. . . A criminal trial is neither a whodunit nor a multiple choice test. It is not even a criminal investigation to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if it is “likely” or “probable” that a defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither likely nor probable satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result—acquittal in such a case—may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.

For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham’s argument with God about the sinners of Sodom.

Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were 10 or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were 10 righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged.

That is why a criminal trial is not a search for truth. Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A civil trial, on the other hand, seeks justice for the victim. In such a case, the victim sues the alleged perpetrator and need only prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if it is more likely than not that a defendant was the killer, he is found liable, though he cannot be found guilty on that lesser standard.

That is why it was perfectly rational, though difficult for many to understand, for a civil jury to have found O.J. Simpson liable to his alleged victim, after a criminal jury had found him not guilty of his murder. It is certainly possible that if the estate of Caylee Anthony were to sue Casey Anthony civilly, a Florida jury might find liability.

Casey Anthony was not found innocent of her daughter’s murder, as many commentators seem to believe. She was found “not guilty.” And therein lies much of the misunderstanding about the Anthony verdict.

The controversy surrounding the Anthony verdict has caused some to question whether our legal system works. However, for others, the verdict is a reminder that regardless of the nature of the crime alleged, or the public’s negative or positive opinion about the accused, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If jurors are left with a reasonable doubt, then they must find the accused “not guilty.”

You can read Mr. Dershowitz’s full article here.

Those behind the OpenCourt project believe that “transparent courts make for a stronger democracy.”  The project allows journalists, bloggers and other members of the public to live stream court cases as they unfold.

Privacy Concerns

Some defendants have raised concerns about OpenCourt’s website.  “People at home being able to watch this and know my business — I don’t like that,” said a young man who was charged with disorderly conduct in Quincy District Court.  Why does everybody need to see my case (online)? It’s nobody else’s business.”

Criminal defense attorneys worry that their private conversation with clients will be recorded and streamed online.  The court has held training sessions to show lawyers the dead zones in the courtroom where they can have conversations that won’t be picked up by microphones. However, the training sessions have not eliminated concerns.

For more information about the project and its restrictions, click here.

If you are looking for a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney, contact me for a free consultation by clicking here or by calling 508.859.0008. For more updates, follow me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

The Facts

In Commonwealth v. Cruz, two police officers spotted a car that was illegally parked in front of a fire hydrant. The police officers approached the two people seated in the car. One police officer stood next to the driver’s side of the car while the second officer stood near the passenger’s side. As the police officers spoke to the occupants, one of the officers smelled the “faint odor” of burnt marijuana. When asked whether they had been smoking marijuana, the driver said he smoked earlier that day. The police officers ordered the driver and the passenger out of the car. One officer asked the passenger whether he had anything on him. He told the officer that he had some drugs with him. The officer searched the passenger and found crack cocaine in his pocket. The passenger became the defendant in the Cruz case.

The Court’s Decision

The SJC determined that the odor of burnt marijuana, alone, was not a sufficient reason for the police to order the passenger out of the car. The Court concluded that to order a person out of a car based merely on suspicion of an offense, that offense must be criminal.

The Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the marijuana odor was enough for the police to develop reasonable suspicion that the passenger was involved in criminal activity. Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is not a crime in Massachusetts. Voters moved to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana in 2008.

Because possessing small amounts of marijuana is a civil offense in Massachusetts, the Court held that the marijuana odor, alone, did not lead to a reasonable suspicion that the passenger was in possession of a criminal amount (more than one ounce) of marijuana. Therefore, there was no reasonable suspicion that the passenger was involved in criminal activity and the police were not justified in ordering him out of the car.

If you are looking for a Massachusetts Marijuana Possession Lawyer, contact me for a free consultation by clicking here or by calling 508.859.0008. For more updates, follow me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is a civil offense in Massachusetts, not a crime. Massachusetts citizens voted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in 2008. The current law allows offenders to avoid the negative consequences of a criminal record.

Civil Penalties for Possession of One Ounce or Less of Marijuana
Adults are subject to a $100.00 fine for possessing one ounce or less of marijuana in Massachusetts. The offender must also forfeit their weed.

People under 18 years old are subject to the same penalties as adult offenders as long as they complete a drug awareness program. However, the civil penalty may increase to $1,000 if the juvenile does not complete the drug awareness program within one year of the offense. The underage offender and his or her parents will be held responsible for that amount.

Criminal Penalties for Other Marijuana Offenses
Although possession of a small amount of marijuana is a civil offense, possessing more than one ounce of marijuana is a crime in Massachusetts.

Marijuana trafficking and marijuana possession with the intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense the drug is a crime, regardless of the amount of marijuana involved. In other words, a person is subject to serious criminal penalties even if he or she is trafficking or distributing an ounce or less of marijuana.

Are you looking for a Massachusetts Marijuana Possession Lawyer? Contact me for a free consultation by clicking here or calling 508.859.0008. For more updates, follow me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

New Criminal Charges: If a “straight warrant” was issued against you, you will be arraigned.  The court will issue a straight warrant when a criminal complaint or indictment is filed against you and the police convince the court that you should be arrested rather than served with a summons to appear in court. During the arraignment the court will read the criminal charges against you. The court may enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf.

The prosecutor can ask the court to set bail to ensure your appearance at the next court date. A judge may order you held in custody without bail if he or she believes you are a danger. A qualified lawyer can explain to the judge why the court should release you without paying bail or why the court should impose a low bail amount.

Failure to Appear or Failure to Pay: If you were required to appear in court or pay a court fine, but fail to do so, the court will issue a “default warrant” for your arrest.

Probation Violation: If your probation officer believes you violated the terms of your probation, a judge may issue a “probation surrender warrant” for your arrest to make you appear in court for a probation violation hearing.

If you were issued a default warrant, or a probation surrender warrant, you will be required to pay a fee to the court in cash or by certified check, unless there is a good reason for why you cannot pay it that day. If the warrant was issued because you owe the court money, you should be prepared to pay the amount owed.

“What happens if I ignore an arrest warrant notice?”

The police can arrest you at anytime once a warrant is issued against you. Until you clear up your arrest warrant, and depending on the type of warrant, you may face the following consequences:

• Suspension of your drivers license: Your drivers license may be suspended by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

• Suspension of your public assistance benefits: You can be denied all financial and other public assistance benefits by the Department of Transitional Assistance.

• Reporting your warrant to out-of-state police: Your warrant may be reported to federal and state police and criminal justice agencies outside of Massachusetts. You may be subject to arrest in other states.

• Police access to your personal records: The police can obtain personal information about you in order to identify, locate and arrest you. The police can review your unemployment compensation records, your Department of Revenue wage reports or saving account reports and your public assistance records from the Department of Transitional Assistance or the Commission for the Blind.

• Suspension of your tax refunds, unemployment compensation and workers compensation: You may be denied any state tax refund, any unemployment compensation payments and any workers compensation payments from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

• Suspension of your permits and professional licenses: Any permit, certificate, professional license or authorization issued by an agency or authority of Massachusetts to participate in a trade, business or profession may become suspended.

• Charge for your arrest: If you are arrested on a warrant and it is a default warrant or a probation surrender warrant you will be required to pay a default warrant arrest fee to the court or perform one day of community service.

Even if you think the warrant was issued against you in error, DO NOT IGNORE THE NOTICE!

Are you looking for a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer? Contact me for a free consultation by clicking here or calling 508.859.0008. For more updates, follow me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

While addressing an energetic crowd of legislators, community activists and ex-offenders the Governor stated, “this legislation brings our outdated criminal history database into the 21st century, ensures law enforcement agencies, employers and housing providers have access to accurate and complete records in appropriate circumstances, and helps people get back to work so they can support their families.”

The new law includes the following:

Internet-Based CORI System

• Employers and housing providers now have access to criminal records though an internet-based system.
• Felony convictions will remain available in the system for 10 years.
• Misdemeanor convictions will remain available in the system for 5 years, as long as there are no subsequent offenses.
• Pending cases that are continued without a finding (CWOF) will be available in the system until the case is disposed.
• Murder and sex offense convictions remain in the system permanently.
• Courts and law enforcement agencies continue to have full access to criminal offender record information.

Restrictions on Employment Applications

• Employers are prohibited from asking applicants about prior arrests or convictions on job applications. However, the restriction does not apply to employers who by law cannot hire ex-felons, etc.

Inmate Rehabilitation & Parole Eligibility

• Non-violent offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences can participate in education and training programs before they re-enter the community. These opportunities are designed to reduce the likelihood of the inmates committing new crimes following their releases.
• Some inmates imprisoned in the House of Correction for non-violent drug offenses will be eligible for parole after serving one-half of a mandatory minimum sentence if no aggravating factors are found. As a condition of parole, the Parole Board may require enhanced supervision such as GPS tracking.

Pretrial Detention for Illegal Firearms Possession

• Illegal firearms possession has been added to the list of crimes that a prosecutor may use to move for the pretrial detention of crime suspects.

Opponents of the new law believe that employers and public housing providers will have a more difficult time screening for felons while supporters argue that the law gives ex-offenders a second chance.

What do you think about the new law?

Are you looking for a Worcester Criminal Defense Lawyer? Contact me for a free consultation by clicking here or calling 508.859.0008. For more updates, follow me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

In a drug possession case, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in possession of an illegal substance. Being charged with a drug possession crime does not necessarily mean that the government has enough evidence to prove its case against you. Merely being in the presence of illegal drugs, or associating with people who have drugs is not enough.

How do you know whether you are, or have ever been, in possession of illegal drugs? Keep reading to see whether any of the following categories apply to you:

You and another person own or hold an illegal drug together.
Massachusetts law recognizes that you may “possess” a drug even if you are not the only person who owns or holds on to it. For example, if you own and share a stash of marijuana with a friend who agrees to keep the stash at his house for both of you to use, you are in joint possession of the marijuana (no pun intended).

You have knowledge of an illegal drug and you have the ability and intent to exercise control over it.
You can be in “possession” of a drug even if you don’t keep it close to you. For example, you are in possession of any drug that you keep locked away in a safe deposit box at your bank or hidden at home in your kitchen cabinet. The government considers a drug to be within your possession if you have knowledge of the drug and you have the ability and intent to exercise control over it. This is known as constructive possession.

You have physical control or custody of illegal drugs.
You “possess” anything that is in your direct physical control or custody. For example, you’re in possession of whatever is in your pockets, wallet or purse right now. This is called actual possession.  In cases like that,  the government must prove that you knew about the drug.

Whether the government can prove  possession will ultimately depend on the specific facts of your case.

Are you looking for a Massachusetts Drug Possession Lawyer? Contact me for a free consultation by clicking here or by calling 508.859.0008. For more updates, follow me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.