told acquaintances that she delivered the baby sometime late Thursday or early Friday at an undisclosed hospital, but friends and observers were confused about how Corey could be home so soon after giving birth. By later Friday (allegedly less than a day after she gave birth to the baby,) Corey was actively showing the newborn off to acquaintances, police said, and she hardly appeared to be someone who just gave birth. Police investigators said that Corey had reportedly gone to New Hampshire to relocate. Reportedly, she arrived at a Plymouth homeless shelter Tuesday night. She allegedly told workers there that the girl was 6 days old and identified herself as the mother - yet had no information on the child, according to the Union Leader in New Hampshire. Corey was arrested Wednesday as she tried to leave the shelter with the infant after workers alerted police and a nurse began photographing the baby with her cell phone, according the Union Leader.

While admittedly revolting in its details, as a Boston, Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that this case illustrates a great deal about the law of several crimes: murder, assault, battery, mayhem and attempted murder. I’ll talk in greater detail about these in my next post.

In the meantime, try not to lose faith in humanity and the human condition. Cases like these strain that belief to the limit.

Like seemingly everyone, I’ve watched this incident take over the media cycle for the past several days, and sweep across the globe (as in the world, not the Boston Globe,) who seem to be doing all they can to ring the racism bell, with frightening speed. I shook my head when I saw Al Sharpton jump in. But when I saw the President of the United States not only address this incident during a nationally televised press conference, but essentially endorse Mr. Gates’ version of these events, I was truly shocked.

As a Boston criminal defense attorney who has seen his share of racially-motivated crimes and offenses, from assault and battery to rape and murder, I’m offended that Henry Gates Jr. dared to blame this incident on racism. “Racism”, by the way, is a vastly overused term, by both the public and the media. In its purest form, “racism” is a virulent, hateful belief system that regards certain categories of people (whether based on ethnic background or national origin,) to be inherently inferior – and undeserving to live or enjoy any of the dignities or freedoms that a “superior” race enjoys. The most notorious examples of this: Hitler’s death camps in World War II; the mass exterminations in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. If this incident occurred as Gates described it – which by all credible accounts it did not – then it would be accurately characterized as “bigotry” or “prejudice”. But most people don’t know or care to know the difference, and the media loves the word racism.

So unrealistically sympathetic has been the overall media reporting of Gates’ version of these events, the vast majority seem dare not even suggest what all the objective facts indicate: That Gates’ overblown and bombastic ego caused him to make accusations against the arresting officer, which have no basis whatsoever in reality.

Led by the major print media in Cambridge’s backyard, the Boston Globe, most print media’s reporting refuses to acknowledge that this officer had not only a right, but a duty to verify Gates’ identity, in calling the Harvard campus police to make sure that Gates was who he claimed to be. And that, in my and many other informed observers’ opinions, is what ticked Gates off – that he wasn’t recognized immediately. That is when he pulled his “Do You Know Who I Am?” attitude. And when the officer offered to leave but was chased outside by Gates, by all credible accounts screaming wildly at the top of his lungs, that is when he was arrested – for disorderly conduct, and not for any reason whatsoever related to his color.

Honorable people like Martin Luther King, Jr., who suffered horrible injustices, gave their lives to true, actual forms of racial hatred and injustice, and to invoke their fight over something so pathetically benign, is shameful. But when you’re a black Harvard professor and you’ve made a fool out of yourself due to your own overblown ego, what better way to get out of it than to scream “Racism!”?

Claims like that ought to be reserved for real instances of racially-motivated hatred. Not overblown exaggerations like this.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently announced that, from July 20 2009 forward, judges will generally be required to issue rulings within 30 days of the completion of any civil commitment proceeding sought by the Commonwealth against someone previously convicted of rape or a sexual assault crime. On many occasions, when a person who has been convicted of rape or a crime involving sexual assault is nearing the end of his (or her) criminal prison sentence, a District Attorney’s office may seek a civil commitment of that prisoner, indefinitely, as a “sexually dangerous person (SDP)”. Prosecutors are allowed to do this under a specific statute, M.G..L. Chapter 123A, known among Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers as the “SDP statute.”

When a prosecutor moves for such a civil commitment, the District Attorney’s office seeking the commitment is essentially saying to a judge, “While this convict may have served out his criminal prison sentence, he (or she) remains a sexually dangerous person, and should not be released to the public, but committed civilly at a facility to treat sexually dangerous persons.” That civil commitment facility, by the way is almost always Bridgewater State Hospital. The court issued the ruling in the case of a man who had previously been convicted of child rape and indecent assault and battery on a child. Shortly before he was scheduled for release from prison in 2002, prosecutors moved to have him civilly committed to the Bridgewater facility. Superior Court Judge C. Brian McDonald heard the commonwealth's request in 2004, but did not subsequently enter judgment in the state's favor until 13 months later. In the meantime, the convict was held incarcerated at Bridgewater State Hospital.

The SJC affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that sufficient evidence had been presented to prove that the convict in question, a Joseph Blake, was a "sexually dangerous person" and also that the 13-month delay before the judge issued his decision did not violate Blake's due process rights. However, the court went on to rule that the delay was "unacceptably long." Consequently, the court announced that henceforth judges must make decisions in sexually dangerous person proceedings not later than 30 days after the end of trial, absent "extraordinary circumstances."

The justices said that the new timeline adopted by the court would "accommodate the State's legitimate interests in protecting society from sexual predators, while ensuring that a person held in the treatment center pending the outcome of a civil commitment hearing, (and) who is ultimately determined not to be sexually dangerous, is detained no longer than necessary." Hence, the ruling provides no greater limitation on the state to seek to have a convict held civilly after his (or her) prison term, but speeds up the decision process. As a Massachusetts sex crimes lawyer and Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, I think this is a fair ruling. It preserve’s the Commonwealth’s legitimate interests in seeking to protect the public from persons who have been deemed to be “sexually dangerous”, but assures that defendants aren’t held unreasonably long while they await a decision.

Here’s an interesting development occurring at the intersection of criminal law and the healthcare field: The state’s largest nursing association is organizing support and lobbying for a bill giving nurses special protections from assault and battery by patients under their care.

The legislation would put defendants found guilty of assault and battery against registered nurses while they are providing health care, in jail for a minimum of 90 days and up to a maximum of 2-1/2 years. Currently, Massachusetts law allows sentences up to 2 1/2 years, but no minimum sentence for simple assault and battery convictions (against a nurse or anyone). In support of this legislation, the Massachusetts Nurses Association cited a survey it conducted five years ago, which concluded that one in every two nurses was assaulted at work during a two-year period in Massachusetts. The association also claims that nurses are assaulted as frequently as police officers and prison guards.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Michael O. Moore, D-Millbury, was one of more than 200 proposed new laws covering a wide variety of criminal offenses, all of which were heard in a single day yesterday by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. Two Massachusetts District Attorneys, Worcester County District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr., and Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, are both backing the bill for minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on nurses.

According to Massachusetts Nursing Association spokesman David Schildmeier, assaults on nurses are frequently not prosecuted, and in cases where they are prosecuted, judges have complete discretion over whether a jail sentence is imposed. The association finds judicial discretion a ‘problem.’ I don’t. I’ve blogged previously and spoken publicly more than once about the destructive effects of mandatory minimum sentencing – whether for assault and battery, rape and sexual offenses, drug offenses or operating under the influence of alcohol. To impose a mandatory minimum jail term of 90 days for anyone found guilty of assaulting a nurse in the course of his or her care is extremely unwise from several standpoints: Judicial administration, corrections, and simple justice. Nurses perform a valuable service throughout society, but not more so than dozens of other hard-working professionals who have to interact with the public every day. Further, I think it safe to say that the vast majority of patients who might assault a nurse would likely be ill, elderly, of unstable or unsound mind, or under the effects of medication. To mandatorily sentence such people to 90 days in jail, with absolutely no judicial discretion whatsoever, is plainly foolish, not to mention inequitable.

The nurses association is also working to change hospital policies to reduce tolerance of nurse abuse and attacks on nurses, and to end past practices that discouraged nurses from seeking criminal complaints in cases where they have been assaulted by patients, visitors and families of patients. I support that effort entirely.

According to the association, while some medical institutions have viewed violence against nurses in the past as being “part of the job,” the association has been educating nurses that they should prosecute assaults. “It is not part of the job to get punched,” he said. As a Boston criminal defense attorney, I thoroughly agree with this opinion, and I would encourage any nurse who feels that he or she has been assaulted to bring charges against the person who committed such an assault. But to enact special penalties for assaulting registered nurses, then tie judges’ hands and mandatorily sentence anyone who has even slightly assaulted a nurse to a minimum of 90 days in jail, is unwise, counterproductive judicial and corrections policy, and inequitable.

Nurses deserve respect and equal access to the criminal courts. They have that now.

Drunk driving and other criminal charges have been filed against a 22-year-old Falmouth man who was allegedly operating under the influence of alcohol in last month’s fatal car accident on County Road, in Bourne, Massachusetts, according to police authorities. Jonathan Muir was charged in Barnstable District Court with motor vehicle homicide, motor vehicle homicide while operating under the influence of alcohol, two counts of causing serious bodily injury while operating under the influence of alcohol, operating negligently to endanger, operating under the influence of alcohol, speeding, and a marked lane violation, according to the Bourne Police Department.

Police allege that Muir was driving a 1984 Porsche when it veered off County Road in Bourne and slammed into a tree around 1:30 a.m. on June 29. The car crash killed passenger Cassandra Flynn-Rakos, a 21-year-old Bourne resident and nursing student at Fitchburg State College. Muir and two other passengers, Erica Pouler and Sonya Dangelo, both 21, of Bourne, were seriously injured in the car accident. Muir could face up to 15 years in prison and $5,000 in fines for the motor vehicle homicide charge while under the influence, according to Massachusetts General Laws, or up to 2 1/2 years for motor vehicle homicide. Muir, who moved to Falmouth from Meridian, Connecticut, allegedly has a history of driving infractions in both Massachusetts and in Connecticut, according to registry records from both states. Muir lost his license for almost a year for failing to complete a driver training course in Connecticut within the required time. He was ordered to take the course after being convicted of speeding and driving an unregistered vehicle in April 2007.

He ultimately finished the course, paid the fines and his license was reinstated in July 2008. Following this motor vehicle accident, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles immediately and indefinitely revoked Muir’s driver’s license.

This story, like so many others, is a tragic one. As a Massachusetts drunk driving defense lawyer, I can attest to seeing far too many of these cases. But it’s important to remember that this individual is entitled to his day in court to explain what happened and be provided with a vigorous criminal defense. Representing persons accused of OUI/DWI charges and other criminal offenses is what we specialize in at the Law Offices of William D. Kickham and Associates. If you or someone you know has been arrested for Massachusetts drunk driving or OUI/DWI charges, you need the best lawyer you can find to represent you on these charges – because you can’t rebuild the rest of your life, until you’ve first addressed these criminal charges. Call us, we can help.

The Law Offices of William D. Kickham and Associates represents persons accused of OUI, DWI, and several other criminal offenses in Massachusetts. We specialize in criminal defense, and provide coverage in all courts in eastern Massachusetts. If you or someone you know has been arrested or accused or a crime in Massachusetts, call us.

By now, many readers of this blog know that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that people convicted of a crime have no constitutional right to DNA testing to prove their innocence, after they are convicted. What most people didn’t know until then, however, is that Massachusetts is one of only three states out of fifty that does not already have a law allowing people the right to try to prove their innocence, post-conviction, via DNA testing. The other two states are Alaska and Oklahoma. It’s baffling why Massachusetts, a state routinely considered progressive, has not taken any action on this issue.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, declared that prisoners don’t have a constitutional right to submit DNA testing after their convictions, even if the convict is willing to pay for the tests himself. The majority’s reasoning was that the court should not to “constitutionalize” this right, when states appear to be already taking care of the issue. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “a criminal defendant proven guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.” As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I find that reasoning very troubling, and take profound issue with this ruling. It is plainly misguided. However, the state legislature in Massachusetts should also be faulted for not having acted in the past to join the 47 other level-headed states in enacting a measure to ensure the constitutional right of a convict to offer DNA testing evidence after a conviction, in an effort to prove their innocence.

The justices could have embraced a nationwide solution to wrongful convictions, and they chose not to. Over two hundred years ago, the framers of the Constitution could obviously never have foreseen the arrival of DNA testing. Had they been able to, it’s unthinkable that they would not have guaranteed a man the scientific chance to prove his own innocence. The framers of our Constitution were thinkers who justifiably viewed the power of government to imprison citizens with guarded skepticism. If a scientific method exists that can irrefutably establish guilt or innocence, it’s plainly ludicrous not to allow access to it. It isn’t a stretch to assume that most convicts who seek post-conviction DNA testing are probably innocent. How many guilty people are likely to demand that the proof that convicted them, become scientifically unquestionable?

According to The Innocence Project, an organization that advocates for people who say they have been wrongly convicted, DNA testing has exonerated 240 innocent people in the United States to date. At least 17 of those people had been on death row. These innocent people served an average of 12 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. Have you ever seen news footage of someone who has been released from years of imprisonment, thanks to DNA evidence that was admitted after trial? I’ve not only seen this in the news, I’ve met these people. They are the faces of exoneration. They’re people like you and me – and they were arrested, convicted and thrown in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. Crimes as serious as murder, to drug offenses, to rape, to simple assault and battery.

These wrongful convictions make clear that our judicial system is not infallible. A constitutional right to DNA testing in Massachusetts is needed, and if the Supreme Court’s ruling requires states to take the lead on this issue, then the Massachusetts legislature should do so, and fast. However, in the event you already don’t know, the Massachusetts legislature isn’t known for working overtime, let alone working. So if you agree that anyone convicted of a criminal offense in Massachusetts should have the right to submit evidence of DNA testing after they have been convicted, contact your legislator now.

Or someday you or someone you know could find yourself wrongfully convicted, with no way to free yourself though DNA evidence. And if you doubt that could happen to you, I can introduce you to some people who will convince you otherwise.

Readers of my blog know that I’ve posted previously on the horrific story of the beating death of young Nathaniel Turner, a 7 year-old boy from Alabama that came to live with his biological father, Leslie G. Schuler, near Worcester, for the summer. On June 21 2009 – Father’s Day – Schuler allegedly beat the boy so badly that he was left brain-dead. A truly horrific story. The alleged facts of this story call to mind the story of Haleigh Poutre, an 11 year-old girl who was also beaten so badly she was almost disconnected from life support at the request of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (formerly the Department of Social Services.)

Police said Schuler took Nathaniel to the emergency room on June 21, Father’s Day. The boy was unconscious, suffering from traumatic brain injuries, and was placed on a ventilator. Following a medical determination that the boy had been beaten, Schuler was arraigned last week on assault and battery charges. The boy was declared clinically dead last Tuesday, June 30 2009, after evaluation by doctors from the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center’s University Campus in Worcester and Children’s Hospital in Boston. Nathaniel was removed from the ventilator over the following weekend. His organs were harvested for transplantation.

Schuler was then arraigned last week on a murder charge, according to District Attorney Joseph D. Early’s office. Schuler was originally represented at his assault and battery arraignment by a public defender who reportedly is not on a special list of lawyers appointed by the state to represent defendants accused of murder. (That list is known as the “Murder List” at the state agency who appoints lawyers to represent indigent criminal defendants, the Committee for Public Counsel Services.) However, Schuler has since been appointed another lawyer who is on the “Murder List”, and that person is the same lawyer who represented the stepfather in the Haleigh Poutre case. Springfield lawyer Alan J. Black was named to take over Schuler’s defense. Black represented the neglectful stepfather in the high-profile Poutre case in 2005.

Though comparisons have been made between the Turner and Poutre cases, Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (MSPCC) to Children, noted that the tragedies are profoundly different. “Haleigh was in a vegetative state and had suffered severe brain injuries,’’ Sudders said last week. “She was never declared clinically dead by a physician. Being clinically dead means there’s no brain function, and organs are shutting down.’’ (Nathaniel Turner was declared clinically brain dead.)

People often wonder how any lawyer can represent a defendant charged with murder, or worse, such a horrific crime as this murder. As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that the answer lies in the Constitution: Each person accused of a crime in our system of criminal justice is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and each person is entitled to a vigorous legal defense. That, and an emotional ability to completely separate your personal feelings about the defendant, from your representation of him or her. It’s hardly easy, and it takes a tough stomach. But if you think the system should change, then ask yourself if you'd be willing to be the first one as a criminal defendant to "test" that new system.

A long-suspected underboss of the reigning New England crime family has reached a criminal defense plea agreement with federal and state criminal law authorities, which will net him a 6-year federal prison sentence.

Federal and state law prosecutors and law enforcement officials announced yesterday that Carmen S. “Cheeseman” DiNunzio, 51, of Boston, has agreed to plead guilty to a variety of federal and state criminal charges, thus avoiding prolonged federal and state trials on those charges. If ending in guilty verdicts, those trials could have netted Dinunzio decades in federal and state prisons. Through this plea agreement, authorities secured the guilty findings they sought, secured prison time for DiNunzio, and sent a message to other crime family members that they too can be pursued.

With respect to the federal charges, DiNunzio pled guilty to charges of conspiring to bribe a state official in connection with a proposed sale of materials to a project related to the Massachusetts Central Artery Tunnel Project, otherwise known as the "Big Dig," and for providing a $10,000 down payment on the illegal payoff. On the state charges, DiNunzio will also plead guilty in a separate hearing in Essex County Superior Court on July 8, 2009, to state charges of extortion, promoting an illegal gambling operation, and conspiring to violate state gaming laws in connection with his role in the ongoing mob-related extortion of local bookmakers. Authorities brought no charges involving violent crime, such as murder, assault and battery, or drug trafficking. These are common charges involving organized crime, along with extortion and money laundering.

Under the terms of the joint plea agreement, DiNunzio’s six-year prison terms for both the federal and state offenses will be served concurrently, not consecutively. By pleading guilty, DiNunzio admitted that in 2006 he and two other men conspired to bribe a state official to obtain a lucrative contract to provide 300,000 cubic yards of "loam" (i.e., dirt and clay) to the Massachusetts Highway Department for use on the Big Dig. He also admitted that, in addition to agreeing to take part in the bribery scheme, he provided $10,000 cash, intended as a down payment on a larger payoff, for a person he believed was a Massachusetts Highway Department inspector capable of ensuring that the group would obtain the lucrative loam contract. The inspector was, in fact, an undercover agent. The plea agreement also reflects that in 2001 he extorted $500 per month from a North End bookmaker in exchange for allowing a gaming/numbers office to operate; managed and financed a gaming organization with several offices and numerous agents in the North Shore area that took bets on the outcome of professional and college sporting events; and conspired with others to operate a gaming enterprise.

Acting United States Attorney Michael Loucks said, "Carmen DiNunzio believed that public officials in Massachusetts could be bought; that is precisely what he was trying to do, and what he admitted to today. The only thing DiNunzio´s bribe of $10,000 will buy him is six years in federal prison."

All in all, not a bad deal for DiNunzio, or for federal and state prosecutors. As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that, if found guilty on even a few of the several charges brought against him, DiNunzio would have gone away for a lot longer than six years. DiNunzio is known as “The Cheeseman”, owing to the fact that he’s operated a cheese shop in Boston’s North End for years (allegedly a front for his criminal enterprises.) Looks like The Cheeseman is going to age some in one of our finer federal shops. Let's hope this cheese softens, not hardens, over time.

In a ruling affecting a wide variety of criminal law cases in Massachusetts, especially drug crimes, the U.S Supreme Court has ruled that lab reports offered as evidence by prosecutors will henceforth require the in-person testimony of lab technicians at trial.

The landmark ruling had its origins in a routine Suffolk Superior Court drug prosecution taking place in 2002, and made its way all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In that Suffolk Superior Court trial, prosecutors sought to introduce lab certificates accompanying two batches of drugs recovered by police in the case. The defendant’s defense attorney objected, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that these types of reports fall within the “Confrontation Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The Confrontation Clause requires the appearance of live witnesses against a defendant in a criminal prosecution, as the Court ruled in the 2004 case Crawford v. Washington.

The judge hearing the case at that time, then-Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Rouse, overruled the defense objection, and allowed the lab certificates to be admitted into evidence pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111, Sections 12 and 13, which requires the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to “make … a chemical analysis of any narcotic drug … when submitted to it by police authorities … provided, that it is satisfied that the analysis is to be used for the enforcement of law.” Section 13 states that the “presentation of such certificate to the court by any police officer … shall be prima facie evidence that all the requirements [of section 12] have been complied with.”

At trial, prosecutors introduced the lab reports asserting that the substance inside the bags that were recovered by police was cocaine. The lab technicians who wrote the report did not appear as witnesses at trial. Without success, the defendant’s lawyer objected to the reports being allowed as evidence, arguing that the unavailability of the laboratory technicians who wrote the lab reports, for cross-examination, violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. No luck: The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a three-year to three-year-plus-one-day state prison term.

In an unpublished decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court Judge’s ruling, and later the Supreme Judicial Court denied review without comment. The defendant then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for review, and the case was accepted for review (very, very few cases are accepted by the court for review.) In a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court reversed the conviction.
Scalia wrote, “Under our decision in Crawford v. Washington, the (laboratory) analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were ‘witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Absent a showing that the analysts were unavailable to testify at trial and that [the defendant] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them, [the defendant] was entitled to ‘be confronted with’ the analysts at trial.” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who personally argued the case, said she was “very disappointed” with the decision. “It is particularly disappointing that the majority failed to appreciate that its ruling today will significantly burden our ability to prosecute countless drug cases in the Commonwealth’s courts,” she said. Although we are still reviewing the implications of today’s decision, our office is prepared to work with other law enforcement officials in the Commonwealth to adjust our practices to comply with this new constitutional rule while still holding accountable those who violate our drug laws.”

As a Massachusetts drug crimes defense lawyer, I believe this U.S. Supreme Court ruling to be the fair and correct one. I acknowledge that producing laboratory technicians, in-person, for every criminal trial where they are needed, will be cumbersome and at times difficult. But it is a superior option to trumping the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.