Boston Criminal Attorney Blog

In a ruling bound to enrage victim’s rights advocates and conservative legal and political commentators, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday issued a decision restricting District and Superior Court judges’ ability to require that GPS monitoring bracelets be worn by convicted Massachusetts sex offenders, regardless of whether offenders have violated the conditions of their probation. While differing viewpoints can argue the constitutional validity of this decision, it is the underlying which gave rise to this ruling that is certain (understandably) to evoke a lot of visceral reaction about this ruling.

The facts of that case are unquestionably ugly and revolting, so let’s lay them out up front: One day twenty years ago, in 1990, a particularly loathsome individual by the name of Ralph Goodwin abducted and raped a 7 year-old boy. I said the details are revolting, and they are: Goodwin lured the young boy away from his parents while the family was attending an event at a Portuguese-American civic club in Lowell. He did this by enticing the boy in a game of hide-and-seek. According to prosecutors at his trial, Goodwin separated the boy from his parents and a friend and carried him outside the building, threatening to kill him if he called for help. He then took the boy to a secluded area underneath a nearby bridge and raped him. When Goodwin was done, he then took him to a house, where he sexually assaulted the boy again. Goodwin held the boy prisoner in the cellar of the house overnight, and raped him again the following morning, according to prosecutors. He then placed the injured and traumatized boy in a large cardboard box, deposited him on a street corner, and called a taxi to take the boy to his home.

Goodwin was convicted at trial, and then-Superior Court Judge Patti B. Saris, (who is now a federal judge,) sentenced Goodwin to two concurrent terms of 10 to 15 years in prison for two of the Massachusetts rape charges, and nine to 10 years concurrently for the kidnapping. She sentenced Goodwin 30 to 40 years for the third rape but suspended that sentence, but ordered that it be automatically imposed if he reoffended. Goodwin then spent the next 15 years as a guest of the Commonwealth in state prison. Prior to his scheduled release in 2005, he was civilly committed to Bridgewater State Hospital (basically the state prison for the insane and the sexually dangerous,) after a judicial determination that he was still sexually dangerous. In 2006, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law to require that all convicted sex offenders wear GPS monitoring devices. Fast forward to June 2009, when Goodwin was released after a jury concluded he was no longer dangerous. He was given several conditions of probation at his release. However, wearing a GPS monitoring device that would allow authorities to track his movements, and staying away from schoolyards, was not among the listed conditions of probation, because he was convicted prior to enactment of the 2006 law requiring all convicted sex offenders to wear the devices. This is key here.

Shortly after Goodwin’s June 2009 release, prosecutors asked a judge to add to his probation conditions, and order that Goodwin wear a GPS device, and also asked for additional probation orders that would restrict his movements (these requests were asked by prosecutors, in addition to the previous probation conditions that were imposed upon his release in 2009.) At a hearing on these additional requests, a Superior Court judge ruled against the prosecutors’ requests. It is extremely important to note that the judge did this, primarily due to the fact that the SJC had just issued a ruling the day before this judge’s ruling in favor of Goodwin, prohibiting judges from applying the 2006 GPS law retroactively. This is also key here.

Yesterday’s 4-3 SJC ruling, upholding the lower court judge’s refusal to add GPS monitoring to Goodwin’s prior probation conditions (as well as their refusal to prohibit Goodwin from going near playgrounds, schools, and libraries) seems, at first glance, illogical and ill-advised. But the SJC’s decision was based on two facts: 1) Their prior decision in 2009, preventing judges from applying the GPS law retroactively; and 2) The fact (stipulated to by both prosecutors Goodwin’s attorneys,) that Goodwin had not, at the time prosecutors moved to impose the additional GPS monitoring, violated any conditions of his June 2009 probation. (Note: In the interests of full disclosure, Goodwin did eventually the terms of his June 2009 probation, by failing to attend a mental health day treatment program, and as a result, was ordered by another judge to wear a GPS device, (though that judge did not restrict where him from going near schoolyards or playgrounds.)

Writing for the majority, Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote, “Here, the (trial) judge correctly found that there had been no material change in the defendant’s circumstances after the terms of (the June 2009) probation were initially imposed that would justify the proposed additional probation condition of GPS monitoring and exclusion zones.’’ This decision essentially reaffirms the 4-to-3 decision the high court issued in August 2009, ruling that the Legislature’s 2006 law requiring convicted sex offenders to wear GPS devices cannot be automatically applied retroactively to defendants who were convicted prior to the statute’s enactment. The majority said the devices were “punitive” rather than “remedial”, and that they create an unconstitutional burden on the individuals’ freedom.

The court’s ruling drew criticism from the District Attorney who sought the increased probation conditions on Goodwin, Middlesex County District Attorney Gerald T. Leone, Jr., as well as criticism from and victims’ rights advocates. Goodwin’s attorney, Jeannine Mercure, said the court’s ruling was a victory for civil liberties, and noted that the ruling had implications beyond solely GPS monitoring of sex offenders. Certainly, many people will disagree. Even though I practice as a Massachusetts sex offender attorney, I full understand why people would disagree with this argument.

These decisions aren’t easy. It’s argued that decisions like this are needed, to protect the constitutional rights of the larger population. The case is Commonwealth vs. Ralph W. Goodwin, Slip Opinion No. SJC-10647.

A recent fatality stemming from drinking and driving underscores the dual criminal law and civil liability dangers associated with mixing alcohol and driving.

An 18 year-old youth, Max Haberman, was killed in a Sudbury Massachusetts car crash last month. He had reportedly been drinking prior to the accident at the home of a 19 year-old, a Timothy Jarrett of Sudbury. According to the Sudbury, Massachusetts Police Department, Jarrett had hosted an under-age drinking party, where Haberman was identified as being present and consuming alcohol. As a result, Jarrett was charged with violating what is known as the Massachusetts Social Host Law. This law provides for criminal penalties against someone under 21 years of age to possess alcohol on his property. Legally, this means that in addition to facing criminal charges, Jarrett and/or his parents (presumably the owners of the property where the party was held,) will be exposed to civil liability in connection with Haberman’s death. Haberman was killed when the Mercedes SUV he was driving slammed into trees in the woods off Dutton Road in Sudbury.

This is all very tragic, and it underscores the continuing message: 1) Do not drive if you have been drinking; and 2) If you serve alcohol at a social function in your home, and someone attending that function becomes intoxicated and later injures (or kills) someone when driving after the function, you can be held civilly liable for a victim’s Massachusetts personal injuries resulting from that guest’s drunk driving. Always be aware: A guest need not be “falling down drunk”, or even visibly impaired, in order to be legally drunk when leaving your function. If you wish to hold a social event at your home and intend to serve alcohol, always call an experienced Massachusetts drunk driving lawyer before you hold such an event. Important legal issues and precautions must be taken to safeguard not only the lives of persons who might be injured by and guests that leave your function legally impaired, but extremely important proactive legal measures must be taken to protect your legal and financial interests.

At our practice, we address both the criminal and civil liability aspects of alcohol-related events and accidents. Contact us if you either plan on hosting an event at your home or office where alcohol will be served, if you have been arrested for drunk driving, or if you have been injured by a drunk driver. We have over twenty years of experience in this field of law, and we can provide you the expert counsel you need.

Last January, the Boston Globe published a lengthy investigative piece on an apparent mortgage fraud scheme run by several individuals. The story alleged that the ring was led by one Michael David Scott, a Mansfield, Massachusetts real estate developer, who recruited several other co-conspirators to assist him in the bank fraud scheme. At the time of the Globe’s January 2010 story, no one had yet been arrested or charged.

That all changed last week when Scott was indicted by a federal grand jury on 62 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering in connection with this operation. Yesterday, things changed even more in this case, when the Boston U.S. Attorney’s Office charged (separately) a former Bank of America Corp. branch manager and a Virginia-based real estate recruiter with wire fraud in this unfolding federal case. The case alleges that Scott masterminded and led a long-running mortgage fraud scheme to convert at least 50 buildings (usually three-deckers) into about 170 condos in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Some units sold at market prices, but almost none were made habitable. More than 100 of the properties eventually went into foreclosure. Aside from defrauding investors, almost all of those properties ended up being abandoned and blighted, resulting in even further deterioration of the communities they were located in. The case is being prosecuted in U.S. District Court in Boston (federal court,) and not Massachusetts state Superior court, due to the interstate nature of the alleged bank fraud involved. Scott is scheduled to appear before a federal judge Sept. 13, but federal court officials have not yet set an appearance date for Fowler or Samuels.

Arthur Samuels, a former manager at Bank of America’s Fields Corner branch in Dorchester, and Jerrold Fowler, of Norfolk, Virginia, were both charged yesterday in U.S. District Court in Boston with wire fraud (this charge applies because almost all of the electronic and physical transactions occurred over state lines.) Jerrold Fowler was charged for his alleged role as a recruiter for investors — many of them out of state — who participated in the alleged scheme to defraud lenders. Previously, in the indictment handed down last week against Michael David Scott, federal prosecutors said Scott worked with “associates,’’ but at the time the Grand Jury heard the evidence against him, those “associates” were not identified. It seems apparent now that these “associates” were, at the least, Arthur Samuels and Jerrold Fowler. Samuels’s role, inside Bank of America, allegedly involved manufacturing false documents to support the fraudulent loan applications involved. According to an FBI affidavit filed in the case, Scott, Fowler, Samuels, and others in the ring paid people to purchase condominiums, promised the buyers that they didn’t have to invest in the sale, represented that the mortgage payments would be paid for by tenants, and told buyers that they would share in the profits when the properties were eventually resold. The criminal complaint also alleged the group falsely inflated purchase prices, incorrectly said buyers would live in the homes, and falsely claimed inflated investors assets to qualify for the mortgages granted.

As a Boston white collar criminal defense lawyer, I can assure you that Samuel’s and Scott’s legal problems are not limited to the U.S. Attorney’s office only. Aside from these federal criminal charges against them, Samuels and Scott were also sued civilly in the last year by Bank of America in Suffolk Superior Court for their alleged roles in defrauding the lender of $1.5 million, as part of this “inside job.” That civil case is still pending, and Bank of America officials declined to comment on that case.