The following is a 'sample' of cases Attorney Arthur L. Kelly has handled over the last 6+ years.

RESULTS OF THE LAST 41 out of 47 O.U.I. Trials and ‘other’ Criminal JURY TRIALS - NOT GUILTY OR DISMISSED !

November 30, 2017
Concord District Court
No. 1747 CR 321

Client, 35-year old, married businessman, father of 2 children, is driving home from a social event when he is stopped for driving with a headlight out. He is asked to step from his car and perform a series of ‘Field Sobriety Tests’ FST ( never a good idea to agree to participate - you should politely refuse ). His performance however is very good relative to the tests that were administered. The police officer then proceeded to ask him a series of questions and based upon his answers, arrests the Client. He refuses the Breath Test at the Police Station ( always a good idea ). At all times the Client is a gentlemen and cooperative through out the booking process.

On this day of trial, Atty. Kelly exposes the police officer’s 'weak reason(s)’ for arresting the Client. Namely, that aside from the smell of alcohol, and his admission that he drank (2) beers that evening he was arrested. There was no evidence that he operated the vehicle erratically, was unsteady on his feet, had trouble with balance, was belligerent, failed to follow instructions, couldn’t answer questions, etc.

At the conclusion of the ‘Bench Trial’ ( before a judge and not a jury of 6 people ) the Court immediately finds the Client NOT GUILTY OF OUI.

RESULT: AFTER TRIAL, NOT GUILTY OF OUI.


November 28, 2017
Waltham District Court
No. 1751 CR 964
Newton District Court
No. 1712 CR 457

Client, 38-year old father of one young son is charged in (2) Courts with breaking and entering buildings, etc. - in an effort to steal items in order to support his out of control drug addiction. He has a very, very lengthy criminal record for similar crimes. His family retains Atty. Kelly, who immediately explores the possibility of ‘Drug Court’, which is a function of the Newton District Court, whereby a defendant ( if accepted ) is allowed to remain out of jail while he/she participates in a very structured program, geared to ‘rehabilitate’ and actually save the life of the individual. In the event, the person fails to follow through the program ( for any number of reasons ) his/hers suspended sentence is revoked and he/she is sent to the House of Correction to serve a minimum of 2 years. After several Court hearing(s), and over the strong objection of the Prosecutor(s) in both Courts, BOTH judges allow the Client’s request to enter the ‘Drug Court’ program.

RESULT: ‘Drug Court Program’ Imposed - Incarceration, Presently Avoided.

November 16, 2017
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 1784 CR 381

Client, 28-year old single mother of 2 young children is indicted with regard to the sale and distribution of various narcotics. Prior to these incidents, she was a college student without any criminal record or court involvement. Unfortunately, the father of one of her children is a notorious convicted drug dealer. The charges against the Client mandate a mandatory State Prison sentence upon conviction. Atty. Kelly, after many meetings with the Prosecutor, is able to persuade the District Attorney’s Office that his Client’s action(s) were a direct result of a situation of which she had little control over. On this day, the Court, after recognizing the young women’s challenges and history, places the Client on probation ( without a guilty finding ) for a period of 2 years. After the successful completion of probation, her case will be dismissed, no criminal conviction of a felony or otherwise. It should be noted that this ‘sentence’ was made possible because the Prosecutor ‘reduced’ the original charge.

RESULT: STATE PRISON SENTENCE - FELONY CONVICTION(S) AVOIDED.

October 26, 2017
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 0481 CR 01510

Client, in 2004 at the age of 19, is charged with 1st Degree Murder. He is alleged to have stabbed another young man during a confrontation. Atty. Kelly is appointed as ‘private counsel’ by the Court to handle his case. After almost 2 years, he pleads guilty to Manslaughter [ Dec. 2006 ] prior to trial and is given a 15 year sentence. During this time, the Client accumulates ‘good time credit’ which allows him to seek a release date in November, 2017. However, it is discovered by the Client that he may not have been credited with ‘all the days’ he was awaiting trial. Atty. Kelly is contacted by his Family and investigates the issue.

The Client is correct, on this day Atty. Kelly files a motion to correct the ‘jail credit’, which is allowed by the Court, thereby almost assuring that he will be home for Thanksgiving this year.

RESULT: RELEASE DATE FROM PRISON CORRECTED.

October 18, 2017
Newton District Court
No. 1712 CR 100

Client, 29-year old male is charged with OUI. In short, he was asleep in the drivers seat of another's car. The vehicle’s ignition was turned off. Said vehicle was parked on a posted ‘Private Way’ . Despite the forgoing, the police arrived, inquired of the Client after he was awaken. He claimed he did not drive the vehicle and had been drinking earlier in the evening. He was cordial and polite to the officers’ questions and agreed to get out of the vehicle. Once outside, he was placed under arrest. Atty. Kelly tried repeatedly to convince the prosecutor that his Client did not commit any crime, and that there was not probable cause for his arrest. On this scheduled day of jury trial, the Commonwealth answered, NOT READY FOR TRIAL. Atty. Kelly immediately moved for a Dismissal of the case, which was granted by the Court.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

October 13, 2017
Newton District Court
No. 1712 CR 228

Client, 23-year old female who recently graduated from Nursing School is charged with OUI after the vehicle she was driving, struck a fire hydrant and a snow bank. The police arrived, smelled alcohol on her breath, and she admitted to drinking. Her eyes and cheeks were red and bruised as a result of the ‘deployment’ of the vehicle’s air bag. She was transported to the hospital and under went a concussion protocol and released. It was the police officer’s opinion that she operated her vehicle under the influence of alcohol. It was clear that the accident alone and the smell of alcohol convinced the police officer she was impaired. On this day, a trial was held - evidence was presented by Atty. Kelly relative to her injuries and exposed the uncertainty of his Client’s sobriety through an intensive cross examination of the police officer. In the end, the Client was found NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY VERDICT - CLIENT’S CAREER AS A NURSE IS PROTECTED.

October 3, 2017
Newton District Court
No. 1712 CR 306

Client, former state prosecutor, is charged with elderly assault and battery upon his Father. Atty. Kelly is retained, and begins to set forth a plan that the Client must follow with regard to mental health treatment, etc. On this day, after a conference with the presiding judge and the Commonwealth, it is agreed that the Client’s case will be continued without a finding for a year and then dismissed, assuming all conditions of his probation are satisfied, in particular, he continue with mental health treatment as ordered and agreed.

RESULT: EVENTUAL DISMISSAL - CLIENT PLACED ON PROBATION.

September 19, 2017
Waltham District Court
No. 1651 CR 1388

Client, 28-year old male with a previous conviction, is charged again with OUI. It is alleged that after he pulled over for a ‘inspection sticker violation’ - the police officer smelled alcohol, glassy eyes, etc.. The Client agreed to perform a series of ‘field sobriety tests’ ( never a good idea ). In the police officer's opinion, he failed all 3 tests. However, a booking video ( that was shown to the jury ) clearly indicates that the Client was responsive to all questions, did not appear unsteady on his feet and acted ‘normal’ through out the ‘booking procedure’. Atty. Kelly vigorously cross examined the 'booking' Sargent and the arresting Officer. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY after about 30 minutes of deliberation.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY - Jury Trial.


August 23, 2017
Milford District Court
No. 1666 CR 1696

Client, 27-year old male with a minor record is charged with a possession of a large amount of marijuana with intent to distribute. A ‘sting’ operation is put forth by local police with the intent of arresting the Client, once he accepts delivery of a package from UPS ( which contains said drugs ). However, once the ‘package’ is delivered, the Client merely touches the item to apparently check on the ‘address label’- puts said item down and walks away. Despite this momentary ‘possession’ - he is arrested and charged. After several hearing(s), which involved a ‘Motion to Dismiss’, the Commonwealth concedes - and the case is dismissed by the Court.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Committed Jail Time Avoided.

August 7, 2017
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 1584 CR 10562

Client, 23-year old male is charged with possession of a firearm, ammunition, possession of a large capacity feeding device and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.
In short the Client, along with 4 other males are stopped by Boston Police ( allegedly responding to a dispatch call that indicated a vehicle with several males ‘displayed a gun’ at a group a block away ). The Client is the driver, it his motor vehicle. After a search of the vehicle, a gun is found under the driver’s seat, NO fingerprints are recovered, no statements by any of the 5 men in the car. However, the Client is arrested, the other 4 males are allowed to walk home, no charges. After many months, the case goes to trial, after several days and intense trial confrontation by Atty. Kelly of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, namely police officers and ‘ballistic and fingerprint expert(s)’ - a partial verdict is returned by the jury as follows:

Indictment(s) 1 thru 3 - HUNG JURY ( Could not reach a unanimous decision )
Indictment 4 - NOT GUILTY

RESULT: CASE WILL BE RETRIED IN DECEMBER 2017 - ON INDICTMENTS 1-3.

July 25, 2017
Newton District Court
No. 1712 CR 300

Client, 20-year old Freshman male college student is charged with the felony of breaking and entering into a depository, to wit: a cargo container - that was positioned on a construction site. In essence, the Client and his 2 friends went inside the ‘open container’ to smoke a joint. The police arrived by chance, questioned the young men, and then arrested them. The police contacted the contractor, he arrived and said “noting is missing or disturbed”. However, they were brought to Court and arraigned.  Atty. Kelly was immediately retained and filed a Motion to Dismiss [ based on an obvious lack of ‘probable cause’ to arrest and charge each boy with a felony ]. After hearing, the Court agreed, CASE DISMISSED, NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST OF ANYONE.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED, CLEAN RECORD PRESERVED.

May 9, 2017
Waltham District Court
No. 1651 CR 1574

Client, 26-year old homeless male, is arrested and charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon [ a knife ]. It is alleged that the Client got into an argument with another homeless male in a cemetery, which is often frequented by the homeless in the City of Waltham. The argument let to a fight among the two, involving a hammer and a knife. The Client was arrested and Attorney Kelly was appointed to represent him. After a brief investigation which involved an interview of a bystander and a review of the 911 call, it became clear to Atty. Kelly that his Client was defending himself from an attack.  On this day of trial, the Prosecutor conceded that he did not enough evidence to move forward and dismissed the case. It should be noted that the Client spent several weeks in jail before Atty. Kelly was able to convince the Court that he should be released ‘pending the trial’.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.

April 21, 2017
Woburn District Court
No. 1753 CR 279

Client, 31-year old male, non-US citizen, is arrested for allegedly assaulting his wife. A conviction and/or a ‘continuance without a finding’ will prevent his ability to become a US citizen. He has lived in the US for over 15 years with no previous court involvement. On this day, after discussions with the prosecutor and the Client’s wife, a hearing was scheduled before the Court relative to the issue of ‘Marital Privilege’. Essentially, a spouse cannot be compelled to give testimony against another spouse at a criminal trial. On this day, the Client’s wife invoked the protection of the ‘marital privilege’, which resulted in the prosecutor dismissing the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Immigration/Citizenship issues avoided.

April 5, 2017
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 1681 CR 252

Client, 24-year old male with a long history of mental illness is charged with unarmed robbery of a cell phone from a 12-year old boy while he waiting for the school bus. The Client grabbed his phone, threatened to kill him and threw him into the street. The assault and robbery was witnessed by several onlookers. Several days later, after a composite sketch of the ‘assailant’ was distributed through various media outlets, including newspaper and television, the Client was located and arrested.  At the outset, Atty. Kelly requested several mental health evaluations, including an examination for ‘criminal responsibility’ ( to determine whether the Client at the time of the incident could essential conform his behavior to the requirements of the law - essentially whether he could distinguish right from wrong ). The Client was sent to Bridgewater State Hospital for this evaluation.  The examining doctor opined that in fact he was harboring under a mental disease at the time of the incident and is thus ‘criminally not responsible for his actions’. Despite this examination and the multitude of previous hospitalization regarding mental health treatment, the Prosecutor would not dismiss the case and/or agree concerning the evaluation. Nor did the Prosecutor seek another opinion as is provided under the law. As such, the case went to trial this day. The Court ruled that the Client is NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY and the Prosecutor DID NOT PROVE THAT HE WAS SANE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT at the time of the incident.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY ‘NGRI’ AFTER TRIAL.

February 23, 2017
Waltham District Court
No. 1651 CR 537

Client, 26-year old male, is charged with A&B on a former girl friend, Breaking into her apartment, Larceny over $250.00 ( felony ) and Witness Intimidation ( felony ). Several witnesses allegedly witness the assault and call 911. The Client’s vehicle is pulled over by police a short time later, based upon the description of the motor vehicle. He is arrested, released on bail and a trial date is set. On this date, Atty. Kelly vigorously cross examines the so-called witnesses and police and addresses the ‘problematic issues’ of the case during the trial. At the conclusion of same, the Client is found NOT GUILTY AS TO ALL COUNTS.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY AS TO ALL COUNTS AFTER TRIAL.

February 14, 2017
Newton District Court
No. 1612 CR 796

Client, 56-year old male, doctor and cardiac surgeon at a leading Boston hospital, is arrested for OUI while heading home from a social gathering. It was alleged that the Client was operating his motor vehicle at a speed of 75 mph in a 35 mph zone. At the time of the stop, the police officer requested that he submit to a series of ‘Field Sobriety Test(s)’ (FST). The Client agreed to perform the test(s) ( never a good idea, you are not required to submit to these tests ). At the conclusion, it was the Officer’s opinion that he failed all the tests. He was arrested, handcuffed and transported to the police station. The Client refused the breathalyser at the police station ( as a result his license to operate a MV was suspended by the RMV for 180 days ).

Atty. Kelly was subsequently retained, investigated the allegations and immediately scheduled the case for trial before a judge alone, without a jury. Atty. Kelly summoned to Court the Client’s own doctor [ spinal specialist - to provide testimony relative to his long standing medical issues concerning his ‘back and leg(s)’ ]. This testimony was crucial in explaining the Client’s poor performance on the FST’s. At the conclusion of trial this day, the Client was found NOT GUILTY, his drivers license was restored and more importantly, his medical license was not affected.

RESULT: AFTER TRIAL, CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF OUI.

February 6, 2017
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2015 CR 10254

Client, 24-year old female nursing student is indicted on 6 charges emanating from a motor vehicle crash that resulted in the death of her 2 female friends and permanently injuring 2 males in another vehicle. A brief statement of the facts is as follows: After a night of ‘clubbing’ at a Boston night club, the Client caused her vehicle to the cross ‘double yellow lines’ which resulted in a near head on collision with another. Tragically, none of the 5 individuals involved in the crash had been wearing their seat belts. The Client’s girlfriends, age 26 and 44 were killed almost instantly. The Client likely survived as a result of the deployment of the driver’s ‘air bag’. The 2 males, were rushed to area hospitals and underwent surgery that resulted in permanent injuries to their legs, head, back, etc. .

The ‘crash reconstruction’ investigation revealed that the Client’s blood alcohol level was 2 ½ times the legal limit. She was indicted on 2 counts of Manslaughter / Homicide OUI which carries a mandatory 5 year State Prison sentence for each death, along with 2 counts each of Felony MV Homicide and A&B by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Atty. Kelly elected to try the case before a Superior Court judge alone, without a jury. After several days of trial and countless witnesses, the Court rendered it’s decision. The Client was found NOT GUILTY of 4 of the 6 indictments, including the most serious indictment(s)allegeding Manslaughter.

The Prosecutor had pleaded with the court for a sentence of 10-12 years in State Prison, Atty. Kelly had encouraged the Court to impose a House of Correction of 1 year, followed by probation. This particular case gained increased media attention throughout the trial.

On the date of sentencing, the Court recognizing the Client’s lack of prior criminal record and acknowledging that her actions, although not intended, led to the death of her friends.
She was sentenced to 4 years in the House of Correction, with the likelihood of parole after serving 2 years.

RESULT: CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER, STATE PRISON COMMITMENT AVOIDED. 

January 20, 2017
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 1681 CR 143

Client, 21-year old male is indicted, along with 2 friends with the crime of ‘Witness Intimidation / Misleading Police ’ with regard to a criminal investigation by law enforcement concerning a ‘shooting’. The Client denied being present during the ‘shooting’. He was subsequently indicted for ‘misleading’ the police based upon that statement. During the pendency of his case, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court further defined ‘misleading’ statements as they pertain to the Witness Intimidation / Misleading Police Statute. As a result, the Prosecutor was required to Nolle Prosequi ( dismiss ) the case.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED, CLIENT RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. 

January 18, 2017
Newton District Court
Jury Session
No. 1612 CR 147

Client, 40-year old female is charged with the attempt to 'Commit Armed Robbery'. It was alleged that the Client walked into a local convenience store and demanded money while uttering a ‘threat’. An investigation by police later led to her arrest based upon a surveillance video that allegedly ‘depicted’ her face. Attorney Kelly steadfastly maintained that ‘it was not his Client on the video’. On this day of trial, the Prosecutor was forced to concede same, and dismissed the case on the day of jury trial impanelment.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED ON 1ST DAY OF JURY TRIAL.

 

December 2, 2016
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2014 CR 1447

Client, 22-year old female college student is arrested, charged and later indicted on the charge of Armed Robbery. It is alleged that she was a driver of a motor vehicle, while her boyfriend and another, committed armed robbery of a young male with the alleged use of a ‘shot-gun’. The case proceeded through the District Court and then onto Superior Court pursuant to anindictment.  A number of hearings were held, most notably with regard to the ‘sufficiency of evidence’ against the Client.  On this day, after almost 2 years, the Court agreed with Attorney Kelly’s argument that the prosecutor lacked probable cause to proceed to trial. The Court ordered the case DISMISSED, and the Prosecutor accepted the decision, thereby waiving any right of appeal.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED BY THE COURT AFTER HEARING.

November 29, 2016
Waltham District Court
No. 1651 CR 781

Client, 35-year old ‘Hispanic’ male is detained and arrested on a public street in response to call made by a civilian. In short, a civilian called the police, after noticing the Client walking through his neighborhood and ‘looking suspicious’ and further stating “he does not belong in the area”. The civilian caller believed the Client was stealing items from houses along the street. The police stop the Client, examine his ‘backpack’ and discover that he has not stolen anything. However, they charge him, evidently upon a report from another civilian that his items that belong ‘on his front porch’ ( were somehow moved to the driveway ). No one ever witnessed the Client STEAL OR ATTEMPT TO STEAL ANYTHING. However, he is charged with Attempting to Commit a Crime. Atty. Kelly files a Motion to Dismiss based on the 'lack of probable to cause' to arrest. After hearing and after ‘scolding’ the prosecutor relative to the ‘facts’ of the case, the Judge is dismissed.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED BY THE COURT AFTER HEARING.

November 9, 2016
Newton District Court
Jury Session
No. 1412 CR 576, 1412 CR 246

Client, 22-year old male with no prior criminal record is operating his motor vehicle, when it suddenly leaves the roadway and seriously strikes a pedestrian. The police respond and after interviews of witnesses and the client himself, he is charged with OUI-Drugs Causing Serious Bodily Injury, Possession of Drugs and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle. An inventory of his motor vehicle reveals prescription and non-prescription bottles of pills, along with marijuana. Attorney Kelly is retained at the outset. A series of hearings are held in Court, ranging from Motion(s) to Suppress Evidence to a request for the allowance of the Client to enter and complete an out-of-state drug rehabilitation program and follow up treatment.

The pedestrian/victim undergoes surgeries requiring permanent metal rods to be placed in his body. The prosecutor is seeking a committed jail sentence prior to trial. Throughout the pending months after arraignment, Attorney Kelly attempts to persuade the prosecutor that there is no evidence that ANY drug played a role in the accident. On this day, approximately 24 months after the accident, the prosecutor concedes that there is insufficient evidence to proceed to trial on the charges of possession of drugs and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs thereby causing serious bodily injury as a result.  As such, the lone remaining charge of ‘Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle’ remains.

The prosecutor continues to seek a 6 month jail sentence on a plea to said charge. Atty. Kelly persuades the Court to enter a CWOF [ Continuance Without a Finding ],with a period of probation and to continue with drug treatment, attend college and work. The Court agrees, imposes an 18 month period of probation with conditions. At the successful completion of same, his case will be dismissed, with no record of conviction.

RESULT: SERIOUS OUI CHARGE / DRUG CHARGE, DISMISSED ON DAY OF TRIAL - CLIENT PLACED ON PROBATION WITH LIKELIHOOD OF DISMISSAL [ Reck Op. Chg. ] AT THE END OF PROBATION, THEREBY Preserving his Clean Criminal Record.

November 2, 2016
Essex Superior Court
No. 2015 CR 341

Client, 53-year old male with his co-defendant, are indicted for felonies ranging from larceny, conspiracy and fraudulent entry into corporate record books. The co-defendants’ were principal owners of a condominium management company that oversaw approximately 32 ‘condo associations’ in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. It was alleged by the prosecutor that a ‘fraudulent billing’ practice was set in place to ‘inflate’ hours performed by maintenance workers relative to repairs at said associations over a 2 year period. Attorney Kelly is retained, together with 2 other attorneys. The case involved significant ‘media coverage’ from arraignment to resolution.*

On this day, after several days of in-court conferences with the prosecutor, attorneys’ and the judge, the case is resolved. Both client’s essentially pled nollo contendre to the charges, thereby avoiding an admission of guilt

( although a ‘guilty finding’ is in fact recorded on their criminal records ). It should be noted that prior to the ‘plea’, approximately 18 months of court hearings, the review of voluminous records, and the interview of various witnesses and individuals were conducted. Also, it is must be recognized that the Judge presiding over the matter found that the prosecutor failed to honor a previous agreement and lambasted him for his actions and conduct. *

In the end, despite the prosecutor’s request for jail and his failed attempt to ‘renege’ the agreement - the judge imposed probation for 2 years, with a requirement that the defendants’ pay an amount of restitution ( eventually agreed upon by the parties ) and that each refrain from engaging in ‘condo managing’ for 2 years.

* See the Lawrence Eagle Tribune ( Front Page ) November 3, 2016.

RESULT: JAIL AND A ‘GUILTY PLEA’ AVOIDED.

October 21, 2016
Westborough District Court
No. 1667 CR 644

Client, 23 year-old female is charged with OUI - Drugs. It is alleged that she was operating her vehicle while under the influence of ‘LSD’. Her car left the roadway, flipped over and landed on the roof. Fortunately she was not seriously injured. The police, after conversation with her, coupled with eye witness accounts of the incident, decided to charge her with OUI-Drugs. Attorney Kelly is retained, after several in-court hearings, the case is set for trial. On this day, after trial, the client is found NOT GUILTY OF OUI - DRUGS.
In essence, the prosecutor could not prove through it’s witnesses, civilian, police and fire dept. personnel, that in fact the alleged ‘indigestion’ of drugs contributed to the accident and/or that she was impaired as a result.

RESULT: AFTER TRIAL, CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF OUI DRUGS.

September 14, 2016
Newton District Court
No. 1612 CR 413

Client, 43 year-old male is charged A&B upon his wife. It is alleged that after a night of ‘arguing’, that Client struck his wife, a 911 call is made, Client arrested. The wife contact’s prosecutor later, attempts to ‘redact’ her statements, and is met with obvious refusal. The case is set for jury trial. Wife invokes her marital privilege, case dismissed.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED ON DAY OF JURY TRIAL. 

August 15, 2016
BMC - Boston
No. 0201 CR 1682

Client, 30 year-old Russian male is charged with Larceny over $250.00 from a high end retail store in Boston, 2002. The Client has been on default [ failure to appear in Court ] for almost 15 years. After a series of hearings and meetings, the prosecutor finally concedes that it cannot move forward on the charges and agrees to dismiss the case.


RESULT: CASE DISMISSED PRIOR TO TRIAL.

July 19, 2016
Waltham District Court
No. 1651 CR 786

Client, 26 year-old male is charged with A&B on a family member ( his wife ) and the use of a dangerous weapon. It is alleged that the Client and wife engaged in a domestic dispute
that became physical, resulting in cuts to each other. A neighbor calls 911, police arrive, both parties are ‘bloodied’. As is usual the case, the male is arrested and charged. Atty. Kelly investigates the allegations, sets the matter for trial. On this day, the wife appears as requested by the prosecutor. However, with advice of ‘other’ legal counsel, she invokes her marital privilege AND her 5th Amendment Right not to testify. As a result, case dismissed.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED ON DAY OF TRIAL. 

May 3, 2016
Fall River District Court
No. 1523 CR 6845

Client, 24 year-old male bartender is charged with OUI and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. At approximately 1:45 am, the Client, after leaving his place of employment and after consuming several alcoholic beverages, is stopped by police after allegedly failing to come to a complete stop at a ‘stop sign’. The Client agrees to submit to a series of Field Sobriety Tests ( never ever a good idea ). After the completion of which, it is the officer’s opinion that he failed each and every one. He is arrested, refused the Breath test and arraigned in Court the following day. Atty. Kelly is retained the case is scheduled for trial. On this day, trial begins, the police officer testifies as to his observations, his experience and his opinion relative to the issues before the Court. Atty. Kelly aggressively cross examines the Officer as to his entire testimony he provided on direct examination by prosecutor, together with a review of the ‘booking video’ that Atty. Kelly produced at trial, which clearly favors the Client’s sobriety at the time of his arrest. At the conclusion of trial and after argument by the prosecutor and Atty. Kelly, the Court found the Client NOT GUILTY as to all charges. His license is restored by the Court ( initially suspended for 180 days as a result of refusing to take the breath test ).

RESULT: AFTER TRIAL, CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF OUI AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE.

April 13, 2016
Newton District Court
No. 1512 CR 688

Client, 25 year-old male school teacher is charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, OUI. The Client’s vehicle [ at approximately 3 am ] had apparently traveled an unknown distance with a tire that was completely shredded from the rim, exposing a ‘damaged rim’ that left markings in the roadway. The police arrived, questioned the Client, it was alleged that he smelled of alcohol, and had glassy eyes, slurred speech, etc. He agreed to perform several Field Sobriety Test(s), ‘one leg stand ’ ‘9 step heel to toe walk ’ and recite the alphabet. It was the police officer’s opinion that he failed each test. He was arrested and refused the Breathalyser at the police station. Atty. Kelly was retained and set the matter for trial. On this day a ‘Bench Trial’ was held whereby the arresting officer was aggressively questioned by Atty. Kelly relative to his experience, police procedure and observations and particularly his opinion concerning the FST performance. At the conclusion of trial and after argument by the prosecutor and Atty. Kelly, the Court found the Client NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: AFTER TRIAL, CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF OUI.

March 24, 2016
Waltham District Court
1551 CR 1903

Client, 36 year-old male with an extensive criminal record, which is largely based upon his drug addiction, is once again arrested. He is charged with Attempting to Break into an ATM machine and Destruction of Property over $250.00 [ said crime was recorded by surveillance cameras ]. The Client is brought before the Court, Atty. Kelly is retained and persuades the Court to allow the Client to enter and complete an intensive ‘drug treatment facility’ with follow up outpatient treatment. Over the prosecutor’s fierce objection, the Court agrees. On this date it is reported to the Court by the Probation Department, that the Client has successfully fulfilled all requirements as ordered by the Court. As a result, the Client will remain on probation with obvious conditions to ensure his compliance. Thereby allowing the Client to continue to work, provide for his family and avoid jail.

RESULT: INCARCERATION AVOIDED, DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE.


February 11, 2016
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 11015

Client, 33-year old female, mother of a single child, is charged along with 5 others in a conspiracy ‘ring’ to obstruct justice relative to the investigation and prosecution of an ‘insurance fraud case’. The Client was charged with 7 felonies that allegedly detailed her involvement in the so-called conspiracy. The case commenced in 2012. During the last 4 years, countless hearings and appeals were put forth and argued before the trial court and the appeals courts. Subsequent to this day, it was finally conceded by the prosecutor that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed against the Client. Atty. Kelly had been advocating same on behalf of his Client during that entire period. On March 29, 2016 the Court accepted the prosecutor’s ‘Motion to Dismiss’ the case, citing ‘in the interests of justice’. All 7 indictments were DISMISSED. The remaining co-defendants either pled guilty or are awaiting trial.

RESULT: INDICTMENTS DISMISSED, PRISON CONFINEMENT AVOIDED.

January 20, 2016
Waltham District Court
No. 1551 CR 1379

Client, 22 year-old male college student is charged with Trafficking in Cocaine ( a Felony that carries a Mandatory Minimum of 3 ½ years in State Prison ) and Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws. In short, the Client was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by a ‘friend’ who was the subject of an ‘undercover’ purchase and sale of drugs. On the day of the ‘exchange’, the Client asked for a ride back to school and the ‘friend’ agreed, ‘but he had to make a stop first’. Undercover officers converged upon the motor vehicle after the ‘sale’, which took place away from the vehicle.

However, the Client was arrested and charged along with the ‘friend - drug dealer’ and immediately suspended from school ( a senior with 1 semester remaining before graduation in May, 2016 ). After several meetings with the District Attorney’s Office, the Prosecutor finally agreed to ‘dismiss’ the charges. The Client was able to enroll this day 'back to school' to complete his education.

RESULT: DISMISSAL - Mandatory State Prison Sentence Avoided, Client able to Resume College Education, ‘Clean Criminal Record’ Preserved.

January 15, 2016
Worcester District Court
No. 1566 CR 1185

Client, 52 year-old male is charged with 1st Offense OUI after allegedly operating his motorcycle in excess of the speed limit on Rte. 495 South. The Client was stopped by a Mass. State Trooper, who alleged he was speeding [ 80 MPH ]. After conversation with the Trooper, he determined that he had been drinking, ( smelled of alcohol, red eyes, slurred speech, admitted to “drinking less then 7 drinks” ) and arrested the Client and charged him with OUI. The Client refused the so called ‘Field Sobriety Tests’ and the ‘Breath test’.

On this date, Atty. Kelly waived the scheduled ‘jury trial’ and proceeded to trial with the judge alone. After extensive cross-examination by Atty. Kelly of the Trooper, the Prosecutor ‘rested’ his case. The Court concluded that the Prosecutor failed to present an adequate case and found the Client NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: AFTER TRIAL, CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF OUI.

December 28, 2015
West Roxbury District Court
No. 1506 CR 1123

Client, 23-year old male senior college student ( w/ no criminal record ) was involved in a ‘road rage’ incident, resulting in A&B , Assault and Battery w/ a Dangerous Weapon ( car door ) a felony and a Disorderly Charge. The facts are as follows: The Client was operating a ‘$300,000 Bentley’ on a public highway in Boston and on his way to ‘detail’ the vehicle for a customer of his. It appears that a vehicle ahead of him, was intentionally ‘false breaking’ repeatedly in front of him for about a mile. The vehicle(s) eventually came to a stop at an intersection, whereby the Client proceeded to approach the driver of the ‘offending’ vehicle and struck him repeatedly through the driver’s window, and slammed the driver’s door when the driver attempted to ‘get out his vehicle’. The entire incident was witnessed by several ‘on looker’s on the side walk. The driver happened to be an off duty Boston Police Officer who pulled his firearm and the situation immediately ended. The Client was arrested, arraigned and the matter eventually set down for disposition. The prosecutor requested that the Court impose Guilty findings on all charges, w/ 2 years supervised probation w/ Anger Management Counseling. Atty. Kelly requested that the Court continue the matter without a finding, ‘CWOF’ - 1 year ‘administrative’ probation, w/ Anger Management. The Court agreed, assuming the Client completes the counseling, stays out of trouble, his case will be dismissed in a year, ( without any record of convictions ).

RESULT: Guilty Conviction(s) Avoided, Charges likely to be Dismissed after successful
Year of ‘Administrative’ Probation.

September 4, 2015
Waltham District Court
Clerk-Magistrate Hearing
No. 15551 AC 325

Client, 41-year old male disabled city worker is charged with operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, OUI - Drugs. It was reported that the Client was found asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle after colliding with a utility pole. Upon police and medic arrival, the Client was incoherent and had admitted to ingesting a ‘prescriptive drug’. He was transported to the hospital and a toxicology screen performed. It was determined that he had a ‘level’ of a narcotic in his system. The Client is not arrested, but is summoned for a Clerk-Magistrate hearing to determine whether a ‘criminal complaint’ should issue for OUI-Drugs. On this day a hearing is held whereby Atty. Kelly persuades the Magistrate not to issue the Complaint based upon the circumstances and lack of sufficient evidence ( that the level of ‘drugs’ within the Client’s system, impaired his ability to operate the vehicle ), but rather, it was more consistent with the fact that the Client had fallen asleep at the wheel. As such, a criminal complaint at this time did not enter, the case will remain open for a period of time.

RESULT: COMPLAINT FOR OUI-DRUGS NOT ISSUED BY CLERK- MAGISTRATE AFTER HEARING.

August 27, 2015
Newton District Court
No. 1512 CR 371

Client, 24-year old male college student is charged with crashing his motor vehicle and leaving the scene after causing property damage. Atty. Kelly is retained and reviews the allegations and circumstances surrounding the incident. It is clear the vehicle was involved in an accident, hitting a public tree and fire hydrant. It is equally clear that neither the tree or hydrant sustained damage. Thus, there was ‘no leaving the scene after causing damage’. The case is called for arraignment and is DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT, thus no entry of a ‘court appearance on the Client’s record.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

August 24, 2015
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 10404

Client, 46-year old male is charged and indicted on 2 counts of a rape of a child that allegedly occurred 13 years ago. The alleged victim is the Client’s biological daughter from a previous relationship. Atty. Kelly is appointed by the Court in the Summer of 2012 after his previous attorney is given ‘leave to withdraw’. At the time, the Client is in custody on this matter. Atty. Kelly begins an exhaustive investigation with the assistance of his private investigator(s) to uncover and examine the issues in the case. The alleged victim revealed the alleged rapes, approximately 12 years after the alleged occurrence(s). She purportedly told her mother who has no recollection that she ever did confine in her. It was reported that she told a guidance counselor who summoned police. Based upon the allegations, the Client was arrested, charged and sent to jail on a ‘high bail’. Atty. Kelly persuades a Superior Court justice that there inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story(s)) etc. . He is released from custody in the Winter of 2013 to await trial. Further investigations reveals that the alleged victim has a history of lying and stealing. The Prosecutor refused to dismiss the case despite a review of hundreds of records in support of the foregoing. On this date, the case is called for trial before a jury. At last, the Prosecutor concedes that ‘it does not have a case’ and files a ‘Nolle Pros’ [ dismissing ] the case. The Client is overcome with relief and emotion.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED [ after 5 years awaiting trial in jail ].

August 11, 2015
Concord District Court
No. 1447 CR 1250

Client, 45-year old hard working landscaper is charged with OUI. The Police claimed that the Client operated his motor vehicle in an ‘unsafe manner’ while proceeding through an intersection. The vehicle is stopped by the police officer. After conversation with the Client, he is asked to perform a series of ‘field sobriety tests’, the Client complies (never a good idea). He is arrested and booked. Fortunately, the ‘booking process’ at the police station is videotaped. The Client appears steady on his feet, and presents himself in a ‘reasonable and appropriate manner’. On this day the case proceeds to trial, after lengthy cross-examination by Atty. Kelly and argument - the Court reaches a decision, NOT GUILTY AND NOT RESPONSIBLE ( as to the civil infractions ).

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF OUI AFTER TRIAL !


June 30, 2015
Concord District Court
No. 1347 CR 1687

Client, 25-year old student is charged with Larceny over $250.00 from his employer, a ( Felony ). In short, the Client worked for a national package delivery service whereby he had access to funds relative to money transactions. It is alleged that the Client stole over $20,000.00 over a 12 month period. The Client has no prior criminal record. Atty. Kelly is retained, after many months of negotiation, it is finally agreed between Atty. Kelly and the Prosecutor that the Client will pay back the monies in full within 10 days. In exchange, his case will be CWOF for a year and then dismissed.

RESULT: FELONY CONVICTION AVOIDED, 'clean record' preserved.


June 25, 2015
Waltham District Court - Jury Session
No. 1451 CR 516

Client, 38-year old male is charged with OUI Drugs and Operating a Motor Vehicle Negligently. It is alleged that the Client operated his M/V in an erratic manner causing an accident among several cars. The Client did not present any ‘clues’ that he was operating under the influence of alcohol, nor was there any apparent indication that he was under the influence of some drug. However, based upon his apparent inability to perform successfully on the ‘field sobriety tests’, he was arrested and charged as indicated. Atty. Kelly is retained and the case is eventually set for trial. The Prosecutor concedes that the charge of OUI Drugs by the police was ‘overreaching’ and dismisses the charge. In exchange, the Client admits to driving negligently and his case is Continued Without a Finding ‘CWOF’ for a year.

RESULT:  OUI DRUG CHARGED DISMISSED ON DAY OF JURY TRIAL.

June 9, 2015
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 1581 CR 134

Client, 24-year old male is charged with Trafficking in Cocaine. It is alleged that he was present and/or that he had access to various drugs within an apartment that was subject to the execution of a search warrant. The Client was not present at the time of ‘raid’. However, apparently a ‘jacket’ belonging to him was confiscated and searched. It was alleged that cocaine was found in the pockets and allegedly ‘field tested’ by the police, confirming that the substance(s) found was indeed cocaine. The Client is subsequently arrested, charged and eventually indicted by a Grand Jury for the crime of Trafficking.
( Said conviction would result in mandatory state prison confinement for years ). Atty. Kelly is appointed by the Court to represent the defendant. After a few court appearances, the Prosecutor notifies Atty. Kelly that the Mass. State Police Drug Lab has confirmed that the alleged drugs found upon and within the Client’s ‘jacket’ ARE NOT DRUGS AT ALL.
The Client is released from custody and his case dismissed. * This case is troubling obviously on several fronts.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED, CLIENT RELEASED FROM JAIL.

June 2, 2015
Haverhill District Court - Jury Session
1438 CR 1008

Client, 35-year old male is charged with Assault and Battery upon his live in GF and mother of his child. A 911 call is made, police arrive and Client is arrested. The Client initially hires another attorney who drags the case through the system for months. Atty. Kelly is then retained, a trial date is set and an investigation of the ‘incident’ is conducted by Atty. Kelly. On this date, the case is called for trial. The Prosecutor represents to the Court that a ‘percipient witness’ to case has a 5th Amendment Right ( a person cannot be compelled to testify if his/her testimony may incriminate oneself ). The case is dismissed.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.


May 11, 2015
Waltham District Court
No. 1451 CR 1239

Client, 62-year old successful businessman is charged with operating his motor vehicle ( prior to reinstatement by the RMV of his license ) for a previous conviction of OUI. Atty. Kelly did not represent the Client on the previous OUI case. However, he is retained relative to this case. The Client faces a mandatory 60 days in the House of Correction upon conviction. It appears that the Client was just ‘3 days away from receiving his license’ from the RMV. Atty. Kelly convinces the Prosecution and the Court to allow the Client to plead Guilty to a lesser charge ( operating a M/V with a suspended license ) thereby avoiding the mandatory jail sentence.

RESULT: OPERATING A M/V WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE BASED ON AN OUI
CONVICTION IS ( REDUCED ) MANDATORY JAIL TIME AVOIDED.

May 5, 2015
Newton District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. Citation # R5914892

Client, 47-year old private school teacher is operating his motor vehicle that collides with another. The Client exchanges information with other operator and leaves the scene. The police are called and the Client is interviewed at his home minutes later. The police believe the Client had operated his vehicle under the influence of alcohol based upon his alleged slurred speech, smell of alcohol on his person, red shot eyes and was unsteadyness on his feet. He was further subjected to a series of ‘field sobriety tests’, and in the police officer’s opinion, he failed each and every one. He is not arrested, but his summoned to a Clerk Magistrate Hearing ( to determine whether a ‘criminal complaint’ for OUI should issue ). Atty. Kelly is retained and represents the Client at said hearing. After a lengthy hearing, Atty. Kelly persuades the Magistrate that there is ‘insufficient evidence’ to issue the criminal complaint based upon the police officer’s testimony and the lack of corroborating testimony from the ‘other’ operator. The Court agrees and a criminal complaint for OUI does not issue.

RESULT: CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR OUI NOT ISSUED.

March 26, 2015
Concord District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1447 AC 378

Client, 25-year old male is charged with Distributing of marijuana. The Client was apparently under the suspicion for the alleged activity and was apprehended by members of a police ‘Drug Task Force’ while he was driving his car. At the time of his ‘stop’, it appears the police felt there was insufficient ‘probable cause’ to arrest him. However, the police applied for ‘criminal complaint application’ before the Clerk-Magistrate, seeking criminal charges. However, after argument by Atty. Kelly, the Magistrate found that indeed there was not ‘probable cause’ for the criminal complaint to issue.

RESULT: AFTER HEARING, ‘NO PROBABLE CAUSE’ FOUND, NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TO ISSUE.

March 4, 2015
Newton District Court
No. 1412 CR 422

Client, 31-year old male college graduate and successful operation manager, is charged with OUI. It is alleged that he drove his vehicle in an erratic manner, left the road way briefly and was stopped by local police who had witnessed the operation of the vehicle. The Client apparently exhibited the obvious signs of alcohol consumption, red eyes, odor of alcohol, unsteady on feet, etc. The Client was ‘asked’ to submit to several ‘field sobriety test(s)’ to which he complied ( never a good idea ). He apparently failed same, was arrested and eventually refused the ‘Breath Test’ at the police station. On this day of trial, Atty. Kelly vigorously cross-examined the arresting Officer as to his observations, report, etc.
At the conclusion of trial, and after closing argument, the Client was found NOT GUILTY !

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF OUI AFTER TRIAL !

February 24, 2015
Lawrence District Court
No. 0218 CR 7806

Client, 49-year old male, father and husband was charged with OUI in 2002. The Client had fled to a neighboring State and was recently arrested to face the aforementioned charge. It was alleged that the Client drove his vehicle under the influence, struck a pedestrian and left the scene. At the time of the Client’s ‘recent’ arrest, Atty. Kelly was able to secure his release from jail on the condition he wear a GPS monitoring ‘bracelet’ and post significant bail. After months of Pre-Trial hearings, the Commonwealth on the day of jury trial, moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that ‘insufficient evidence’ was available to proceed to trial.

RESULT: OUI CASE DISMISSED ON DAY OF JURY TRIAL.

February 11, 2015
Dudley District Court
No. 1464 CR 3818

Client, 21-year old college senior, captain of the baseball team, along with 5 other players are charged with Hazing and Providing Alcohol to Minors. The incident involved the alleged ‘forced consumption of alcohol’ upon the Freshman of the team by several upperclassman. One particular individual became severely intoxicated, requiring medical assistance. All involved participants where dismissed from the baseball program. However, the ‘upperclassman’ where allowed to continue their education at the school, despite facing possible expulsion. As for the criminal case, the ‘charged participants’ where allowed to enter and complete a ‘Pre-Trial Diversion Program’, which essentially requires each individual to complete a number of hours of ‘Community Service’. At the successful completion of same, all their cases will be dismissed WITHOUT ANY RECORD OF COURT INVOLVEMENT.

RESULT: Pre-Trial Diversion, Eventual Dismissal w/o a ‘Court Record’.

November 14, 2014
Framingham District Court
No. 1449 CR 265

Client, 56-year old male, father and husband is charged with OUI 1st offense and several counts of Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer. The Client had consumed many drinks at a local bar and proceeded to drive home. He apparently lost control of the vehicle, struck a tree and fell from the vehicle with a bottle of Scotch along side him. Officers from (2) police departments arrived and the Client engaged in fighting and kicking the officers. He was eventually subdued, arrested and arraigned in Court. Atty. Kelly was retained and negotiated a plea agreement with the Court, after several hearings. In essence, the Client was placed on probation, ordered to undergo alcohol counseling as required by State Statute and remain free from further criminal involvement. At the successful conclusion of his ‘probationary period’, all charges will be dismissed.

RESULT: Case Continued Without a Finding, Dismissal of all Charges Anticipated at the conclusion of Probation.


November 6, 2014
Lowell District Court
Jury Session
No. 1211 CR 7847 et al

Client, 53-year old male, former Marine Father of 2 grown children is charged with 28 separate criminal complaints by his estranged wife. The criminal charges range from countless violations of a restraining order, intimidation of a witness, gun charges, alleged assault, etc.
Atty. Kelly was retained approximately 2 years ago. Over that period of time, countless hearings were held in Court relative to the aforementioned criminal complaints. All the of the Complaints were dismissed by the Court over this period, recognizing in part that a majority of these ‘criminal complaints’ should have never been filed by the police department. It was further determined by the prosecutor that the ‘wife/alleged victim’ was in fact ‘culpable’ in filing false police reports. On this day, ( 4 criminal complaints remained for jury trial ) prior to the trial, the judge ordered the ex-wife to be evaluated by an attorney for 5th Amendment concerns ( in short, that she could not be required to testify if her testimony might ‘incriminate her’ in criminal wrong doing ). The attorney reported to the Court that in fact she had a valid 5th Amendment Right. After learning of this development, the ex-wife ran from the Courthouse. All remaining cases were dismissed. It she be noted that her Sister(s) and Son were prepared to testify against her as well. The Client strongly feels that the involved police department was complicit in the furtherance of these complaints, and was totally indifferent to the Client’s inocense from the beginning.

RESULT: CASE(S) DISMISSED. 

November 4, 2014
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2013 CR 10333

Client, 36-year old male with a long criminal record is ‘surrendered’ by the Probation Department for failing to adhere to a number of court ordered conditions. The Client spends approximately 6 months in jail awaiting resolution. On this day a hearing is held before the Judge. The Probation Officer is requesting that the Client serve another year. Atty. Kelly pleads with the Court to release his Client and terminate his probation so he may join his family. The Court fortunately agrees and the Client is released, probation terminated, all fines and fees waived.

RESULT: Probation Terminated, Client Released from Custody.


November 3, 2014
Waltham District Court
No. 1451 CR 1061

Client, 24 year-old male with numerous criminal record entries through out the State, is charged with the a 'life felony' of Kidnapping and other crimes. It was alleged that the Client held a prostitute against her will and robbed her after their ‘encounter’. The Client denied any such behavior. Atty. Kelly secured the Client’s release from jail and the matter was set down for review by the prosecutor for a Grand Jury indictment. However, prior to which, Atty. Kelly produced a ‘notarized statement’ from the alleged victim, stating in part that the statement she gave to the police on the night in question was false. As a result, and after further investigation, the prosecutor dismissed the case.


RESULT: CASE DISMISSED, ‘LIFE FELONY’ CONVICTION AVOIDED.

October 29, 2014
Newton District Court
Jury Session
No. 1312 CR 746

Client, 56 year-old male allegedly is involved in an Assault and Battery against his Sister. The dispute allegedly arose over the sale of ‘family real estate’ and other issues. Needless to say, a 911 call is placed by the Sister, police arrive, she tells her story, Client tells his story ( stating that in no way did he assault her, she has no marks on her body of any kind ).
He of course is arrested, and Atty. Kelly is retained. After a series of in court hearings, the case is set for a jury trial. The complaining ‘victim/sister’ fails to appear for trial, it is believed that she recognized that she had a 5th Amendment Right   ( in short, that she could not be required to testify if her testimony might ‘incriminate her’ in criminal wrong doing )

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED AT JURY TRIAL.

October 22, 2014
Waltham District Court
Bench Trial ( before a Judge alone )
No. 1451 CR 917

Client, 32 year-old male with a significant criminal record is charged with Armed Robbery. It was alleged that the Client confronted another, demanded money and threatened to hit him with a ‘baton’. Atty. Kelly persuades the Prosecutor to reduce the charge to Larceny from a Person ( thereby allowing the case to remain in the District Court, otherwise the case would need to proceed to Superior Court to which jurisdiction and resolution over ‘life felonies’ are determined ). Atty. Kelly investigates the alleged ‘victim’ and determines that there is a strong likelihood that he will not appear for trial. In that regard a relatively 'quick trial' date before a Judge is scheduled. The case is called for trial, the alleged victim fails to appear, case dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

October 14, 2014
Waltham District Court
Bench Trial ( before a Judge alone )
No. 1451 CR 1039

Client, 27 year-old successful young businessman, no criminal record, is charged with Assault and Battery upon his ‘male’ roommate. The facts are interesting and troubling in the regard that the Client was actually arrested, arraigned, Pre-Trial Conferences held and eventually the case was set down for a trial before a judge ( Bench Trial, no jury ). Atty. Kelly was retained after the arraignment. The facts are as follows: The Client had come home after dinner and drinking with his ‘new girlfriend’ to watch TV on the couch.  At which time, the ‘roommate/victim’ came home as well and proceeded to watch with them. The Client got up to use the bathroom upstairs, leaving the roommate and girlfriend alone down stairs in the living room. Upon his return, the girlfriend is ‘shaken up’ and describes that the ‘roommate’ was ‘putting the moves on her’ and she ‘wanted to go home’.  An argument erupts, punches thrown, roommate dials 911, police arrive, Client arrested.
Really ? Atty. Kelly prepares for trial and enthusiastically awaits for the day of trial.  On this day, as you might expect, the ‘roommate/victim’ fails to show, the Judge dismisses the case.  Client is relieved, however, he has spent significant funds for representation, missed work on many occasions and must deal with an entry on his CORI ( until said entry is ‘sealed’ ) at a later time.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

October 9, 2014
Waltham District Court
Jury Trial
No. 1451 CR 151

Client, 44 year-old substance abuser with a long criminal record is charged along with his present girlfriend, of ‘maliciously causing damage’ to the girlfriends ex’s motor vehicle.  Apparently his tires were slashed, etc.  There were no ‘eye witnesses’ to the crime, no forensic evidence and no inculpatory statements from either defendant.  However, there was ‘circumstantial evidence’ that strongly suggested their involvement.  Atty. Kelly argues with the Prosecutor with regard to the ‘validity’ of their case to no avail for weeks prior to trial.  On the day of the jury trial, the Prosecutor conceded that ‘they did not have a case’ to prove to the jury, resulting in a dismissal of the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

September 30, 2014
Middlesex Superior Court
Jury Trial
No. 2012 CR 961

Client, 40 year-old divorced Father of 2 children had been working as a Maintenance Superintendent for a condo association. After successful employment for 10 years, he was offered an ‘additional job’, to handle the duties of the ‘business manager’, which included banking, check writing, general accounting, etc. . He apparently handled the added responsibilities without any problems until the year 2011. During that year he became ill, requiring hospitalization. His ex-wife volunteered to assume his responsibilities within the Office. What a mistake, she converted, directed and stole approximately $367,000.00 from the bank accounts associated with the condo association. The theft of the monies led directly to her lavish life style and accounts in her name. She was indicted and eventually pled guilty to the crimes.

However, the prosecutor believed that the Client must have known, must have shared in the theft, although there did not exist any ‘paper trail’, implicating his involvement. He was indicted and sought the counsel of Atty. Arthur L. Kelly. Over the next 18 months, Atty. Kelly sought to dismiss the charges prior to trial, argued with prosecutor repeatedly, that ‘ he did not have a case against his Client ’.  On September 26, 2014, a jury was impaneled, ‘evidence’ and direct testimony was presented by the prosecutor.  Atty. Kelly vigorously cross-examined each witness and attacked the 'documents' admitted into evidence. After 2 days of trial, the prosecutor ‘rested’ his case. Atty. Kelly immediately moved for a DIRECTED VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. Arguing that the prosecutor has not put on a sufficient case for the jury to entertain guilt or innocense. After lengthy argument by both sides, the trial judge agreed, DIRECTED VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY AS TO ALL COUNTS.

After 3 years, the Client was finally vindicated and walked from the courtroom after thanking the judge and his counsel.

RESULT: JURY TRIAL - DIRECTED VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY !

September 3, 2014
Waltham District Court
Jury Session
No. 1451 CR 194

Client, 25 year-old hardworking immigrant is operating a motor vehicle with his girlfriend an another friend at about 1 am. Apparently a verbal argument between the Client and his GF erupts. She opens her car door as he is driving, unfortunately this does not go unnoticed by a passing police cruiser. The Client’s vehicle is immediately stopped, he is questioned and ordered to submit to a series of ‘Field Sobriety Tests’ FST’s. The one legged stand, finger tip to nose, nine step heel to toe walk straight line, etc. Not surprisingly, the Officer claims he failed all the FST’s and charges him with OUI. He further claims the Clients eyes are bloodshot and glassy and he emitted a strong odor of alcohol. The Client admits to having 3 beers after work. On this day, a jury is impaneled to hear the case. Atty. Kelly vigorously cross examines the arresting officer and the ‘booking Sargent’, relative to their reports and trial testimony. The ‘booking video’ is presented into evidence which clearly portrays the Client as perfectly ‘balanced’, polite, articulate, calm, etc. The jury retires for deliberation and returns a verdict in 25 minutes, NOT GUILTY !

RESULT: OUI JURY VERDICT - NOT GUILTY !

August 19, 2014
Peabody District Court
Jury Session
No. 1339 CR 568

Client, 18 year-old college student is driving with a friend on an interstate highway when as a result of a ‘broken tail light’, he attracts the attention of a local police officer on patrol.  He is pulled over, the smell of marijuana is emanating from within the vehicle. The police officer orders the Client from the vehicle, requests that he perform several ‘Field Sobriety Tests’, the Client complies ( never a good idea ). He is subsequently arrested and charged with OUI - Drugs. The police officer, after detailing in his report the ‘broken tail light, states that the vehicle crossed the ‘yellow line’ and was slightly weaving. Atty. Kelly is retained by the Client’s family, the matter is set for trial after several hearings. On the 3rd scheduled day of trial, the Prosecutor again answers NOT READY for trial. Atty. Kelly argues that the case should be dismissed, and that ‘probable cause’ to arrest barely existed. The Court agrees, CASE DISMISSED.

RESULT: OUI - DRUG CASE DISMISSED !

August 13, 2014
Newton District Court
Jury Session
No. 1312 CR 788

Client, 49 year-old high school physics teacher, husband and Father of 3 children, is charged with O.U.I. 3rd Offense. A conviction on this offense results in a mandatory sentence of 6 months in the House of Correction. It was alleged that the Client was operating his truck with his 3 children, while severely intoxicated. A 911 call was made leading to the eventual arrest of the Client, who was walking on a street, after abandoning his children and vehicle. When he was located, a ‘brawl erupted’ between him and the arresting officers. Along with the OUI charge, he was charged with operating a vehicle ( OUI with children aboard ) and several counts of assault and battery upon police officers.
On this day of trial, the judge, after a request by Attorney Kelly, ORDERED A FINDING OF NOT GUILTY AFTER THE PROSECUTORS ‘OPENING STATEMENT’ with regard to the OUI charges, he then pled to the A&B charges and was placed on probation with certain conditions.

RESULT: VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY !

July 23, 2014
Worcester District Court
Jury Session
No. 1365 CR 1344

Client, 51-year old male, financial planner, husband, father of 2 teenage children, is charged with O.U.I. 4th Offense. A conviction on this offense results in a mandatory sentence of 1 year in the House of Correction. It was alleged that the Client and his wife were returning from a high school ‘fund raiser’, when it is alleged that the motor vehicle the Client was driving, crossed the yellow line on 2 occasions. This was purportedly witnessed by a police officer on routine patrol. The Client is arrested, refuses the ‘Field Sobriety Tests’ and Breathalyzer test. The Officer notes that he is unsteady on his feet, glassy eyes, slurred speech, slow movements, has a moderate odor of alcohol, etc. . Atty. Kelly is retained, a number of court hearings are conducted and the case is set for trial. Atty. Kelly vigorously cross-examines the arresting officer during jury trial, produces photographs of the area, overview map and a copy of the ‘booking video’ from the police station. After approximately 25 minutes of jury of deliberation, they return a VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: JURY VERDICT - NOT GUILTY!

July 21, 2014
Newton District Court
No. 1412 CR 273

Client, 47-year old M.I.T. graduate, successful businessman, husband and father of a young child, is charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon ( FELONY ). It was alleged that the Client, during a verbal argument with his wife, threw an object in her direction, hitting her in the face. The wife called 911, police arrived, interviewed both parties, despite the protests from the wife, the Client was arrested and charged. Atty. Kelly is retained immediately and is able to postpone the arraignment until a further date. ( An arraignment of the Felony charge, even if eventually ‘dismissed’ at a later time, will continue to appear on the Client’s Criminal Record ‘CORI’ ). It is likely that an entry of this charge, although later ‘dismissed’, will affect his further employment opportunities . Atty. Kelly’s files a lengthy Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment, based in large part on the ‘lack of probable to cause' to charge the Client w/ A&BDW. The Prosecutor concedes and requests that the Court dismiss the case today, prior to arraignment - thereby protecting his otherwise ‘clean record’.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

June 30, 2014
Newton District Court
No. 1412 CR 140

Client, 51-year old hard working single male, is charged with Possession of Cocaine. It was alleged that the Client purchased the ‘drug’ from a ‘drug dealer’, who unfortunately, was under surveillance by law enforcement at the time of the transaction. Both parties are arrested. A ‘deal’ is offered to the Client by law enforcement to testify against the ‘drug dealer’ in exchange for leniency. After consultation with Atty. Kelly, the Client emphatically rejects the ‘offer’ and the case is set for trial. On this day, Atty. Kelly answers ‘ready for trial’. The prosecutor responds that they are “not ready”. Atty. Kelly requests a ‘dismissal’, the prosecutor argues for a continuance - the Judge dismisses the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

May 6, 2014
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 2072

Client, 29-year old active U.S. Army Sergeant had ‘admitted to sufficient facts’ of operating his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol ‘OUI’ in December, 2013. ( Atty. Kelly did not represent him with regard to the case prior to today ). As a result of his admission, he was placed on probation for a year and ordered to undergo an ‘alcohol awareness program’ mandated for 1st time offenders, and pay all necessary fines and fees. The Client completed the program paid the necessary fines, fees and complied with any and all other conditions of probation. However, his ‘term of probation’ was scheduled not to expire until December, 2014. On this day, Atty. Kelly was retained to file a ‘motion to terminate probation’ based on the fact that any member of the U.S. Military, is essentially prohibited from ‘deployment’ outside the U.S. ‘while still on probation’. Atty. Kelly requested the Court to terminate probation 8 months early. After a brief hearing, the Court agreed and allowed probation to be terminated, thereby allowing the Client to continue to serve his country.

RESULT: Early Termination of Probation.

April 25, 2014
Essex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 602

Client, at the time of the incident was a 24-year male with a relatively short criminal record. It was alleged that the Client along with another male, planned to rob another after a ‘house party’ to which they all had attended. It was alleged that the ‘co-defendant’ passed the Client a ‘handgun’ to use in the robbery. A scuffle ensued between the victim and the Client, and shots were fired. Several witnesses had previously offered testimony inculpating both individuals. The victim died from a single gun shot after arriving at the hospital. The Client and co-defendant were subsequently arrested, arraigned and indicted on Armed Robbery and 1st Degree Murder. Atty. Kelly agreed to represent the ‘Client’, and a series of court hearing(s) and an appeal from the prosecutor to the Appeals Court, delayed the case for over 4 years. Within days of an impending trial date, a resolution was reached between Atty. Kelly and the prosecutor. On this day, the Armed Robbery indictment was dismissed in exchange for the Client’s plea to a Manslaughter charge. The Client accepted his responsibility for the death of the victim and was sentenced to 11 to 17 years in State Prison ( he will be eligible for parole in 7 years ). The ‘resolution’ of this case prior to trial eliminated the likely possibility of a ‘murder conviction’, which would have resulted in a ‘Life Sentence’ of imprisonment.

RESULT: Murder Conviction and ‘Life Sentence’ Avoided.

April 18, 2014
Suffolk County Superior Court
District Attorney’s Investigation

On this day, after a 4 month exhaustive investigation by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, any and all potential charges of Sexual Assault against a 24-year old male Client have been ‘closed’. It was alleged by the ‘alleged victim’ that the Client met her at a bar along with several friends. The night consisted of heavy drinking and partying by all. She alleged that the Client sexually violated her against her will during a ‘stay over’ at her apartment that evening. The Client denied any wrongdoing and conceded that any and all ‘sex’ was consensual. The alleged victim reported the incident to Boston Police Detectives the next day and presented herself to a nearby hospital for ‘rape/assault examination’. Atty. Kelly was retained, conducted an independent investigation and presented said findings to the D.A.’s Office. Several meetings were held over the 4 month period between Atty. Kelly and the Chief of the Sexual Unit for the D.A.’s Office.

RESULT: CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATION CLOSED - CHARGES OR POTENTIAL GRAND JURY INDICTMENT(s) AVOIDED.

April 10, 2014
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 1993

On this day, the Court approved the sealing of a ‘criminal record’ of a Client who is presently 26-years of age. Atty. Kelly presented the Petition to Seal before the sitting Justice who approved same after review and argument.

RESULT: Criminal Record/Board of Probation Entries - Sealed from Public View. 

April 2, 2014
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 766

Client, 28-year old medical student is arrested and charged with OUI. The alleged facts suggest that the Client fell asleep at a red light on his way home from a party. The police arrived, he was awaken ( the slight smell of alcohol was coming from his person ) he agreed to perform a series of ‘Field Sobriety Test(s)’ i.e 9 Step heel to toe Walk, One legged Stand, Alphabet and Finger to Nose. In the Officer’s opinion, he failed all but the alphabet test. Attorney Kelly cross-examined the officer relentlessly. At the conclusion, it was clear that the officer may have over reacted in charging the Client with OUI. The jury agreed and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: JURY VERDICT - NOT GUILTY ! 

March 20, 2014
Newton District Court
Clerk-Magistrate Hearing
Citation No. R4016329

Client, 19-year old male is charged with OUI. The police allege that he was driving his vehicle after consuming alcohol and lost control and struck a tree after crossing marked lanes at approximately 3:30 am. The responding police officer reported that he smelled alcohol on the Client’s breath and discovered several ‘unopened’ alcohol bottles in his truck. He also cited the Client for operating above the speed limit ( although he did not witness him driving at any time ). The Client was taken to an area hospital and released. The police officer subsequently made application for a Criminal Complaint alleging operating under the influence of alcohol ‘OUI’ and the civil infractions of crossing marked lanes and speeding. A hearing was held this day before a Clerk-Magistrate to determine whether a criminal complaint for OUI should issue. Atty. Kelly was previously retained by the Client’s Parents and successfully challenged the ‘evidence’ offered by the police department. As a result, a criminal complaint for OUI - DID NOT ISSUE, ( no probable cause was found to issue the complaint ) the Client was also found NOT RESPONSIBLE for speeding and was fined $50.00 for crossing marked lanes.

RESULT: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR 'OUI' DENIED. 

March 11, 2014
Roxbury District Court
No.(s) 1302 CR 2857, 1102 CR 239

Client, 34-year old male with a well documented drug problem and record, is charged with receiving property over $250.00, a felony. He is also charged with violating his probation, by failing to report to probation, leaving the State w/o permission and being arrested while on probation. Atty. Kelly is retained and the Client is placed into a 30 drug rehab facility and subsequently enters a ‘sober half-way house’. The Court this day is impressed with his recovery to date and orders that his probation remain in place and that his ‘new case’ will be dismissed at the conclusion of his original probation date.

RESULT: Probation Detention/Incarceration Avoided.


March 10, 2014
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 990

Client, 69-year old male with an extensive record of convictions involving fraud, larceny, forgery, uttering, etc. . He is once again arrested and charged with ‘Larceny by Check’ over $250.00, a felony - 2 counts. Atty. Kelly is retained and persuades the prosecutor to dismiss the charges on the immediate payment of approximately $1,800.00. After a series of hearings, the Client fortunately raises the funds and his case is dismissed this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

March 5, 2014
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1451 AC 96

Client, 19 year-old freshman at a local university is accused of Assault and Battery upon another student. The Campus Police investigate and refuse to apply for a ‘criminal complaint’ against the Client. However, the ‘victim’ student appears at the criminal clerk’s office and applies for a ‘show cause hearing’ on his own before the Clerk Magistrate, ( to determine whether criminal process should issue against the Client ).  Atty. Kelly is retained, secures police reports from the campus police and a hearing is held this day.  After a brief cross-examination of the ‘victim’ by Atty. Kelly, the Magistrate rules that there is insufficient evidence to issue a complaint and the matter is dismissed.

RESULT: Application for Criminal Complaint DENIED.

February 28, 2014
Woburn District Court
No. 1353 CR 2507

Client, 36 year-old married father and military veteran is charged with failing to stop for a police officer and possession of various illegal drugs.  Prior to the eventual stop of the Client’s motor vehicle, he had been speeding and driving erratically. A search of the vehicle by a Mass. State Trooper, revealed several ‘prescription pills’ to which the Client did not have a prescription.  In view of the Client’s previous ‘no criminal record’, his case was Continued Without a Finding for a year with ( Supervised Probation ).  In essence, his case will be dismissed at the conclusion of a year, barring any further police/court difficulty.

RESULT: Anticipated Dismissal of All Charges After a Year of Probation.

February 27, 2014
Waltham District Court
No.(s) 1351 CR 2110, 1351 CR 1036, 1351 CR 1078

Client, 49-year old male with a profound history of ‘mental illness’ is charged with assaulting several individuals who are both disabled and over the age of 60 ( felonies ).  The Client without provocation or reasoning, attacked these people on various dates while residing in a ‘group home’.  The Court assigns Atty. Kelly to represent the Client with regard to the matter(s) before the Court. Atty. Kelly employs a ‘forensic psychiatrist’, who upon examination of the Client, opines that he is ‘incompetent to stand trial’ ( in short, that he is unable to assist counsel or understand the basics of the legal proceedings ).  Atty. Kelly submits his findings to the Court and further requests that the Client be evaluated for ‘criminal responsibility’ ( in short, at the time of the alleged act(s), was the individual able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, or unable to do so because of mental illness ).  After a lengthy evaluation at a mental health facility, it was reported to the Court that he was criminally not responsible at the time of the alleged acts.  As a result, the Prosecutor dismissed all criminal charges this day.  It should be noted that the Client was civilly committed to a mental health treatment center for the foreseeable future.

RESULT: Criminal Case(s) Dismissed.

February 25, 2014
Newton District Court
No. 1412 CR 14

Client, 30 year-old female ‘sport physician’ from a prominent local college, ( without any criminal record or court entry ) is charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident after causing Property Damage.  It was alleged that the Client’s vehicle came into contact with another vehicle causing damage.  It is further alleged that the Client left the area without ‘making known’ her identity.  The Client alleges that the ‘other’ vehicle entered her travel lane from an adjacent parking lot and actually struck her vehicle.  She admits leaving the area, but denies ‘knowingly causing an accident or damage’.  Atty. Kelly is retained and begins an investigation relative to the incident, which included reviewing insurance reports and meeting with the ‘charging’ police officer.  Atty. Kelly provided his findings to the prosecutor who dismissed the case this day, prior to arraignment, thus no record of court involvement.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, ‘Clean Record Preserved’.

February 19, 2014
Newton District Court
No. 1312 CR 692

Client, 29 year-old male is charged with OUI ( operating under the influence of alcohol ),
The alleged facts are as follows: At approximately 2:30 am on a night in October, 2013 the Client was found asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle, foot on the brake, vehicle in gear at an intersection.  Police arrive, bang on the windows, shake the vehicle and attempt to open the doors that are locked.  The Client finally awoke, ‘waved’ to the police officers and drove off. He was immediately pursued for about a ½ mile before pulling over for the police, siren and blue lights in full activation. The Client refused the FST ( field sobriety tests ) and Breathalyzer.  He was polite and courteous during the booking procedure and admitted to consuming 'a few drinks'.  A moderate odor of alcohol was detected upon his breath. Atty. Kelly vigorously cross-examined both police officers who were involved in the arrest.  Despite the typical ‘signs’ of intoxication, unsteady walk, flush face, blood shot eyes, Atty. Kelly was able to convince the jury that the prosecutor had not proven it’s case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.  The jury deliberated for 45 minutes and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY as to the offense of OUI. He was found guilty of a 2nd minor charge, Failing to Stop for a Police Officer, and fined $100.00.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY after Jury Trial.

February 3, 2014
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 1707

Client, 47 year-old male with a criminal record of some significance, has been charged with Trafficking in Cocaine and other drug offenses ( a conviction on the Trafficking charge alone, necessitates a ‘mandatory sentence of 5 or more years’ in State Prison ).  It is alleged the Client sold a quantity of drugs to an ‘undercover’ narcotics agent.  At Atty. Kelly’s request, he is released from custody by the Court on a nominal cash bail.  The Court schedules the case for a variety of hearings over a period of approximately 5 months.  The prosecutor failed to present the matter to a Grand Jury for indictment during this time frame.  The prosecutor has cited in part to the Court, that the alleged drugs have still yet to be analyzed by the ‘drug lab’ - to either confirm or deny the validity of same.  As a result therefore, the prosecutor was forced to dismiss the case this day.  The Client’s bail money was returned and his case was closed in the District Court.  However, the possibility of a ‘direct indictment’ and eventual trial in the Superior Court at a later time, remains uncertain.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Criminal Legal Process and ‘Mandatory State Prison Confinement’ Presently Avoided.

January 16, 2014
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 547

Client, 47 year-old father of 2 girls, is headed home after working as a bartender at a local VFW club.  He is randomly stopped by a police officer who ‘runs’ his plate number and discovers the Client's license to operate a motor vehicle is suspended based upon a ‘missed’ child support payment.  The police officer alleges that he smells of alcohol, appears to be unsteady of his feet, his face is flushed, eyes red, slurred speech, etc.  The officer requests the Client submit to a variety of Field Sobriety Tests, ( the Client agrees, never a good idea ).

In the officer’s opinion, the Client fails the 9 step heel to toe walk and the one legged stand.  He is arrested and charged with OUI.  Atty. Kelly agrees to represent him, after a series of court appearances the case is tried this day before a jury.  Atty. Kelly vigorously cross-examines the officer relative to his ‘finding(s)’ and method(s) of alcohol ‘driving impairment’ detection, etc. .  Atty. Kelly further submits to the jury a audio/video recording of the Client’s ‘booking’ at the police station ( the prosecutor choose not to put forth said video to the jury ).  The jury deliberated 18 minutes and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY after Jury Trial. 

January 8, 2014
Suffolk Superior Court
No. (s) 2011 CR 10421, 2010 CR 11459

Client, 33 year-old father with children, was sentenced 2 years ago to State Prison for a period of 4-5 years based upon his plea of guilty to various ‘drug charges’ on (2) cases.  The so-called drugs in both cases were analyzed at the now infamous State Laboratory in Jamaica Plain.  In short, one of the ‘analysts' at the lab had been convicted and recently sentenced to State Prison, based upon her ‘handling’ and ‘false reporting’ of thousands of drug samples.  At the onset of the ‘lab investigation’ [ which focused in large part on the analyst’s ‘wrongdoing’ ], Atty. Kelly was able to secure the release of his Client from prison based upon a motion for new trial.  On this day, the Client’s case(s) were resolved.  The prosecutor agreed to dismiss some of the charges of the original conviction, and allowed the Client’s already served portion of the original sentence ( 2 years ) to suffice.

RESULT: State Prison Sentence Vacated, Client Released.

December 19, 2013
Concord District Court
Clerk’s Hearing
No. 1347 AC 227

Client, 47 year-old father of 2 children, is charged with violating a ‘restraining order’(RO) that was requested by his Wife.  The Client always claimed that he had no knowledge of it’s existence because he was never ‘served’ a copy of same.  Atty. Kelly was retained and examined all the documents associated with the alleged violation and presented his findings to the Clerk Magistrate.  The ‘hearing’ was to determine whether criminal process ( a Complaint ), should issue against the Client.  The Court accepted Atty. Kelly’s finding(s), that in fact the Client had not been properly served a notice of the RO as claimed and represented by the local police department.

RESULT: Application for Criminal Complaint by Law Enforcement, Denied.

December 18, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 722

Client, 53 year-old former police officer was convicted along with his son on a variety of drug charges and was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of 3 years on or about December 27, 2011.  On this day, Atty. Kelly presented the Court with a ‘Motion for Post Trial Conviction Relief’.  The motion was based in part upon ‘changes’ to the drug law statutes that were put into effect after the Client was convicted.  Atty. Kelly persuaded the Court to allow his Client to be released 1 year early from the original sentence, after hearing, the motion was allowed and the Client was reunited with his family this day, 1 week before Christmas.

RESULT: State Prison Sentence Revised, Client Released.

December 12, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No.(s) 2008 CR 660, 2013 CR 1531

Client, presently a 29 year-old male ( age 24 at the time of incident ) is charged with Being an Accessory Before the Act of Murder.  ( Several other co-defendants’ were charged as well, and were subsequently convicted and received a ‘life sentence’ in State Prison upon a conviction of Murder ).  The Client faced a life sentence as well if convicted on charge of ‘accessory before the fact’.  In short it was alleged that the Client supplied guns to the co-defendants’ and conspired with them to commit ‘armed robbery’ upon another.  It was alleged that the ‘group’ intended to rob a ‘drug dealer’ of his product and cash.  The subject of the ‘robbery’ was shot and killed by the firearms previously mentioned.  The Client’s case had ‘dragged’ through the system for several years before Attorney Kelly was appointed as successor counsel by the Court to represent him.  After many meetings with the prosecutor and court hearing(s), it was finally agreed that the ‘accessory indictment’ would be dismissed in exchange to a plea of guilty to (2) counts of conspiracy.  On this day, the defendant pled guilty, and received a State Prison sentence followed by probation.  It is expected that he will be released in approximately 2 ½ years.  He was given credit for time he spent in jail awaiting trial.

RESULT: Confinement to a ‘Prison Sentence for Life’ Avoided.

November 18, 2013
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2013 CR 10305

Client, 23 year-old male, international student, studying at a local university for the past 3 ½ years, is arrested by Boston Police and charged with Armed Robbery ( a life felony ), A&B with a Deadly Weapon and Intimidation of a Witness.  It was alleged that the Client, along with another, attacked and stole property from another ‘roommate’ during an argument in his apartment.  The Client interviews with police and cooperates in every possible way, despite his efforts, he is arraigned in District Court and then indicted by a Grand Jury, ( the ‘attacker’ and former roommate, leaves the country before he is arrested ). The case is then transferred to Superior Court and Attorney Kelly is appointed by the Court to represent him.  In the meantime, although he was only a few months away from graduating from college, he is ‘expelled’, based solely upon a police report which alleges that a ‘witness’ said he was involved.  He also loses his apartment and a full scholarship, is required to post bail and is ordered to wear an ‘ankle bracelet’ to monitor his movements.  The ‘injustice’ of this arrest and subsequent prosecution, is recognized by the Client’s Consulate Office in New York City who initiates communication(s) with Attorney Kelly and the prosecution.

On this day, after approximately 10 months of a ‘living nightmare’ as described by the Client, his case is before the Court.  A lengthy and detailed description of the event and the Client’s lack of involvement is presented by Atty. Kelly to an Associate Justice of the Superior Court.  The Court quite frankly, is astonished that this matter was not dismissed long ago.  In response, the Court orders ‘Pre-Trial Probation’ ( over the objection of the prosecutor ) for a week ( no guilty finding or admission of any wrong doing ).  While the case was pending, the Client also lost his visa entitlement to remain in the US ( because of the charges ).  The Court orders the Client to return home within the next week, to which he does, case dismissed.

*As a side note, this case will remain as one of Attorney Kelly’s most ‘remembered cases’ during his 29 years of practice, for obvious reason(s) and for not so obvious, enough said.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

November 13, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 972

Client, 47 year-old male, computer technician, is arrested by the police for causing a ‘public disturbance’ and allegedly assaulting a police officer.  The Client has steadfastly denied that he ever assaulted the officer.  It is alleged that the Client was on his roof of his apartment, apparently ‘sunbathing’ when various neighbors called the police, expressing concern for his welfare.  The police arrived, Client came down from the roof and entered his apartment.  What occurs at this point is unclear, aside from the fact that the officers entered his apartment, a scuffle ensues and he is arrested.  Attorney Kelly is retained and begins an investigation as to the alleged facts.  He presents his findings to the prosecutor who agrees to ‘non-criminalize’ both charges, pursuant to MGL c. 277 §70C which allows the matter to be essentially resolved as civil infraction ( without any criminal finding or disposition ).

RESULT: Criminal Charges Converted to a ‘Civil Infraction’.

November 7, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2013 CR 156

Client, 47 year-old substance abuser, military veteran with a long criminal record, including commitments to the House of Correction, is charged with Unarmed Robbery of a pharmacy.  It was alleged that the Client passed a note to the cashier, demanding money.  The cashier gave the Client $125.00 and he fled the store.  He was apprehended after a review of the store’s surveillance tape(s) by law enforcement.  On this day, after many hearing(s) and discussions with the prosecutor and the judge.  It was agreed that the Client would plead guilty and receive 4 years of probation.  This rather ‘lenient sentence’ was made possible for the following reasons: The Client, with little encouragement from Atty. Kelly, availed himself of several drug programs and enlisted in a ‘sober house’ to which he has been screened for drug use ( 2 times a week ).  For over a year, the Client has remained ‘drug free’.  The Judge, recognizing the progress made by the Client and his apparent dedication to changing his life, imposed the aforementioned sentence.

RESULT: State Prison Confinement Avoided, Probation Imposed with Conditions.

November 6, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 1466

Client, 66 year-old former doctor with a significant criminal record is charged with a felony- Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon ( his cane ).  It is alleged that he seriously attacked his son while the son was allegedly ‘breaking into his home’.  Attorney Kelly was retained and a number of meetings between the prosecutor and counsel took place over several weeks.  Atty. Kelly was able to convince the prosecutor that the case should be dismissed for a variety of reasons.  On this day the matter was dismissed at the request of the prosecutor.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

November 5, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 966

Client, 54 year-old male, is apprehended by a ‘Drug Task’ law enforcement collaborative that has been monitoring the action(s) of the Client over a period of weeks.  The Client is alleged to have sold narcotics to another while under surveillance.  He is charged with Trafficking in Cocaine ( a conviction will lead to a mandatory State Prison confinement for a term of years, depending on the actual ‘weight’ of the substance ).  A number of ‘pre-trial hearings’ are held.  The case is again scheduled for a probable cause hearing ( a hearing to essentially determine the validity of the charge ).  The prosecutor, again answers that they are not ready to proceed.  The charges are dismissed, the Client’s bail money is returned. However, he may still face a Grand Jury indictment, if and when the prosecutor is able to proceed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

October 24, 2013
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 10878

Client, 32 year-old, on his way home from work at 12:30 am, joins a group of friends on the MBTA Orange line platform to await the next trolley.  One of his ‘friends’, argues with a person who has allegedly made derogatory remarks to the group.  An attack by several members of the group erupts and is recorded on surveillance tapes.  The Client appears to be intervening in the melee in order to stop the assault.  Unfortunately, the MBTA Transit Police see it differently, and charge the Client with aggravated A&B with a Dangerous Weapon, and A&B on a Disabled Person ( it is learned later that the Victim, suffers from a mental disorder, and was savagely beaten in the attack, requiring medical treatment and hospitalization ).  The case is indicted by a Grand Jury and eventually set for trial in Suffolk Superior Court.  A guilty finding will likely result in State Prison confinement for the Client.  The other co-defendants plead guilty prior to the Client’s trial.  During trial, the prosecutor alleges that the Client was a joint venturer ( meaning that he was of the same ‘mine set’ as the attackers, meaning he either aided or participated in some way ).  Atty. Kelly vigorously attacked the police officer(s) during their testimony and attempted to persuade the jury that his Client was a ‘Good Samaritan’ and not one of the ‘vicious attackers’.  After 15 months awaiting trial, after 4 days of trial, and 4 ½ hours of jury deliberation, a VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY TO AS TO ALL COUNTS WAS RETURNED BY THE JURY THIS DAY.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT AS TO ALL COUNTS.

October 11, 2013
Boston Municipal Court
No. 1201 CR 3745

Client, 26 year-old African American, former college football player is dining late at night in a Chinese restaurant with (2) Caucasian women.  Adjacent to their table is a mixed group of males and females, all Caucasian.  The Client leaves his table to ‘go to the men’s room’.  Upon his return, both his companion females are in tears.  They explain that one of the males made derogatory and racist comments i.e. ‘.....What are you doing with that N............’ ‘.....What kind of whore are you ? ...’ etc.  Words are exchanged between the Client and the obnoxious male, which eventually leads to a chair being smashed over the head of said male by the Client.  The Client and his female companions leave the restaurant.  Several days elapse and the police file charges against the Client for A&B with a Dangerous Weapon ( felony).  The Client has no criminal record.  Atty. Kelly is retained and investigates the allegations and the circumstances of the incident.  On this day, Atty. Kelly reports his findings to the Court regarding the ‘provocation’ that 'caused' the incident.  ( Up to this point, the prosecutor had presented to the Court that the actions by the Client where random and unprovoked ).  The Court continues the case without making a finding for 6 months and orders the Client to reimburse the ‘obnoxious male’ for is out of pocket medical expenses, approximately $770.00.  At the conclusion of the 6 months ‘administrative probation period’ his case will be dismissed.

RESULT: Felony Conviction Avoided, Eventual Dismissal of Criminal Charge Anticipated.

October 10, 2013
Concord District Court
No. 1247 CR 972

Client, 29 year-old male is charged with OUI  2nd offense.  It is alleged that the Client operated his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol while traveling thru a ‘rural town road’ late at night.  The police officer reported that he observed his vehicle operating at a ‘high rate’ of speed and crossing ‘marked lanes’.  The officer further reports that the Client smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on his feet, slurred speech and glassy eyes.

The Client submitted to a series of Field Sobriety Tests, and according the officer, failed 4 of the 5 that were administered.  Atty. Kelly is retained and the case is eventually scheduled for trial.  On this day, after vigorous cross examination and argument by Atty. Kelly, a verdict of NOT GUILTY was returned after trial.  His right to operate a motor vehicle was also restored by the Court.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY After Trial, License to Operate a Motor Vehicle Restored.

October 9, 2013
Office of Commissioner of Probation

On this day, a Client of Atty. Kelly's received 'Notice' that his criminal record of many years ago had been successfully 'sealed' by the Board of Probation after application by Atty. Kelly and pursuant to M.G.L. c. 276 Sections 100A

RESULT:  Criminal Record Sealed.

October 7, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 969

Client, 21 year-old male is arrested and charged with possession of a loaded sawed off shot gun and other firearm violations after a routine motor vehicle stop by the police.  This particular charge is a major felony with a potential sentence of multiple years in State Prison upon conviction.  Atty. Kelly confers several times with the prosecution team assigned to this case.  After several court hearings and meetings, it is agreed that the ‘saw-off shot gun charges’ would be reduced to misdemeanor firearms charges to which the Client would plead guilty.  As a result, the Client was sentenced to 18 months in the House of Correction followed by probation.

RESULT: State Prison Confinement and Felony Conviction Avoided.

October 7, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 1523

Client, 42 year-old male with no prior criminal record, is charged with (1) count of assault upon his wife.  The wife called 911 and complained that her husband wanted to hit her but he did not.  The police arrived, arrested the Client, brought him to the Court House and he was arraigned.  On this day, the wife attended court and invoked her ‘marital privilege,’ which in essence allows her to not testify against her husband.  As a result, the prosecutor dismissed the case.

RESULT: Clean Record Preserved, Trial Avoided.

October 4, 2013
Dedham District Court
No. 1354 CR 558

Client, 33 year-old father of 3 small children is charged with destruction of property ( felony ), civil rights violation and making threats.  The allegations arise from an incident where the Client and another male exchanged 'heated words' as a result of the the male striking his car in a parking lot after opening his door.  A hearing was held in Court whereby the Judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on the charge of a violation of the civil rights statute, thereby ordering a dismissal.  The Client accepted responsibility for 'denting' the male's motor vehicle and making a threating remark.  The felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and his case was continued without a finding for 6 months with administrative probation.  At the conclusion of same, his case will be be dismissed.

RESULT: Felony Conviction Avoided, Case Continued Without a Finding, Dismissal Anticipated.  

October 1, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1312 CR 281

Client, 42 year-old divorced mother of a 9 year-old boy is charged with violating a restraining order that prohibits her from contacting her ex-husband.  It is alleged that the Client 'phoned' the ex with her cellphone.  She was arrested, arraigned and Atty. Kelly was retained to represent her.  Atty. Kelly sought and received the Client's 'phone records' that revealed that she had not phoned her ex, but rather had phoned her son on his cell phone ( of which the ex apparently answered ).  On this day the prosecutor acknowledged that a criminal complaint should not have issued and the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

October 1, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1312 CR 267

Client, 46 year-old male with a history of behavior that involves threats, annoying phone calls, etc. is again charged with a similar crime.  It is alleged the Client, who once worked as a radio disc jockey for a local radio station before being fired, called his former co-worker and the radio station itself on numerous occasions and left messages and/or directly made statements of a derogatory and harassing nature and manner.  On this day, the Client accepted responsibility for his actions and was placed on probation with the requirement that he continue with mental counseling.

RESULT: Term of Probation Imposed, No Jail Confinement.

September 30, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 895

Client, 35 year-old male with a criminal record is accused of causing malicious damage of property ( felonies ) upon the property of 2 individuals.  In particular, it is alleged that the Client caused damage to a motor vehicle and the outside portion of a home during an altercation with his ex-girlfriend.  The ‘facts’ surrounding the motivation or the incident itself are unclear.  Anyhow, on this day the matter was scheduled for trial.  As a result of the prosecutor’s inability to present documented evidence and/or witnesses corroborating the aforementioned allegations, the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

September 27, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2013 CR 576

Client, 39 year-old female is charged along with her husband and sister of participating in an ‘organized theft ring’ through out the New England area.  It is alleged that the Client along with others mentioned, entered various ‘high end’ retail stores and stole thousands of dollars of merchandise over a substantial period of time.  In this case, the Client was apprehended after being caught on video surveillance stuffing approximately $12,000.00 of merchandise from a Victoria Secret’s store and attempting to leave the store and the Mall area.  This activity occurred at least 4 times at the same store over a period of a month.

On the last occasion, the Client and her associates where arrested by police.  The Client is a mother of 4 children and has a lengthy criminal record in and outside of Massachusetts.

The prosecutor was seeking a State Prison sentence of not less then 3 years.  Atty. Kelly, on a plea of guilty to all charges, persuaded the Court to sentence the Client to 2 years at the House of Correction ( thereby assuring the possibility of parole after 1 year ), the Court agreed and she was sentenced accordingly, with a term of probation after her release from custody.

RESULT: State Prison Sentence Avoided.

September 18, 2013
Waltham District Court
Clerk-Magistrate Hearing
No. 1351 AC 478

Client, 56 year-old worker for the Dept. of Transportation (DOT), is alleged to have assaulted a co-worker during an ‘employment dispute’.  The Client has been employed for approximately 30 years for the DOT and has been a Foreman for many years.  Although there were other workers present during the alleged altercation, no else witnessed the incident.  Nor did the ‘victim’ report the matter to police until the next day, despite the fact that a Mass. State Police Barracks was adjacent to the scene of the alleged incident.  The alleged victim testified at the hearing that the Client attempted to strike him with a shovel after a verbal exchange of words.  On cross-examination by Atty. Kelly, the ‘alleged victim’ acknowledged he had been trying to get a ‘transfer’ for several years and had no exlainable reason as to why he did not report the incident immediately to police after stating he was "in fear for his life".  The Clerk-Magistrate concluded that there was no probable cause to issue a criminal complaint, case dismissed.

RESULT: No Criminal Complaint to Issue.

September 12, 2013
Brookline District Court
No. 1309 CR 455

Client, 58 year-old successful businessman is charged with making threats following a ‘road-rage’ incident.  It was alleged that the Client was ‘cut-off’ by another male and a pursuit occurred, whereby the Client made threats that he had a gun while screaming at the other motorist.  Atty. Kelly was retained and a hearing was held this day in Court.  The Client admitted to sufficient facts concerning the incident and his case was continued without a finding for 90 days.  At the conclusion of which, his case will be dismissed.  The prosecutor had sought a guilty finding which was rejected by the Court.

RESULT: Case Continued Without a Finding with Expectation of Dismissal in 90 days.

September 10, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 999

Client, 34 year-old male, father and husband is charged with stealing a pocket book from an elderly woman on a public street in Waltham.  The woman was not hurt in the theft.  The Client was apprehended a short distance away from the scene.  It appears that the Client had a ‘mental breakdown’ of some significance which apparently led to the attack.  On the day of trial, the prosecutor was unable to produce the alleged victim at trial, thereby necessitating a dismissal by the Court.  Despite the favorable in-court outcome for Client, he continues to undergo therapy relative to his ‘mental issues’.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

September 9, 2013
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 10842

Client, 22 year-old male is charged with his girlfriend of selling drugs in a public park.  When approached by undercover Boston Police Officers, they are searched, various drugs and a firearm are seized.  The Client is indicted on 11 counts and faces a mandatory sentence of 7 years in State Prison.  Atty. Kelly persuades the Prosecutor after more then a year and after countless hearings, to allow the Client to plead to a House of Correction Sentence (HC), thereby eliminating a State Prison Sentence of confinement.  On this day, the day of trial, the Client finally agrees and is sentenced to 28 months HC committed, with 16 months credit while awaiting trial.  He is expected to be released within 7 months, after which, he will be on probation for 2 years.  Atty. Kelly is convinced that the Client’s agreement to finally plead guilty, was accomplished in large part after the Client was able to speak with his mother in Court, just prior to the start of the trial.

RESULT:  State Prison Sentence Avoided.

August 30, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 722

Client, 53 year-old male and former police officer, was sentenced to 3 years, 3 years and a day back in November 2011, for his role in the distribution of drugs.  Atty. Kelly represented the Client with regard to that matter.  In August 2012, the Mass. State Legislature enacted the so called ‘Crime Bill’ that in essence, and in part, reduced the mandatory sentences relative to drug offenses AND further allowed individuals serving said mandatory sentences, to be eligible for parole sooner then previously anticipated.  In this case, the Client had pled to 9 indictments, essentially receiving the aforementioned sentence [ 3 years, 3 years and a day] to run concurrent with each other.  However, the enactment of the ‘Crime Bill’ reduced the ‘parole eligibility’ on 8 of the indictments to 2 years and a day, but not the last one - #9, the  Conspiracy indictment.  Atty. Kelly appeared before the Court this day and argued in the interests of justice and fairness, that the Court should revise the lone indictment that was not affected by the ‘Crime Bill’ so that the Client could '..see parole after 2 years and not 3...'

The prosecutor argued strenuously that the Court should not alter the sentence.  The Court disagreed and revised the Client’s sentence, allowing him to possibly be set free before Christmas this year.

RESULT: Sentence Revised, Expectation of ‘Early Release’ from State Prison.

August 28, 2013
Quincy District Court
No. 1356 CR 1316

Client, 56 year-old husband of 30 years to his wife and father of 2 grown adults is charged with assaulting a male with a baseball bat after discovering that his wife was having an affair.  The incident occurred in a parking lot outside a night club when the ‘male’ was confronted by the Client.  The Client has no previous criminal record of any kind.  The police arrest him and he is brought to Court.  Atty. Kelly is retained and a series of negotiations take place between the District Attorney’s Office and Atty. Kelly.  On this day, the Court accepts the Client’s admission to the charge, and continues his case without a guilty finding for several months and without supervised probation.  At the conclusion of which, his case will be dismissed.

RESULT: Guilty Conviction Avoided.

August 27, 2013
East Boston District Court
No. 1305 CR 726

Client, 43 year-old husband, father of 2 children is accused of assaulting his wife at Logan Airport prior to her departure to France.  The incident is captured in part by surveillance cameras and witnessed by onlookers.  The matter is eventually set down for trial.  The prosecutor has secured all of it’s witnesses, including an investigating Mass. State Trooper. The wife - ‘victim’ herein, asserts her marital privilege and refuses to testify against her husband.  Despite her refusal, the prosecutor has ‘sufficient evidence’ to move forward.  As a result, the Client admits to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty. The prosecutor on the other hand is seeking a guilty finding and possible incarceration.  However, the Court, despite the Client’s previous record for assaultive behavior, allows him to ‘admit’ to the charges, but does not find him guilty, sentences him to probation with certain conditions.  At the successful conclusion of probation, the charge of A&B will be dismissed.

RESULT: Conviction Avoided, Sentence of Probation with an Expectation of Eventual Dismissal.

August 26, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 178

Client, 33 year-old hard working father of 3 small children is alleged to have committed an Assault and Battery ( Aggravated ) causing serious bodily injury to another.  The individual is alleged to have been struck in the head by the Client, causing him to fall and strike his shoulder on a concrete stairwell, severely injuring his shoulder.  The ‘victim’ is a co-worker.  It is uncertain as to what caused the fight.  The police arrived and the Client was charged with the aforementioned felony and eventually brought to Court.  Attorney Kelly scheduled the matter for trial within a few months of the initial hearing.  On this day, as a result of the ‘victim’ not appearing for trial, the prosecutor was forced to dismiss the case.

RESULT: Case  Dismissed, Felony Conviction Avoided.

August 21, 2013
Newton District Court
No.(s) 1312 CR 286, 1312 CR 539

Client, 20 year-old male is charged with Attempted Murder of another young man.  It is alleged that a fight erupted inside the Client’s apartment and that he ‘stabbed’ the individual with a knife in the arm and shoulder area 7 times.  The Client suffered no defensive wounds of any kind.  A number of witnesses were present during the assault.  The police were obviously summoned and the Client arrested and arraigned.  Attorney Kelly was able to secure his release, pending trial, with the use of a GPS ‘ankle-bracelet’ that in essence, monitors his travels and location.  The Client was ordered to 'home confinement' as well, until the case was resolved.  A number of meetings were held between the prosecutor and Attorney Kelly which involved a ‘possible reduction’ to the charge of attempted murder, based in large part on the circumstances of the incident, and the Client’s lack of criminal record and other issues.  Attorney Kelly was successful in persuading the prosecutor NOT TO seek an indictment by a Grand Jury, ( although the ‘facts’ of this case clearly warranted same ).  The Client underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the request of Attorney Kelly as well.  On this day, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the Attempted Murder charge in exchange to a guilty plea as to the crime of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Aggravated ( causing serious bodily injury ).  The Client was placed on probation for 2 years with a number of conditions.

RESULT: Attempted Murder Charge Dismissed - Grand Jury Indictment and possible State Prison or House of Correction Sentence Avoided.  Client released on Probation.

August 19, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 102

Client, 50 year-old female is charged with assaulting her husband of many years.  The police are summoned, she is arrested and arraigned.  It is alleged that she battered him with her fists and feet and lunged at him with a knife.  Attorney Kelly is retained to represent the Client.  The Client happens to also be an ‘heir’ to a popular local restaurant chain.  A number of hearings are conducted.  On this day, after meeting with the prosecutor and the ‘estranged husband’, the matter was nolle prosequi by the prosecutor, essentially dismissing the case without further court action.

RESULT: Case Dismissed. 

July 22, 2013
Brockton District Court
No. 1215 CR 5467

Client, 20 year-old male visiting his girlfriend at a local college is charged with OUI ( operating under the influence of alcohol ) and speeding by Campus Police on school property.  The Client is arraigned, and Attorney Kelly is retained.  It is clear from the Officer’s report that a number of ‘issues’ are present that suggest the matter must be set for trial.  After a series of delays, the case is finally called for trial this day.  After a vigorous cross examination by Attorney Kelly of 2 police officers followed by his closing summation, the Client was found NOT GUILTY of the OUI charge.

RESULT: Not Guilty, License to Operate a MV Protected.

July 11, 2013
East Brookfield District Court
No. 1269 CR 1860

Client, 20 year-old college student, along with his roommate are charged with several serious drug offenses while students at a local college.  It is alleged that both engaged in possession and distribution of various drugs through out the campus.  Attorney Kelly was retained and began the process of examining the Prosecutor’s evidence and issues related thereto.  Needless to say, prior to the resolution of the matter, both students were ‘expelled’ from the college.  Upon Attorney Kelly’s advice, his Client immediately enrolled in a ‘drug program’ of which he successfully completed after a period of several months.  This information was presented to the Prosecutor who ultimately dismissed 3 of the 5 charges, and agreed to place the Client on a period of probation for a 1 year.  At the conclusion of the year, ( barring further difficulty ) the case will be dismissed, with ‘no record of conviction’.

RESULT: Partial Dismissal with Expectation of  ‘Complete Dismissal’ at the Conclusion of Probation.

July 8, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1351 CR 542

Client, 20 year-old female is charged with allegedly assaulting her ex-boyfriend ( father of her young child ).  It is alleged that the Client kicked him, scratched him, beat him, etc.  Along with breaking personal items belonging to the ‘victim’.  The Client claims it was in self-defense.  The police arrested the Client, the matter was set for trial this day.  It was anticipated by Attorney Kelly that the ex-boyfriend would not ‘show for trial’, for ( various reasons ).  As expected, he did not, case dismissed by the Court.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Felony Conviction(s) Avoided.

June 10, 2013
Waltham District Court
No.  1351 CR 543

Client, 27 year-old male is charged (2) counts of Assault and Battery and Intimidation of a Witness ( a Felony ).  In short it is alleged that the Client assaulted 2 individuals during a family disturbance and attempted to prevent someone from calling the police.  The matter was promptly scheduled for trial.  On this day, as a result of the Prosecutors alleged ‘victim(s)’ and witnesses not appearing in Court for trial, the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

June 4, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 865

Client, a teacher's assistant at a local high school for 12 years, is charged with 2 counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon upon a student ( felonies ).  It was alleged that the Client struck the student with a stapler and a ‘snow ski’ in a futile attempt to control a situation that involved aggressive and uncontrollable anger and emotion by the student in the classroom.  The incident was witnessed by approximately 15 students.  It is clear by all accounts that the actions by the Client were at the very least, inappropriate.  The Client was fired from his job immediately, and criminal charges were filed as previously stated.  A series of meetings and conferences were held between the police, school officials, Prosecutor and the family of the ‘victim’.  On this day, the Client accepted responsibility in Court and was placed on probation for 18 months.  At the conclusion of his probationary period ( barring any further court difficulty or probation issues ) his case will be dismissed and he will not have a ‘record’ of felony conviction(s).

RESULT: Case Continued Without a Finding for 2 Years, Probation Condition(s) Imposed. 

May 28, 2013
Waltham District Court
No.  1251 CR 2160

Client, 23 year-old male is charged with Larceny, Uttering False Checks to a Bank, and Forgery of a Bank Note ( felonies ).  In short is alleged that the Client stole a series of checks from a male companion.  The alleged ‘victim’ reported to police that a dispute arose over money owed to the Client by the ‘victim’.  Attorney Kelly investigated the allegation(s) that were initially presented to the Prosecutor.  On this day, all 5 felony counts were dismissed by the Prosecution based upon the unreliability of the accusations previously submitted.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Felony Convictions Avoided.

May 22, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1312 CR 91

Client, 66 year-old successful businessman, is charged with operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol, ( OUI ).  It is alleged that he was speeding and failed to stop at a ‘red light’.  Upon conversation with the Client, after the ‘stop’ of his motor vehicle, the Police Officer smelled a ‘moderate odor’ of alcohol.  He was requested to ‘perform field sobriety tests’ by the police officer.  At the conclusion of which, the officer was of the opinion that he had failed all the tests and was summarily arrested for OUI.  Attorney Kelly was immediately retained and a series of pre-trial hearing(s) were scheduled over the next several weeks.  On this day, a jury trial commenced.  The Prosecutor presented (2) police officers in support of their case before the jury.  Attorney Kelly aggressively cross-examined the officers as to their ‘observations and trial testimony’.

It was clear through out the trial, that the ‘so-called facts’ offered by the officers were somewhat ‘uncertain’.  In less then 25 minutes the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY as to the OUI charge.  The Judge on the other hand found the Client NOT RESPONSIBLE on the civil infraction(s) of Speeding and Failing to Stop for a Red Light.

The Court further ordered that the Client’s license to operate a motor vehicle shall be reinstated forthwith.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY after Jury Trial.

May 1, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 545

Client, 26 year-old female, general manager of several restaurants in the Boston area, is charged with operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol, ( OUI ).  It is alleged that she was ‘weaving from lane to lane’ which apparently was observed by local police officer while on patrol in his police cruiser.  She was stopped, smell of alcohol was detected.  She was instructed to perform a number of road side Field Sobriety Tests ( FST’s ) to which she complied.  ( There is no requirement that an operator perform these tests if requested to do so by law enforcement ).  The Client complied, and in the opinion of the police officer, she failed each and every one.  She was arrested, booked, jailed and brought to Court the next day.  Attorney Kelly was retained, a series of pre-trial motion and hearing(s) were filed and heard by the Court.  On this day, after trial, the Client was found NOT GUILTY.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY After Trial.

April 24, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 637

Client, 44 year-old male, hard working husband and father, is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ( OUI ).  It is alleged that he drove his vehicle in a ‘reckless and impaired manner’ after consuming alcohol.  His vehicle had struck a utility pole and another vehicle.  Police arrived, smelled alcohol on the breath of the Client, asked a few questions and then arrested him.  Attorney Kelly appeared on behalf of the Client, several hearings were conducted.  On this day, jury trial date, Attorney Kelly answered "ready for trial".  The Prosecutor, ‘not ready for trial’, pleaded with the Court for a continuance to another date.  Also, the Prosecutor failed to inform Attorney Kelly of her request prior to the trial date.  The judge heard argument from both counsel and rendered a dismissal of the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Possible OUI Conviction avoided.

April 23, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 2027

Client, 23 year-old unemployed drug abuser is charged with fraudulent use of a credit card, forgery, etc.  It is alleged that he attempted to pay a bill at a local restaurant with a redit card not belonging to him and without the owner’s permission.  Attorney Kelly was requested by the Court to represent the young man relative to his court involvement.  After a series of meetings with the Prosecutor, and after the Client had enrolled and finished a ‘drug rehab program’, the case was dismissed this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Felony Conviction(s) Avoided.

March 28, 2013
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1251 AC 838

Client, 21 year-old college senior is charged with ‘disturbing the peace’ as a result of an ‘out of control’ party at his apartment, that he shared with other classmates.  A hearing was held whereby Attorney Kelly was able to persuade the Clerk Magistrate that a ‘criminal complaint’ should not issue in view of the Client’s ‘lack of control over the situation’.

RESULT: Application for Criminal Complaint Dismissed, No further Court Involvement. 

March 26, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 134, 2012 CR 474

Client, 25 year-old male is charged with breaking and entering a home and receiving stolen property ( felonies ) to support his drug habit.  It was alleged that he would then ‘pawn’ the items at local pawn shops in exchange for money.  The family of the Client retained Attorney Kelly, who assisted the family in ‘enrolling’ the Client in an intense residential drug treatment program out of state.  After approximately 15 months, the Client successfully completed the program and the finding(s) were presented to the Court and the Prosecutor.  On this day, the Client ‘admitted’ to the charges, however, he was not found guilty.  Rather, a Continuance Without a Finding was entered ( CWOF ) - for a period of 1 year.  In essence, as long as the Client remains free from further illegal activity and complies with terms of probation, his charges will be dismissed.

RESULT: Felony Conviction Avoided, 'Clean Record' Preserved.

March 19, 2013
Waltham District Court
Motor Vehicle Hearing
No. 1251 MV 2193

Client, 26 year-old male is cited for speeding by a local police officer.  The Client confers with Attorney Kelly who arranges for a hearing before a Judge.  The Client is this day found 'Not Responsible'.  Thereby protecting his Motor Vehicle Driving Record and the likely imposition of insurance surcharges.

RESULT: 'Not Responsible' Finding Entered, RMV Record Preserved, Increase in Insurance Fees Protected.

March 18, 2013
Lawrence District Court
Juvenile Session

Client, 16 year-old high school sophomore is charged with operating his motor vehicle with a passenger in violation of his ‘Junior Operating License’ ( which prohibits teenagers from driving individuals, who are not family members, etc. ).  The young man is further charged with negligent operation and failing to stop for a police officer.  Attorney Kelly is retained by the family.  A hearing is held this day and upon Attorney Kelly’s request, the Court dismisses the JOL charge, and continues the remaining charges without a finding for a period of probation.  The juvenile Client must also complete 10 hrs. of Community Service.  After the successful completion of probation, those charges will be dismissed as well.

RESULT: Delinquent Finding Avoided, ‘clean record preserved’.

March 18, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1428

Client, 28 year-old male is charged with Violation of a Restraining Order.  Client is alleged to have contacted his former girlfriend and mother of his young daughter, in direct violation of the retraining order.  Client steadfastly denies ever calling her.  However, he is charged, arraigned and the matter is set down for a Pre-Trial Conference.  Attorney Kelly informs the prosecutor of the Client’s assertions.  The prosecutor investigated the claim and without explanation to the Court, dismisses the case this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, further Court Involvement Avoided.

March 8, 2013
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 10700

Client, 26 year-old male is on probation for firearm violations and associated charges.  It is  alleged that the Client failed to comply with the conditions of probation upon his release from State Prison.  In particular, he failed to report to his probation officer, verify home address and employment.  As such, he was ‘surrendered’ by his probation officer, held on bail and returned to State Prison.  Attorney Kelly was appointed by the Court to defend the Client relative to the foregoing.  A further ‘bail hearing’ was held and Attorney Kelly was able to secure his release.  Upon said release, the Client reported regularly to his P.O., found a job and moved in with his Sister.  Today, after hearing, the Court allowed the Client to continue with his probation and remain free from State Prison confinement.

RESULT: Probation Violation(s) acknowledged, Probation Continued to Original Date, further State Prison Confinement avoided.

March 7, 2013
Haverhill District Court
No. 1238 CR 3244

Client, 23 year-old male is charged with a series of felonies emanating from a domestic disturbance at his home.  The Client, who had ingested drugs and alcohol, had confronted his mother and father with aggression and in a violent manner.  The police were called and the Client was removed from the home in a peaceful manner with the instruction not to return to the home tonight.  However, a few hours later, the Client returned, broke into the house and assaulted both his parents and maliciously destroyed some personal property.  The Client was then obviously arrested, detained in jail for several days, and a restraining order was imposed.  Attorney Kelly was eventually retained by other family members to assist the Client with the regard to the incident.  Attorney Kelly was able to gain the Client’s release from jail and assisted him with regard to a drug counseling program.  After several months of being ‘free’ from drugs and alcohol, the Client was allowed to move back home.  The restraining order was ‘vacated’ and all his felony charges were dismissed this day by the prosecutor.  The Client admitted responsibility to (2) remaining misdemeanor charges that will also be dismissed, after 9 months of successful probation.

RESULT: Felony Conviction(s) Avoided, Term of Probation with likelihood of ‘Clean Record’ Preserved.

February 13, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 334

Client, 26 year-old college graduate is arrested, charged and indicted with Subsequent Offense(s) of Possession and Distribution of various Controlled Substances ‘Drugs’.  It is alleged the Client offered for sale a variety of prescription drugs within a 1000' feet of a 'school zone' on multiple occasions.  The Client faced mandatory sentences on a conviction of any of the aforementioned indictments, which together, carry more then 13 years in State Prison ( because the alleged offenses where committed after he had been found guilty of a similar crime). However, in view of the widely published reports of a former Mass. State Lab Technician ‘Annie Dookhan’ acknowledged ‘mishandling and fraudulent testing and reporting’ of drugs while she worked at a particular Mass. State Lab facility, Attorney Kelly and his Office, examined the Client’s earlier case.  It was discovered that the Client’s initial ‘drug cases’ where examined by Ms. Dookhan at some level.  As a result, Attorney Kelly persuaded the Prosecutor to dismiss ALL pending mandatory indictments, including the ‘school zone cases’ that carry a mandatory 8 years in Prison ( 4 counts, each count carries a 2 year mandatory sentence ).  In exchange, the Client this day pled guilty to ‘reduced charges’, placed on probation for 2 years with ‘random drug screens’.

RESULT: Mandatory and Multiple Years of State Prison Confinement Avoided.

February 2, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 2134

Client, 19 year-old male college student is charged with Assault and Battery upon a college official.  It is alleged that the Client ‘pushed by’ an individual who claimed he was a school official who was attempting to ‘stop’ a crowd of students from entering an ‘elevator’.  The school official did not display any university credential(s) and was not known to any of the students.  The ‘official’ claims that the Client purposely ‘pushed him’.  Campus police were called and the Client was arrested and brought to Court.  Attorney Kelly was retained and persuaded the Prosecutor to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, thereby eliminating any record of a court appearance.

RESULT: Case Dismissed Prior to Arraignment, No Record of Court Involvement.

January 29, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1088

Client, 21 year-old single mother is charged with Assault and Battery upon the father of her daughter.  It is alleged that an argument ensued over the ‘father’s’ lack of care or concern for the child ( 9 months old ) and that the verbal argument escalated to physical contact.  The police were summoned, and after interviewing both parties and others, it was determined by the police that the Client was the ‘primary aggressor’ and she was arrested.  Despite the fact that she also presented herself to the police with multiple scratches and cuts from the ‘fight’.  The father ‘victim’, was not arrested.  On this day, upon the insistence of Attorney Kelly that his Client was the ‘true victim’, the case was dismissed by the prosecutor.

RESULT:  Case Dismissed.

January 28, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 2012 CR 911

Client, 22 year-old female, and a recent college graduate, is charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol ( ‘OUI’ ) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle.  It alleged that the Client was traveling alone on Washington Street in the City of Newton at approximately 4:00 am, when she apparently fell asleep and drove her vehicle into a commercial building causing extensive damage to the structure and her car.  Fortunately for her, or anyone else, there were no injuries.  The police arrived, smelled alcohol upon her breath, made a few observations of her sobriety and determined she was under the influence.  The case was initially presented to a Clerk Magistrate to determine whether a criminal complaint for the (2) charges should issue.  At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Kelly persuaded the Magistrate that there was not probable cause for a complaint to issue on the OUI charge, but obviously conceded that there was sufficient evidence to issue a complaint on the Neg. Op. charge.  On this day, the Judge of the District Court continued the Client’s case without a finding for 9 months.  She was ordered to complete a 4 hr. ‘safety driver’s course’ and a ½ day ‘Brains at Risk’ program.  Her license would not be suspended and she would be ‘administratively’ monitored by probation for said period.  At the successful completion of probation, her case will ‘dismissed’, thereby ‘protecting’ her otherwise ‘clean record’.

RESULT: OUI Charge Dismissed ( No Probable Cause ) ‘Administrative Probation’ for the remaining charge with the expectation of an eventual ‘Dismissal’.

January 23, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 1191

Client, 20 year-old male who had ‘legally’ immigrated to the US with his family is charged with Accessory After the Fact of Murder.  It was alleged that the Client conspired with 3 other males to rob a ‘drug dealer’ of his money and drugs.  During the robbery, one of the Client’s co-defendants, fired a single shot from a handgun in an ‘attempt’ to wound the ‘victim’, however, the shot proved to be fatal.  Attorney Kelly was appointed by the Committee for Public Counsel Services ( CPCS - ‘Murder List Division’ ) to represent the Client.  It was the Prosecutor’s initial request to charge the Client with 1st Degree Murder along with the other co-defendants.  Attorney Kelly persuaded the prosecutor, in view of the Client’s ‘limited role’ in the conspiracy, to only charge him with being an accessory.  The Client was released from jail on an ‘ankle monitoring bracelet’ with bail, while the cases proceeded through the system.  A number of meetings were held between the prosecutor and Attorney Kelly over a 2 year period.  It was eventually agreed that the Client would plead guilty and receive probation.  Unfortunately, because of this situation and other issues, the Client’s ‘immigration status’ changed and he was deported to his home country of Brazil by the US Government prior to the resolution of his case.  Each of the Client’s co-defendants were found guilty by a jury or pled guilty, and where sentenced to a term of life in prison or multiple years of confinement.  On this day in court, it was acknowledged that the Client ‘failed to attend his hearing’, however, it was noted that his failure to attend was ‘involuntary’.  His mother who had supported him through out the ordeal, was allowed, with the assistance of Attorney Kelly, the return of her bail money in the amount of $10,000.00.

RESULT: Case Unresolved, Client ‘Deported’.

January 18, 2013
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 406

Client, 32 year-old male ‘drug addict’ with an extensive criminal record is arrested again.  However this time, his addiction and the ‘evils’ that drive his habit, are confronted by an ‘on duty’ Mass. State Trooper while he is causally shopping at a CVS Pharmacy in Newton,MA.  It was alleged that the Client walked in to the store, grabbed a ‘box cutter’ and threatened the pharmacist and another worker if they did not hand him ‘drugs’.  The Client grabbed the drugs and was immediately confronted by the Trooper.  The Client ran from the store and was subsequently ‘tackled’ as he tried to leave in a stolen motor vehicle.  He was charged with Armed Robbery, Receiving a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Theft of a Drug, Resisting Arrest, etc.  The guidelines that are set forth by the Probation Department suggest that the Client’s ‘confinement exposure’ should be between 60 and 90 months ( 5 to 7 ½  years ).  The Prosecutor had requested that the Court impose a sentence of 4-6 years.  Attorney Kelly requested that the Court impose a State Prison sentence of 3, 3 years and a day, followed by probation.  The Court, after listening to the Client speak on his own behalf, along with Attorney Kelly’s remarks, sentenced the Client to 3-4 years, with 4 years of supervised probation ( drug screens, counseling, etc. ) after his release from prison.

RESULT: Additional Prison Confinement Avoided.

January 16, 2013
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 89

Client, 31 year-old married male with a 14 month old son and (without a prior criminal record) is charged with Operating his Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Drugs , in particular Heroin.  It was alleged that while on his way to work, he began to ‘shoot up’ while driving.  The vehicle eventually came to a stop and the Client ‘passed out’ behind the wheel with the engine running.  Civilians approached the vehicle, pulled him from the vehicle and called police and an ambulance.  Client was transported to an area hospital and treated for an ‘overdose’ of heroin.  A search of his vehicle uncovered syringes and a small quantity of heroin.  After his release from the hospital, the Client immediately began treatment and drug screens.  For more then a year, the Client has been ‘drug free’ and has continued with drug counseling.  As a result, and despite the Prosecutors request that the Client be found guilty of Possession of Heroin and OUI Drugs ( a guilty finding on the possession charge alone carries a significant loss of license from the RMV ), the Court continued both charges without a finding for a year upon Attorney Kelly’s request.  The Client is required to continue with treatment and obviously remain 'drug free’ during his 1 year period of probation.  At the successful conclusion, his charges will be dismissed.

RESULT: Case to be Dismissed, Significant Loss of Motor Vehicle License Avoided, ‘Clean Criminal Record Preserved’. 

January 15, 2013
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing

Client, 19 year-old college sophomore from China is attending school in New York.  He is charged with a criminal offense by the Mass. State Police of Operating a Motor Vehicle on a Learner’s Permit without the company of a duly licensed individual ( as required by State law ).  Attorney Kelly appeared before the Clerk Magistrate this morning and it was agreed that a ‘criminal complaint’ would not issue, and that the matter would be dismissed in 3 months, barring any further violations.

RESULT: Criminal Complaint Not Issued, Immigration Status Protected.

January 14, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1293

Client, 19 year-old college Freshman is charged Destruction of Property ( a felony ).  It was alleged that the Client caused significant damage to an ex-girlfriend’s car.  The police investigated the incident and the Client was arrested.  Attorney Kelly appeared this day in Court and persuaded the judge to continue the case without a finding for a period of a year.  At the conclusion of the year, assuming there is no further ‘criminal involvement’ and the Client complies with his terms of probation, the case will be dismissed.

RESULT: Felony Conviction Avoided.

January 13, 2013
Waltham District Court
No.

Client, 34-year old unemployed male with no prior criminal record, is charged with Unarmed Robbery of a Person over 65 years of age, a major Felony.  It was alleged that the Client ‘snatched’ the purse of a female while she walking on a public street.  An intense police search and investigation unfolded.  As a result, the Client was arrested based upon ‘alleged’ eye witness testimony.  The Client was apprehended, arrested and brought to Court.  Attorney Kelly requested that the Court schedule a Probable Cause Hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to pursue the matter in Superior Court.  On this day, the Commonwealth answered that it "was not ready" for said hearing and explained that they were without ‘witnesses’ to proceed.  Attorney Kelly requested that the charge be dismissed and the Court agreed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Possible Prison Confinement Avoided.

January 10, 2013
Framingham District Court
No.

Client, 50 year-old severe alcoholic was placed on probation after pleading guilty to a subsequent offense of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol approximately 18 months ago.  Terms of his probation is that he remain ‘alcohol free’ and attend counseling.  Despite a period of compliance, he has in essence ‘fallen off the wagon’.  Attorney Kelly persuades the Probation Officer and the Court to allow the Client ‘one more chance’ to avoid jail time.

RESULT: Jail Time ( Presently ) Avoided.

January 2, 2013
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 2237

Client, 41 year-old male 'drug addict' with a long criminal record, is again arrested for Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime and Larceny of Property.  It is alleged that the Client, along with a female, broke into a storage room of a local hotel during a renovation phase.  The room contained approximately (40) brand new flat screen TV’s.  The Client is captured upon video surveillance, absconding with (2) of the TV’s.  After a brief police investigation, the Client is questioned and then arrested.  On this day, the Client agrees to plead guilty to the charges.  However, the Prosecutor requests the Court to sentence the Client to the maximum allowed - 2 ½ years in the House of Correction.  Attorney Kelly successfully persuades the Court to sentence him to a term of 18 months. 

RESULT: Longer Term of Incarceration Avoided.

December 20, 2012
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 10537

Client, 53 year-old female ER lab technician at a local hospital, is charged with a (1) felony count of Larceny and (49) felony counts of fraudulently accepting Unemployment Compensation.  While the Client was ‘gainfully’ employed, she continued to receive and 'cash' unemployment checks for 49 weeks.  At the plea hearing today, and upon the request of Attorney Kelly, the Client was sentenced to probation with an order to pay back the sum of $18,000.00 within a 3 year period.

RESULT: Probation, Restitution, No Jail Time.

December 17, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 750

Client, 32 year-old male is charged with Breaking and Entering a Home in the Nighttime with the Intent to Commit a Felony therein.  It is alleged that the Client, while dating the alleged ‘victim’ [ homeowner ], forced his way into her home while her ex-husband was present.  The police claim that his intention was to harm the ex-husband and/or commit ‘some other’ crime.  Upon the ‘victim’ calling 911, the Client left the premises without further incident and was then abruptly arrested by the police.  Attorney Kelly attempted to convince the Prosecutor that the Client had been ‘over charged’ by the police and that his ‘behavior’ at best, amounted to ‘disorderly conduct’.  The Prosecutor did not agree and the case was marked for trial on the felony charges.  On this day, the case was called for trial.  As a result of the Prosecution’s failure to present witnesses and/or the so-called alleged ‘victim’, the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Felony Conviction and Possible Jail Sentence Avoided.

December 11, 2012
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2012 CR 10548

Client, 18 year-old is charged with another, of robbing a young male with a gun while 'masked'. The incident occurred in South Boston while the 'victim' was walking home.  It is alleged that the Client ‘stuck him’ with firearm and demanded money. The incident was immediately reported, a description broadcast to area police officers. Within minutes, the aforementioned Client and his co-conspirator are apprehended.  A search of Client's person reveals a 'mask' ( as previously described by the victim ), together with items belonging to the victim, i.e. credit card, license and backpack.  A conference was held with Judge, the Prosecutor and Attorney Kelly. It was agreed that in view of the Client's previous 'no record', he would be sentenced to the several months he had already spent in jail awaiting trial, together with a period of probation for 2 years, upon a plea of guilty. The Armed Robbery indictment alone, can carry a life sentence in State Prison. The Client was this day reunited with his family after a 'stern encouragement' from the Judge that he complete high school ( 1 year or GED ) and remain free from legal trouble. 

RESULT: Time Served, Suspended House of Correction Sentence, 2 years Supervised Probation.    

December 3, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 2026

Client, 29 year-old visiting non-resident female from Barbados is charged with a felony, Larceny from a Person.  It is alleged that the Client, while shopping, absconded to another area of the store with a ‘handbag’ belonging to another woman.  When she was arrested, she claimed she thought the ‘hand bag’ was for sale.  On this day, after several conversations with the Prosecutor, and in view of the fact that the Client was returning to Barbados on 12/5/2012, it was agreed that the Client would pay 'court costs' in the amount of $300.00 and the case would be dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Immigration and Traveling Issues Minimized.

November 27, 2012
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 

Client, 26 year-old male with a long history of Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Suspended License, is again stopped and summoned to Court.  Prior to the Court hearing, the Client on advice of Attorney Kelly, is able to reinstate his license with the RMV.  At the hearing, and after presentation of the Client’s situation, i.e. new job, etc., the Magistrate, with the consent of the Police Prosecutor, declines to issue a criminal complaint.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Privilege to Operate a MV Preserved.

November 15, 2012
Newton District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
Citation No.  R2680569

Client, 22 year-old college senior is alleged to have operated his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol ‘OUI’ and Leaving the Scene after Causing Property Damage.  It is alleged that the Client, at approximately 2:30 am, failed to negotiate a turn on a public way, striking a utility light post and causing significant damage to the pole and his vehicle.  There were no witnesses to the accident.  As a result of the front ‘number plate’ left behind after the accident, police were able to trace the vehicle to the Client’s address.  Upon arrival by the police, and after a brief interview, the Client was transported to an area hospital.  In the days that followed, the Client received a citation referencing the aforementioned charges.  However, the police failed to comply with Mass. General Law Chapter 90 § 2 et al ( requiring the police to ‘... give a copy of the citation to the violator at the time and place of violation ...’ ).  The Client received said citation many days later in the mail.  At the hearing, Attorney Kelly argued there was no probable cause to issue the criminal complaint for the OUI charge, and more importantly, the police failed to comply with the above stated Statute.  As a result, the Magistrate agreed and issued a finding, NO COMPLAINT(S) TO ISSUE.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, No Criminal Complaint(s) to Issue, ‘Clean Record Preserved’.

November 3, 2012
Brighton District Court
No. 1208 CR 984

Client, 22 year-old recent college graduate is summoned to Court to answer to the charge of Possession of Class D (Marijuana) with the Intent to Distribute.  On the night of August 19, 2012, the Client, along with several roommates where attacked by 'would be robbers' in their home.  It appears that the perpetrators where in search of drugs and money.  A fight ensued, the police were called ( 911 ) and arrived on scene within minutes.  Unfortunately, the police, while investigating the ‘home invasion’, discovered drugs and large sums of cash.  The Client also received significant injuries during the fight along with his roommates.  After a series of conversations with the prosecution, it was agreed that Client would offer an ‘Admission to Sufficient Facts’ to the single charge.  In essence, his case will be dismissed after a period of probation, as long as there is no further court involvement.

RESULT: CWOF ( Continued Without a Finding ) with an Expectation of Dismissal after 1 year of Probation.

November 2, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1744

Client, 58 year-old grandmother is charged with Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute.  She was driving her motor vehicle when she was ordered to stop.  The police informed her that she was being stopped because her ‘windows were foggy’.  It was further alleged by the police that they believed when questioning her, that she ‘posed’ a threat to them because of her ‘movement(s)’ in the car.  This eventually led to a full blown search of her person and the contents of the motor vehicle.  As a result, various quantities of illegal drugs were found and confiscated.  Attorney Kelly prepared a Motion to Suppress the Evidence based upon the ‘stop’ of the motor vehicle and the ‘subsequent search’.  A hearing was held before the Judge.  The police officer who initiated the ‘stop’ and conducted the search, was cross-examined by Attorney Kelly at length.  At the conclusion, it was apparent that the officer’s belief that his safety was in jeopardy was not credible.  As such, any further intrusion into privacy of the Client, i.e. her person or the motor vehicle, was unjustified and illegal.  The Court agreed, and ordered the ‘suppression’ of the ‘evidence’.  In response, the prosecution was forced to file a "Nolle Prosequi", thereby dismissing the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Likely Jail Incarceration Avoided. 

November 1, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1082

Client, 35 year-old male with a significant criminal history is charged with ‘domestic offenses’ against his girlfriend, i.e. A&B and A&B with a Dangerous Weapon.  It is alleged that he hit her, kicked her, through her to the ground, etc..  It is also apparent that the girlfriend ‘victim’ has a history of false reporting, based in part on her pre-diagnosis of ‘mental illness’.  However, the Client is arrested, arraigned in Court, and held without bail.  The case is eventually set for a ‘Bench Trial’ ( trial judge sitting alone without a jury ).  On this day, the ‘alleged victim’ fails to attend court and/or communicate with the Prosecutor prior to trial.  As a result, the prosecution in turn files a "Nolle Prosequi", essentially dismissing the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Client Released from Custody. 

October 30, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1649

Client, 36 year-old male is charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, to wit: a beer bottle.  It is alleged that a fight broke out at a friend’s home and the Client struck another male on the head with a beer bottle.  The police are summoned and the Client is arrested.  After a series of pre-trial hearings, the matter is set for trial.  On this day, the ‘alleged victim’ fails to appear for trial.  The prosecution in turn files a "Nolle Prosequi", essentially dismissing the case.  The Client had always maintained that he was defending himself and had in fact sustained significant injuries in the fight as well.

RESULT: Case Dismissed on Day of Trial.

October 26, 2012
Haverhill District Court
No. 1238 CR 1833

Client, 25 year-old male with a prior criminal record is arrested and charged with 2 counts of 1st Degree Murder, 8 counts of Home Invasion, 2 counts of Assault with Intent to Murder, 4 counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and 7 counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.  It is alleged that the Client and several other individuals, attempted to rob a ‘drug dealer’ of his money and drugs.  It is further alleged that the Client was armed with a hand gun and entered the premises where (2) individuals were shot and killed.  The incident is alleged to have occurred on July 23, 2012 in the City of Haverhill.  The police arrest the Client, and he is arraigned in Court on August 1, 2012 and held without bail.  The incident receives widespread media attention.

Attorney Kelly is appointed by the Committee for Public Counsel Services ( CPCS ) to represent the accused ‘Client’.  Mr. Kelly immediately begins an independent and exhaustive investigation concerning the incident.  His investigators interview numerous individuals and 'alleged witnesses'.  Several meetings and conversations are conducted with the prosecution and his investigative team.  On this day, after spending almost 3 months in jail, the Client is set free.  ALL CHARGES ARE DISMISSED at the request of the Prosecutor.  Attorney Kelly’s investigation, coupled with the ‘evidence’ adduced at the Grand Jury proceeding, led the prosecution to recommend to the Court that all charges should be dismissed forthwith.  The Client had steadfastly denied any involvement in the crimes and was reunited with his Family following his release.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Life in Prison Avoided.

October 24, 2012
Brookline District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No.

Client, 25 year-old college graduate working for a large investment company is alleged to have struck a utility pole with his motor vehicle.  It is further alleged that he then ‘left the scene’ without notifying the police.  The next day, the Client reported the incident to police and accepted responsibility for the accident.  On this day, the Clerk Magistrate evaluated the ‘facts’ and refused to issue the criminal complaint for Leaving the Scene after Causing Property Damage.

RESULT: Criminal Process, Potential Loss of License Avoided.

October 5, 2012
Dedham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1254 AC 0932

Client, 18 year-old college freshman is alleged to have operated his motor vehicle in a ‘negligent manner’ ( criminal violation ).  Briefly, it is alleged that his vehicle ‘left the roadway’ and struck a boulder while making a turn.  On this day, a hearing was held before the Court Magistrate and argument was made by Attorney Kelly in support of ‘not issuing’ the criminal complaint.  The Magistrate agreed and criminal process did not issue.

RESULT: Criminal Process Avoided.

October 1, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1661

Client, 22 year-old college senior is arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and Trespassing by police, after protesting the ‘arrest’ of his friend on other charges.  The police arrested the Client after he refused to leave the police station and follow the directives of the police officers.  Attorney Kelly was retained by the Client’s family and after a short discussion with the prosecution, his case was dismissed at the request of the Prosecutor this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

September 28, 2012
Haverhill District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No.

Client, 24-year old college graduate and a ‘active’ US Coast Guard Reserve, along with a friend, stole an ‘art exhibit’ from a park in the downtown section of the City of Haverhill.  The value of said ‘item’ was less the $250.00, a misdemeanor.  However, the theft was likely a result of a night of drinking and the 'poor choices' that followed.  The item was eventually returned to the police.  A hearing was held this day and the Clerk Magistrate, after admonishing both young men, declined to issue a criminal complaint for larceny.

RESULT: Case Dismissed,'Clean Record' Preserved.

September 27, 2012
Brighton District Court
No. 1108 CR 590

Client, 43 year-old single mother of a teenager is arrested by members of the Boston Police Department and charged with Distribution of Cocaine within a ‘School Zone’.  The Client, while a passenger in a suspected ‘drug dealer’s car’, was stopped and arrested ( although no drugs were found upon her person, nor was she observed distributing any drugs ).  The Client was without any prior criminal record at the time of her arrest.  After a series of court hearings, Attorney Kelly filed a Motion to Exclude any and all Drug Analysis Results.  In short, this motion was based primarily upon the ‘Drug Lab’s’ failure to comply with State law and protocol as outlined.  A hearing was held this day and the court agreed.  All ‘drug evidence’ was suppressed, thereby necessitating a dismissal of charges.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Mandatory Jail Sentence Avoided.

September 24, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 843

Client, 23 year-old military veteran is charged with Assault and Battery upon his Wife.  It is alleged that the Client, after a night of drinking, struck his wife in the face.  Police responded, and the Client was arrested.  The incident was allegedly observed by a bystander.  The matter was set down for jury trial this day.  As a result of the Client’s Wife invoking her ‘marriage privilege’ ( refusing to testify against her husband ) and the failure of the ‘bystander’ to appear in Court for trial, the case was dismissed.  It should be noted that photographs taken by police on the night of the incident, depict ‘facial lacerations’ to the Client and his Wife.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

September 12, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1150

Client, 29-year old male is charged with A&B and Assault with Intent to Murder.  It is alleged that the Client forced his girlfriend on their bed an attempted to strangle her to death after a night of heavy drinking and arguments.  A 911 call alerted the police and the Client was placed in custody.  On this day, it was learned in Court that the Client was ‘detained’ by the U.S. Immigration Dept. ( Immigration and Custom Enforcement ) also known as ‘ICE’.  The State court no longer had jurisdiction over his ‘person’.  As a result, he was subsequently deported to his native country of origin.

RESULT: Case Unresolved, Client ‘Deported’.

September 10, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 1427

Client, 20-year old male is alleged to have assault and battered his roommate.  The roommate, another male, was also arrested and charged with A&B.  The case was called before the Court this day and both parties agreed to a ‘mutual dismissal’ of all criminal charges.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

September 10, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 921

Client, 46-year old male is alleged to have Assaulted his wife with the Intent to Murder her.  The allegations are that he attempted to strangle her to death after an argument.  The police arrest the Client and conduct an investigation.  Attorney Kelly interviews the ‘wife/victim’ and other potential witnesses.  After a series of hearings, the wife this day in open court declares that she will not testify against her husband ‘Client’.  The Court inquires as to her ‘intent’ relative to the ‘marital privilege’ claim.  As a result, the Prosecutor files a "nolle prosequi" this day essentially dismissing the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Certain State Prison Incarceration Avoided.

August 30, 2012
Woburn District Court
No. 1253 CR 14

Client, 61 year-old successful businessman is charged with assaulting his son with a loaded firearm.  The Client is legally authorized to carry and possess a firearm.  The facts are that the Client’s son came home in a drug induced rage and was attacking his Father in view of other family members.  In an effort to defend himself and others, he pulled his firearm from a locked area and ordered his son to leave the house.  The son eventually complied and called the police.  The police arrived, and to the shock and horror of the family, the Father ‘Client’, was arrested and brought to Court, his gun confiscated and license suspended.  Attorney Kelly was retained immediately and investigated the incident with the assistance of his investigator.  On this day, the criminal charge was dismissed by the Court and the Client was eventually able to retrieve his gun from the police and his license to possess a firearm was reinstated.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Right to Possess and Carry a Firearm Reinstated. 

August 29, 2012
Boston Municipal Court
No. 1001 CR 43219-21

Client, 26 year-old college graduate and full time utility worker for a national corporation is charged with 2 counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, his boot - upon 2 males ( one of which is over the age of 60 years of age ).  The incident arose during the end of a Boston Bruins hockey game at the Boston Garden in March of 2010.  It is alleged that the Client, along with others, assaulted several patrons in the ‘Men’s Room’ immediately following the game.  Both ‘victims’ suffered significant injuries which required medical treatment.  The Client was the only ‘alleged attacker’ apprehended.  After a 1 ½ year of pre-trial hearings, motions and meetings, the matter was resolved this day.  The Client did not plead guilty, rather, he admitted to ‘sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty’.  He was placed on probation and his case was continued without a finding.  At the conclusion of his probationary period, barring further court involvement, his case will be dismissed.  The Prosecutor had vigorously sought a guilty finding and incarceration.

RESULT: Guilty Finding, Criminal Record and Incarceration Avoided.

August 13, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 474

Client, 37-year old male is alleged to caused malicious damage to another’s motor vehicle, in the amount of over $250.00, a felony.  The allegations aris from a ‘road rage incident ’that was witnessed by several individuals.  On this day, the felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and the Client pled guilty, payed restitution and was placed on probation.

RESULT: Felony Avoided, Probation Ordered.

August 3, 2012
Framingham District Court
No. Withheld

Client’s probation was terminated this day, 2 ½  years early.  Said probation was terminated as a result of the Client’s successful completion of all conditions of probation to date, i.e. mandated programs, fees and lack of further court involvement.  Client had originally been placed on probation for 5 years ( case was originally continued without a finding ) on the charge of possession of child pornography

RESULT: Early Termination of Probation, Case Dismissed.

July 31, 2012
Wrentham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing 
No. 

Client, 18 year-old high school senior with an academic scholarship to a local university is charged with possession of an illegal narcotic drug, Class C.  After a discussion with the police and the Clerk Magistrate, criminal process was not issued.

RESULT: Criminal Complaint Avoided, ‘Academic Scholarship’ Protected.

July 24, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 271


Client, 46 year-old male is arrested and charged with Possession of Cocaine. It is alleged that the Client, who has had issues with drugs in the past, has again begun to ‘use’. Attorney Kelly informs the Court that the Client has voluntarily entered a program and will continue to be monitored by a doctor. The Court orders that the probation department supervise his 'rehabilitation’ and that his case not be entered as a guilty finding, ( in order that his license to operate a motor vehicle can remain valid ) [ a drug conviction of any kind in Massachusetts automatically triggers a suspension from the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles ]

RESULT: Criminal Conviction Avoided, Motor Vehicle License Protected.

July 24, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1251 CR 932

Client, 20 year-old male, apparently under the influence of alcohol, is arrested for Maliciously Destroying property at a local night club. He is initially charged with a felony because the alleged damage is over $250.00. Attorney Kelly persuades the prosecutor to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor and the Client agrees to plead guilty. Both counsel agree on a restitution figure and the case is placed on file.

RESULT: Felony Conviction Avoided.

July 23, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2006 CR 1354

In September, 2006, Attorney Kelly was appointed by the Court to represent a then 44 year-old male ( Client ) who had been charged with Trafficking in Cocaine which carried a 10 year minimum State Prison sentence upon conviction. Attorney Kelly was able to secure his release on bail with pre-trial conditions. From the outset, Attorney Kelly had difficulty communicating with the Client, which eventually led to a psychiatric evaluation concerning his mental competence to stand trial. It was determined that the Client was not able to stand trial in view of his ‘mental incapacity’. Attorney Kelly hired a highly respected Forensic Psychiatrist who conducted numerous interviews and evaluations over a 4 year period. On a July 17, 2012, at Attorney Kelly’s request, a hearing was finally held before the Court to determine whether the Client’s case should be dismissed. The issue for the Judge to decide was whether the well documented ‘cognitive limitations’ of the Client will ever be restored and/or his competence to stand trial regained. The Court agreed with Attorney Kelly, and over the objection of the Prosecutor and in the ‘interests of justice’, the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Mandatory State Prison Sentence Avoided.

July 19, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1373

Client, 33 year-old female is charged with OUI Alcohol and OUI Drugs, along with Leaving the Scene after Causing Property Damage and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. It is alleged that the Client struck the rear end of another vehicle while exiting off the highway. It is further alleged that she failed to stop and continued to drive. She was subsequently pulled over by police officers, interviewed and arrested. The police officer reported that she exhibited the common signs of ‘intoxication’, namely, slurred speech, glazed eyes, unsteady balance, etc..  After a series of hearings, the prosecutor dismissed the OUI Alcohol charge, citing in part that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The prosecutor continued however to prosecute the OUI Drug charge. On this day of jury trial, Attorney Kelly presented the Court with a motion and memorandum citing in part that there was no ‘legal justification’ for the prosecutor to proceed on the OUI Drug charge in view of the facts and current case law on the subject.  After a brief hearing and review of the ‘pleadings’, the Prosecutor reluctantly agreed and moved to dismiss the OUI Drug charge. The Client admitted to sufficient facts on the (2) remaining charges and was placed on probation, ( at the successful completion of which ), both charges will be dismissed.

RESULT: OUI Charges Dismissed, Jury Trial, Possible Conviction and Loss of License Avoided.

July 17, 2012
Newburyport District Court
No. 1122 CR 1049

Client, 30 year-old male is charged with and 2nd offense OUI and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. It was alleged that he drove his pick-up in a manner on a public road that endangered the police officer directing traffic and the public. It was further alleged that he had consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol that impaired his ability to operate the vehicle safely. The Client submitted to several field sobriety tests ( FST) and the Breathalyzer Test ( BT ). Fortunately, he completed the FST’s satisfactorily and registered a relatively low reading on the BT. On this day, the Client admitted to sufficient facts with regard to Neg. Op. and that charge was Continued Without a Finding [ CWOF ] ( which will be dismissed after a period of probation ). The Client elected to proceed to trial on the OUI charge, the police officer was cross-examined by Attorney Kelly and eventually was found NOT GUILTY at the conclusion of trial.


RESULT: Verdict - Not Guilty.

July 11, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2006 CR 1019

Client, 43 year-old male with a history of alcohol offenses, received a committed prison sentence of 5 years, followed by 5 years of supervised probation for a 4th OUI conviction. Attorney Kelly did not represent the Client in the aforementioned case. However, he is consulted and retained with regard to ‘various’ conditions of probation. On this day, Attorney Kelly persuades the Court that an error was committed on the record when he was sentenced some five years ago. As a result, the court record was amended and the Client’s obligation(s) while on probation were revised to his benefit.

RESULT: Terms of Probation Conditions Revised.

July 9, 2012
Newburyport District Court
No. 1122 CR 1049

Client, 62 year-old male is alleged to have assaulted his wife during an argument. The police are summoned, interviews are conducted and the Client is arrested and arraigned in District Court. Attorney Kelly is retained and begins negotiations with the prosecutor’s office. The wife seeks and receives a restraining order against the husband/client. After several weeks, an many discussions with the prosecutor, the wife informs the Court that she intends to invoke her ‘marital privilege’, [ indicating that she will not testify, nor can she be compelled to testify against her husband ]. As a result, the prosecutor dismisses the case, and the wife ‘vacates’ the civil restraining order.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

June 27, 2012
Somerville District Court
No. 1110 CR 617

Client, 47 year-old disabled female is alleged to have violated various sanitary health codes while residing in public housing.  Attorney Kelly agreed to accept the case ‘pro bono’ in order to defend the rights of the Client throughout the criminal  proceedings.  The Client, who is relegated to a wheelchair, is accused of creating a public nuisance, causing the existence of obnoxious odors and living in unsanitary conditions.  After numerous meetings with health officials and court appearances, the Court this day dismissed all charges in the matter at the request of Attorney Kelly and over the objection of the Prosecutor.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

June 26, 2012
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2011 CR 11171

Client, 58 year-old homeless male is alleged to have again committed a violent act(s) upon another homeless male by striking him in the head with a beer bottle.  The ‘victim’ sustained a multitude of stitches that required significant medical care.  Unfortunately for the Client, the entire incident was witnessed by (2) off-duty FBI agents as they driving in their car.  The Client was arraigned on Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and later indicted in view of his long record.  Attorney Kelly agreed to ‘publicly represent’ the Client at the Court’s request.  The Prosecutor had requested a 4-5 year prison sentence.  Attorney Kelly was able to convince the Judge to sentence the Client to only 15 months.

RESULT: Case Resolved, Additional Prison Confinement Avoided.

June 18, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 136

Client, 24 year-old male military veteran is alleged to have assaulted and battered his brother during a party.  Upon police arrival, the Client is arrested despite his protests that it was his brother who was the aggressor.  Attorney Kelly is retained, several court hearings are conducted.  On this day, the Prosecutor dismissed the charge on the basis that there are no credible witnesses to verify the original allegations.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

June 18, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 283

Client, 18 year-old high school female senior is charged with assaulting her boyfriend.  Attorney Kelly meets with the Client and her Mother along with the alleged ‘victim/boyfriend’.  It is clear that the police misunderstood the situation and/or were provided inaccurate information that led to the arrest of the Client.  As a result, the case against the Client was dismissed this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

June 6, 2012
Waltham District Court
Clerk-Magistrate Hearing
No. 1251 AC 64

Client, 18 year-old high school male senior is charged along with several other youths with malicious destruction of ‘mail boxes’in the Town of Weston.  The police request a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate to determine whether criminal charges should issue.  Prior to the hearing, an agreement is reached between the police and all attorneys that no criminal charges will be sought in exchange for ‘good behavior’ by the youths through out the remainder of the year.

RESULT: Clean Record Preserved, No Criminal Charges Issued.

May 22, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 1267

Client, 22 year-old male is charged with a series of violent crimes against the mother of his son.  In particular, he is charged with Rape, Breaking and Entering in the Daytime with the Intent to put a Person in Fear, Intimidation of a Witness, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Assault and Battery and Violation of a Restraining Order.  The ‘victim/mother of child’ complained to police that the Client had committed the ‘acts’ represented by the aforementioned charges.  The Client was summarily arrested and later indicted by a Grand Jury.  The Client consistently denied any guilt and was held for approximately 18 months in jail as a result of the accusations.  There was never any ‘forensic evidence’ or corroboration of her story in any way.  Attorney Kelly, along with his private investigator, spent countless hours examining phone records, medical records, etc..  After nearly a year and half, the Prosecutor agreed with Attorney Kelly that the ‘victim/mother’ had lied about the incident, and had lied before the Grand Jury.  The Client was released from jail, all charges with the exception of the ‘violation of the restraining’ order were dismissed.

RESULT: Potential Life Sentence in State Prison Avoided, Major Felony Charges Dismissed.

May 21, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 461

Client, 66 year-old male is charged with Trafficking in Cocaine to an undercover police officer.  Unfortunately, subsequent to his arrest, the Client undergoes several medical procedures to alleviate various life threatening illnesses.  As a result, Attorney Kelly persuades the Prosecutor to drastically reduce their recommendation in view of the Client’s severe medical condition(s).  The Trafficking charge is reduced and the Client pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is sentenced to a minimal State Prison sentence.

RESULT: Lengthy State Prison Sentence Avoided.

April 30, 2012
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 10581

Client, 17 year-old female student at the time of the incident, is charged along with her Mother of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, a ‘screwdriver’.  The Prosecutor alleged that a dispute arose over a ‘snowy’ parking lot space, which gave rise to an alleged attack by the Client and her Mother.  It was alleged that the Client stabbed the ‘victim’, another female, with a ‘screwdriver’ during the fight between the Mother and the victim.  It was further alleged that the Mother wielded a knife in the assault and cut the victim several times.  The victim sustained significant injuries.  The case received local media attention through out the four day trial.  A number of witnesses testified, including ‘so-called eye-witnesses’ police officer(s) and crime scene personnel.  Attorney Kelly vigorously cross-examined each witness relative to their observations, investigation(s) and findings.  On this day, after several hours of deliberation, the jury returned a NOT GUILTY verdict for the Client.  However, her joy of an acquittal was overshadowed by her Mother’s conviction by the jury.  (Her Mother was represented by other legal counsel)

RESULT: Jury Verdict - Not Guilty.

April 23, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 1508

Client, 26 year-old male along with 2 other co-defendants, is charged with (2) counts of 1st Degree Murder, Home Invasion and Gun charges.   It was alleged by the Prosecutor that the Client and at least 2 others, planned to rob a ‘local drug’ dealer.  It was alleged that the Client planned the robbery, enlisted others to participate and brandished a firearm during the attempted robbery.  During the alleged ‘botched’ robbery and home invasion, (2) brothers were shot dead.  The trial lasted approximately 4 weeks and the jury deliberated for 3 days.  On this day, the Foreman of the jury read the verdict in open Court, as to the Client, NOT GUILTY AS TO ALL COUNTS.  The Client had been held in custody since December, 2009, he was set free and returned to his family that had been in attendance through out the trial.  As a result of vigorous cross-examination by all defense attorneys and an apparent lack of sufficient evidence, the jury returned the aforementioned verdict.

RESULT: Jury Verdict - Not Guilty as to Double Homicide, Home Invasion, Gun Charges, Life Sentence Without the Possibility of Parole Avoided, ( Client Released from Custody to his Family after almost 2 years ).

March 13, 2012
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2011 CR 10421, 2010 CR 11459

Client, 31 year-old father of four children with a significant criminal record, is charged in (2) separate indictments of selling drugs to an under cover police officer within a prohibited distance from a park and school yard.  The Client had been previously convicted of crimes identical to the aforementioned.  Attorney Kelly conferences the matter with the prosecutor over several months during and after multiple court hearing(s) and proceedings.  It is finally agreed that the Client will plead guilty to reduced charges, and several ‘mandatory confinement indictment(s)' will be dismissed.  The Client is sentenced to State Prison this day, and is expected to be released within 3 years.  Upon his release, he will be ordered to under go drug evaluation, random urine screens, etc. during his two years of probation.

RESULT: ‘Enhanced’ Lengthy State Prison Confinement Avoided.

March 13, 2012
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2011 CR 472

Client, 26 year-old discharged US Army veteran is indicted on Armed Robbery while Masked, and making a Bomb Threat.  It was alleged that the Client robbed a bank while covering his face and indicating that he had a bomb with him.  The teller handed him various denominations of cash and he ran from the bank.  A short while later, he was arrested and charged.  Attorney Kelly agreed to represent him, and later discovered that the Client had an ongoing drug dependency that evolved after an accident while he was serving in the military.  The Client began a dependency on ‘pain killers’ after surgery that ‘spiraled out of control’ after his discharge from the Army.  On this day, a conference was held with the judge and recommendations were made from each side.  The prosecutor sought a sentence of 40 to 60 months in State Prison, based upon the aforementioned allegations.  Attorney Kelly indicated to the Court that his Client had no prior criminal record, that he had been in jail awaiting trial for almost a year. The Client had availed himself of all available ‘drug programs’ at the jail and obviously wished to continue a regime that would help ensure a ‘life without drugs’.  The Court departed from the ‘traditional guidelines’ and adopted Attorney Kelly’s recommendation.  The Client was sentenced to 2 ½ years in the county house of correction, followed by 5 years of ‘intense conditions’ of probation upon his release from the house of correction.   It is expected that the Client will be released within 4 months.

RESULT: State Prison Confinement Avoided, Opportunity for Rehabilitation Set Forth.

March 12, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 798

Client, 30 year-old male with a history of drug problems and criminal convictions, is alleged to have Attempted to Murder his Brother by the use of a knife.  The attempted murder charge was summarily dismissed after a short series of hearing(s) and meetings between Attorney Kelly and the prosecutor.  The issue focused on whether the Client actually ‘intended’ to kill his Brother.  As a result, the remaining charge of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon was scheduled for trial.  On this day, as a result of the failure of his ‘brother/victim’ to appear for trial, the remaining charge was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Certain Jail Confinement Avoided.

March 9, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1212 CR 64

Client, 21 year-old college student with no prior criminal record is charged with an attack upon a public employee and assault and battery on an ambulance employee.  In essence, the Client was under the influence of alcohol and abruptly and physically interfered with the duties of responding rescue personnel after a motor vehicle accident.  The Client’s friend had been injured in a vehicle that the Client was riding in.  The Client acknowledged his ‘wrongdoing’ and at the request of Attorney Kelly, the Client was placed on probation for 6 months without a guilty finding.  At the successful completion of the probationary period, his case will be dismissed.

RESULT: Criminal Conviction Avoided, ‘Clean Record Preserved’.

March 8, 2012
Waltham District Court
Clerk-Magistrate Hearing
No.

Client, 23 year-old Asian male with no prior criminal record is charged with indecent exposure in a public place.  It was alleged that an individual matching the ‘facial description’ of the Client was observed running naked along the Charles River.  Police officers arrived and questioned the Client who was in the area, ( he was fully clothed ). After several questions by the officer, it was determined that the Client would be ‘summoned to appear’ before a Clerk-Magistrate for a hearing to decide whether a criminal complaint should issue.  On this date, the complaint was denied, criminal process did not issue.

RESULT: Criminal Prosecution Avoided.

March 5, 2012
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2011 CR 10325, 2011 CR 10761

Client, 19 year-old male at the time of the alleged crime(s) in 2010, is indicted on a multitude of felonies, including Assault with Intent to Murder while Armed with a hand gun.  The Client is alleged to have shot a 53 year-old man in an alley near his temporary home, at least 3 times at close range.  The ‘victim’ testified at trial, indicating that he was ‘sure’ it was the Client who shot him.  The jury listened to a number of police officers, ‘forensic experts’ and other civilian witnesses.  A vigorous cross-examination by Attorney Kelly revealed a number of inconsistencies in their stories, reports and ‘findings’.  As a result, after almost 11 hours of deliberation, the jury found the Client Not Guilty of 7 of the most serious indictments.  The Client was found guilty of several misdemeanors and given a committed House of Correction sentence followed by probation.  The Client avoided a certain lengthy State Prison sentence if convicted on any of the acquitted charges, most notably, the attempted murder charge.

RESULT: Jury Verdict, Not Guilty as to All felony Charges, Mandatory Lengthy State Prison Confinement Avoided.

February 21, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 2021

Client, 32 year-old male is charged with several felonies ranging from B&E Nighttime, Larceny Over, Receiving Stolen Property Over, etc. . The Client claims he has no knowledge of the alleged events and requests a trial.  After many conversations with the prosecutor and the Client, it is agreed that he will admit to sufficient facts and be placed on probation for a period of time.  At the successful completion of probation, all charges will be dismissed, allowing his ‘clean record’ to be preserved.

RESULT: Felony Conviction(s) Avoided, ‘Clean Record’ Preserved.

February 14, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 2144

Client, 42 year-old former US Marine is charged and arrested in uniform for essentially impersonating an ‘active duty’ soldier of the armed services and displaying insignia(s) without authority.  It was alleged that he would ‘dress up’ in uniform and volunteer at the local Toys for Tots during the annual toy drive.  He was not accused of stealing money or toys.  His alleged ‘transgression’ is that he volunteered his time, stood in position and actively sought contributions for the drive, while dressed in military apparel.  The case received a tremendous amount of media attention.  In the end, some of the charges were dismissed and the Client was placed upon probation without a guilty finding entering.

RESULT: ‘Unjust Arrest’ Appropriately Resolved.

February 7, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 863

Client, 49 year-old male with a variety of court appearances over 4 decades and a surprisingly short criminal record, is arrested and charged with several misdemeanors, ranging from Breaking Glass in a Building, Breaking and Entering with intent to commit a Misdemeanor and Trespassing.  The police and prosecutor later learn that the ‘story’ reported by the ‘victim’ is false.  As a result, his case is dismissed this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

January 30, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 877

Client, 48 year-old successful businessman without any prior criminal record is charged with allegedly attempting to murder his wife.  The Client is alleged to have strangled her to a point were she lost consciousness.  The wife reported the alleged incident to police and the Client was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery and Attempted Murder.  He was released pending the resolution of the case.  Attorney Kelly claimed that in the view of the ‘alleged facts’, the charge of Attempted Murder was baseless.  The Prosecutor agreed and said charged was dismissed on July 17, 2011.  The remaining charge of Assault and Battery was this day dismissed as a result of the Wife’s invocation of the her Marital Privilege ( not to testify against her husband ).

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Certain Prison Confinement Avoided, ‘Clean Criminal Record’ Preserved.  

January 27, 2012
Roxbury District Court
No. 1102 CR 2396,2392

Client, 31 year-old male with a previous ‘out-of-state’ felony conviction, is charged with a multitude of drug offenses.  The Boston Police allege that the Client is a ‘significant’ drug distributor within the Boston area.  Specifically, he is charged with distribution of large quantities of Marijuana and associated other controlled substances.  An arrest of the Client is followed by the execution of a ‘Search Warrant’ at his home, where a number of items associated with the distribution of narcotics are discovered, along with various packages of drugs.  Several hearings are conducted over many months.  This day, the Prosecutor sought a jail sentence of 1 year followed by 2 years of probation.  Attorney Kelly persuaded the Judge upon a plea of guilty, to impose ‘straight probation’ along with Community Service Work and a significant fine.

RESULT: Jail Sentence Avoided, Client Ordered to a Term of Probation.

January 24, 2012
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 544

Client, 56 year-old male with a very long criminal record is again charged with Assault and Battery upon a person.  The alleged victim is the Client’s male roommate.  The Client is immediately arrested and arraigned in Court.  Attorney Kelly meets with the Client and later discovers that it is ‘unlikely’ that the alleged victim will appear at trial.  On this day,as a result of the Prosecutor’s failure to locate and/or communicate with said ‘victim’, the case is dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

January 17, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1306

Client, 37 year-old male with a serious history of ‘drug use and abuse’.  In this case, he is alleged to have committed an Unarmed Robbery and Assault and Battery upon an individual relative to a ‘drug sale’ gone bad.  The Client is arrested and arraigned in the District Court.  In light of his ‘long criminal’ record, he is held without bail.  Attorney Kelly investigates the issue relative to the ‘unarmed robbery’ and discovers that the alleged ‘story’ presented to the police by the ‘alleged victim’ is ‘lacking credibility’.   In particular a ‘forensic review’ of the Client’s cell phone clearly indicates that the alleged victim was not the ‘victim’ of any criminal act committed by the Client. The Prosecutor dismisses the unarmed robbery charge and replaces same with ‘Larceny from the Person’.  On the day of trial, the Prosecutor is forced to dismiss the entire case based upon the failure of the ‘victim’ and others to attend trial.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Client Freed from Jail.  

January 9, 2012
Natick District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 11897 AC 417

Client, 20 year-old college student is suspected of driving his motor vehicle as to endanger the public.  It was alleged by the police that the Client either fell asleep or ‘blacked out’ while operating his vehicle that collided with several other vehicles at an intersection.  A hearing was held this day.  After a presentation by the police, the Magistrate refused to issue the criminal complaint and the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, No Criminal Complaint Issued, ‘Clean Record’ Preserved.

January 6, 2012
Newton District Court
No.(s) 1112 CR 781,785

Client, 41 year-old male with a PhD is alleged to have violated an active restraining order by ‘emailing’ a woman (‘victim’) on multiple occasions over a short period of time and arriving at her residence.  The Client was again arrested and held pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws ‘58A’, that essentially allows the Court to detain a person who in the Court’s view, is a danger to society.   Attorney Kelly was subsequently retained and several hearing(s) held.  On this day, the Client pled guilty to various misdemeanor charges and was set free.  He was ordered to satisfy a number of ‘probation conditions’ during his probationary period.

RESULT: Client Pled Guilty, Released from Jail to Rejoin his Family after Approx. 45 Days in Confinement. 

January 4, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 0751 CR 526

Client, 44 year-old well educated Ugandan National, was arrested in 2007 and charged with various felonies, including attempted murder upon his girlfriend.  The Client was represented by ‘other’ legal counsel at the time and entered into a ‘plea’ arrangement immediately after his arrest.  The ‘plea’ required a ‘Guilty’ finding to be imposed on the felonies and misdemeanors, that were listed in the complaint.  The Client was placed on probation and required to complete a number of ‘probation programs and adhere to any and all conditions’.  The Client successfully completed probation.  However, his ‘anxious plea’ to the foregoing charges, altered his life in countless ways.  In the Summer of 2011, Attorney Kelly was retained to examine the case and the ‘procedure(s)’ that occurred in 2007.  Eventually a ‘motion’ was filed to ‘vacate’ the plea and set aside the ‘guilty’ findings.  It was Attorney Kelly’s argument in part that the Client was not properly represented at the time his ‘plea’ was offered.  As a result, all convictions this day were vacated and the case was dismissed.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Felony/Misdemeanor Conviction(s) Vacated.

January 4, 2012
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 2147

Client, 24-year old female had an argument with her boyfriend who then precededto call ‘911'.  The police arrived, interviewed the boyfriend and arrested the Client.  Apparently the boyfriend alleged that the Client had ‘struck him and pushed him’.  Client was summarily arraigned in District Court and continued.  Attorney Kelly spoke with the ‘alleged victim boyfriend’ who related a different story then reported.  Upon further investigation by the Prosecutor, the case was dismissed this day.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, ‘Clean Record’ Preserved.

December 28, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 2070

Client, 26-year old female is alleged to have struck her boyfriend with a glass bottle on the back of the head after a night of ‘heavy drinking’.  The boyfriend informs the Prosecutor that he intends to invoke his ‘Fifth Amendment Right’, thereby refusing to testify against the Client.  As a result, the Prosecutor this day moves to dismiss the charge, Assault and Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon ( Felony ).

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Previous ‘Clean Record’ Preserved.

December 27, 2011
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 722

Client, 47-year old former police officer is charged, along with his Son and several others, of conspiring to sell and distribute cocaine.  The State Police utilized ‘wiretap’ surveillance, search warrants and ‘confessions’ which eventually lead to widespread indictments.  After more then a year, which involved countless hearing(s) and meetings, the Client this day, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to 3 years in State Prison for his role in the ‘organization’.

RESULT: Client Sentenced to Prison,‘Enhanced Prison Confinement’ after Trial was likely Avoided.

December 21, 2011
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1151 AC 354

Client, young female school teacher had been constantly harassed by an old boyfriend.  Eventually criminal charges are filed against the ex-boyfriend.  In response, the ‘ex’ files a petition for a criminal complaint against the Client.  A hearing is held, testimony is given by all parties, including a police officer.  At the conclusion, the Clerk- Magistrate finds that there is "no probable cause" to issue a criminal complaint against the Client.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, No Criminal Charge(s) Issued.

December 21, 2011
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 1009 CR 1197

Client, 21-year old man on probation for Armed Robbery is charged with another crime along with ‘testing positive’ for drug use.  The Probation Officer urged the Judge to sentence the Client to prison.  Attorney Kelly argued for a ‘drug program’ alternative, with other conditions, the Judge agreed and the Client was ordered to enter and complete said program. 

RESULT: Prison Confinement Avoided, ‘Drug Program’ Ordered, Client Remains on probation to original date.

December 19, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 808

Client, 36-year old man is charged with several crimes ranging from Breaking and Entering of a Motor Vehicle in the Daytime with the intent to commit a Felony, Malicious Destruction of Property ( Felony ) and Receiving Stolen Property.  It was alleged that the Client ‘broke into a vehicle’ and ‘stole’ various items from within.  The police investigated the incident and determined that the Client was responsible for the aforementioned crimes.  The matter was scheduled for trial, the Prosecutor’s alleged ‘eye witness’ failed to show for trial, necessitating a dismissal of all charges.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Conviction and Possible Jail Sentence Avoided. 

December 15, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 2054

Client, 48-year old man is charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol ‘O.U.I.’ 2nd offense.  While operating his vehicle, the Client is alleged to have collided and caused considerable damage to a utility pole, fence, and a stonewall.  The Client’s vehicle left the scene with damage to the front end of said motor vehicle.  The police ‘followed the trial of debris and engine fluid’ and began to question the Client at his home.  The reporting officer smelled a ‘moderate odor’ of alcohol upon the Client and arrested him.  The Client maintained that he struck the stonewall, left the area because he ‘panicked’ and went home without reporting the accident to anyone.  The Client further stated that the ‘prescribed medication he received that day’ led to his loss of control of the vehicle.  The case was tried this day before a jury, after cross-examination by Attorney Kelly, closing arguments and instructions by the judge to the jury, a verdict was returned in ‘12 minutes’.  The Client was found NOT GUILTY of O.U.I. 2nd Offense and guilty of leaving the scene of an accident.

RESULT: Not Guilty after Jury Trial as to 2nd Offense O.U.I., Client placed on Probation with regard to the remaining charge(s).

December 12, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1923

Client, 29-year old man who had played top level collegiate basketball and experienced a brief tour in the NBA, is charged with multiple assaultive felonies against his ex-fiancé.  It is alleged that the Client assaulted the alleged victim with a kitchen knife and held her against her will at the previously shared apartment after a domestic dispute.  The police investigated the incident and the Client was held without bail.  The prosecutor later determined that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed in Superior Court on the charge of ‘kidnaping’, and that particular charge was promptly dismissed.  The case therefore remained in the District Court for several weeks before a resolution was achieved.  In essence, the Client offered an‘Alford Plea’ to the remaining charges, although not admitting guilt or admitting to sufficient facts, he essentially did not contest the charges or the facts set forth by the Prosecutor.  In exchange, the Client will be on probation for 2 years, enter and complete a ‘Batter’s Program’, abide by the Restraining Order and otherwise demonstrate good behavior.  At the conclusion of the 2 years probation period, if the foregoing conditions are met and/or complied with, his case in its’ entirety will be dismissed.

RESULT: Conviction, Grand Jury Indictment, Prison Sentence, Criminal Record Avoided.

December 6, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 591

Client, 26-year old man with a prior criminal record for assaultive behavior and other crimes, is alleged to have confronted his Brother over a dispute and attacked him.  He is charged with Assault and Battery and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon ( a Felony ).  Attorney Kelly is retained and begins an investigation into the ‘incident’.  It is determined that the ‘facts’ related to the police by the Brother at the time of the incident are ‘suspect’.  As a result, the case is placed for trial, on this day, the Brother and any and all alleged witnesses, fail to ‘show up’ for trial, resulting in the dismissal of the case.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Likely Confinement in the House of Correction Avoided.

December 5, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1442

Client, 52-year old hard working married father of a 2-year old son with no prior criminal record, was charged with Felony Larceny and Assault and Battery.  The Client steadfastly denied any knowledge and or involvement in the alleged crime.  It was alleged by the prosecutor that the Client was ‘ripping off’ local Home Depot stores and had a physical altercation with an employee who attempted to intervene during the theft.  The Client was charged after the ‘employee’ picked his photograph from a photo array that was compiled by the police.  It is alleged that a piece of paper was left behind by the ‘perpetrator’ that listed the name of the Client upon it.  Attorney Kelly was retained and a ‘show up’ lineup between the ‘employee’ and the Client was conducted.  After which, the ‘employee’ was now a 100% positive that the Client WAS NOT THE PERPETRATOR.  As a result, the Prosecutor moved to dismiss the case. 

RESULT: Case Dismissed, ‘Clean Record" Preserved. 

November 29, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 708

Client, 37 year-old medical doctor was arrested by the police at his home after they responded to a 911 ‘hang up’ call.  Despite the wife’s assertion that ‘it was only a verbal argument’, he was arrested, held in jail and arraigned in Court for Domestic Assault and Battery.  Attorney Kelly was retained and a series of conferences with the family and the prosecutor were conducted.  On this day, the Court inquired as to the wife’s willingness to ‘testify’ against her husband and she declined, citing in part her ‘marital privilege’ not to be a witness against her spouse.  As a result, the case was dismissed by the Prosecutor.

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Adverse Consequences Concerning ‘Medical License’ Avoided.

November 15, 2011
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 2011 AC 3791

Client, 53-year old female with a prior record of operating under the influence of alcohol ‘O.U.I.’ 4th offense ( 3 prior convictions ), is again suspected of O.U.I. while operating a ‘motor scooter’.  The alleged facts are essentially that she was operated said vehicle on a public way while under the influence of alcohol, resulting in an accident.  The police investigated the incident and she was summoned to Court for a Clerk’s Hearing to determine whether criminal charges, in particular, an offense for O.U.I. 4th would issue.  Attorney Kelly presented legal argument and cross-examined the police officer.  After hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate determined that ‘Probable Cause’ did not exist for this issuance of the criminal complaint for O.U.I. 4th and criminal process on that charge did not issue.

RESULT: Criminal Complaint for 4th Offense O.U.I. Not Issued, Minimum 2 year House of Correction Confinement Avoided.

November 10, 2011
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 1996 CR 387

Client, 43 year-old male who is suffering from the HIV virus, has been on probation for approximately 10 years after his release from prison, as a result of a serious offense dating back to 1996.  The Client has also suffered with a ‘drug addiction’ prior to and since his release from prison.  As a result, the Client was arrested on a drug offense and held pending trial.  Attorney Kelly secured his release, which allowed his immediate entry into a ‘drug program’ that is monitored by probation.  Today, a hearing was held in Suffolk Superior Court to determine whether the Client would return to prison as a result of the ‘new offense’.  The Court agreed with Attorney Kelly and the Client was allowed to continue with the ‘program’ and avoid a return to prison at this time.

RESULT: Return to Prison Avoided, Alternative ‘Drug Program’ Allowed by the Court.

November 7, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1222

Client, 36 year-old male is arrested and charged with a series of major felonies, including Mayhem, A&B with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempted Murder and Attempted Arson of a Dwelling House.  At a Pre-Trial Detention Hearing, based upon the allegations and the Defendant’s criminal record, he is held pending trial.  Attorney Kelly investigates the allegations and interviews witnesses, including the ‘alleged victim’.  After a series of hearings, the Prosecutor acknowledges that there is insufficient evidence to proceed to trial.  On this day, the Client is released from custody and all charges are dismissed.

RESULT: Major Felony Charges Dismissed, Grand Jury Indictment Avoided, Lengthy Prison Confinement Avoided.

October 25, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 495

Client, 22 year-old male is alleged to have committed an unarmed robbery and a assault and battery with a dangerous weapon upon another male as a result of an argument over a past incident.  The alleged victim is known to have a history of violence and a criminal record.  Despite the Client’s assertion to the police that he was not the aggressor and did not steal from the ‘victim, he was arrested and arraigned for the aforementioned charges.  Attorney Kelly independently investigated the incident and reported same to the Prosecutor.  As a result of this information and other ‘issues’, the Prosecutor this day dismissed all charges.

RESULT: Major Felony Charges Dismissed, Grand Jury Indictment Avoided, Possible Prison Time Avoided. 

October 24, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 223

Client, 24 year-old female Russian immigrant was arrested and charged with multiple felonies stemming from an alleged ‘shoplifting ring’.  The prosecutor alleged the Client and other co-conspirators where engaged in sophisticated theft of expensive merchandise through out the Northeast.  After a series of hearings on the issue of ‘illegal search and seizure’ by the police, the Prosecutor was forced to dismiss all charges relative to the arrest.

RESULT: Felony Charges Dismissed, Adverse Immigration Consequences Avoided. 

October 19, 2011
Waltham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1151 AC 304

Client, 46 year-old male was playing pool with a few friends at a local bar.  One of his friends allegedly made an ‘inappropriate comment’ to another patron’s girlfriend.  The Client said nothing and was not involved in any way with regard to the incident.  As he was leaving the bar a short while later, he was jumped and physically assaulted by the ‘patron’ who had mistakenly believed that the Client was the ‘source of the remark’.  The Client suffered a broken nose and other minor injuries.  The police were summoned and failed to arrest the ‘offending patron’.  As a result, the Client applied for a criminal complaint for assault and battery against the patron.  After receiving ‘notice’ of the hearing, the patron filed a ‘cross complaint’ for assault and battery AGAINST the Client.  After an extensive hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the patron’s application against the Client and issued a criminal complaint for assault and battery against the patron. 

RESULT: ‘Cross Criminal Complaint’ Dismissed, Criminal Complaint Issued Against Offending Party.

October 17, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 1742

Client, 57 year-old male involved in a contentious divorce is accused and arrested for allegedly violating a restraining order that prevents him form contacting his wife in any manner.  The police allege that the Client called her house, hung up and did not leave a message.  The origin of the call(s) were traced back to the Client’s home phone.  He was arrested and placed in jail for over the weekend.  Attorney Kelly was retained and with very minimal investigative effort, discovered that the couple’s son had made the phone calls in an attempt to reach his mother.  The Prosecutor dismissed the complaint prior to arraignment and the Client was set free. 

Result: Case Dismissed Prior to Arraignment, No Record of Court Case.

October 11, 2011
Eastern Hampshire District Court
No. 1198 CR 1734

Client, 36 year-old college graduate with no criminal record is charged with stealing ‘public property’ from a public works road project.  The Client, along with his girlfriend are alleged to have ‘filled’ his pick-up truck with various pipes and manhole covers.  The Client is immediately arrested by local police and confesses to the crime of stealing property with a value in excess of $250.00, a felony.  The Client retains Attorney Kelly who persuades the Prosecutor to allow the Client to ‘admit to sufficient facts’.  The Court agrees, Client is placed on 6 month probation, after successful completion of ‘administrative probation’, his case will be dismissed with no record of an adverse finding.

Result: Felony Conviction Avoided, ‘Clean Criminal Record Preserved’.

October 6, 2011
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2011 CR 268

Client, 21 year-old male with no record of criminal convictions, is charged with making threats ( 2 counts ) and ( 1 count ) of a claiming to possess and/or deploy an explosive device [ bomb ].  The Client is alleged to have called his ex-girlfriend on her cell phone several times while she was attending college.  It is alleged that he, upset over their ‘break up’, was going to ‘blow up her school’.  A portion of the alleged threat is recorded on the ex-girlfriend’s cell phone.  The Client is indicted by a Grand Jury and the case eventually proceeds to trial.  The jury returns a guilty verdict as to the ‘bomb threat’ and not guilty verdicts as to the other ‘threat indictments’.  At sentencing, the Prosecutor requests that the Judge impose a 2-4 years committed State Prison sentence.  Attorney Kelly argues for a ‘split sentence’ [ where a portion of a committed sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation upon release from custody ] with confinement in the County House of Correction and mental health counseling upon release.  The Court agrees, and the Client is sentenced to 2 ½ years committed, 18 months to serve, balance suspended for 2 years, with mental health counseling required upon his release to probation. 

Result: State Prison Confinement Avoided.

October 4, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 429

Client, 18 year-old high school senior, along with 3 other youths, allegedly broke into an ‘abandoned home’ with the intent to commit further crime.  The Client was charged with  breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony.  The pending ‘felony’ charge alone is automatic dismissal from any H.S. athletic team and possible suspension from the school.  Attorney Kelly immediately met with the police officers involved and the Prosecutor.  The charge was reduced to breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor and the Client was placed on ‘Pre-Trial Probation’ to the end of the school year.  In essence, after successful completion of PTP, his case will be dismissed with no record of ‘admission’ or finding of guilt.

Result: Felony Conviction, School Discipline and Loss of Privileges Avoided.

September 22, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 655

Client, illegal alien, 22 years-old is charged, along with another, of Unarmed Robbery of a young man, age 19, outside the public library.  Attorney Kelly, along with his private investigator, investigates the allegations and presents their findings to the prosecutor.  Upon review, of this report and the prosecutors own review of the alleged ‘facts’, the charge is reduced to ‘larceny from the person’.  The Client this day admits his wrong doing and is placed on probation.  After a successful 11 month probation period, his case will be dismissed.  However, his issues with Immigration ‘ICE’ will remain, although the severity of the initial alleged crime and the potential level of punishment has been drastically reduced. 

Result: Conviction and Indictment Avoided, Additional ‘Enhanced’ Adverse Immigration Consequences Mitigated.

September 20, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1121 CR 469

Client, 39 year-old mother is charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon upon her husband.  She is arrested, charged and arraigned in Court on 8/8/11.  She is alleged to have struck her husband in the head with a phone.  Attorney Kelly convinces the Court and the Prosecutor, that the alleged ‘victim’, her alcoholic abusive husband was likely the aggressive ‘abuser’ in this case.  As a result, her case is dismissed. 

Result: Case Dismissed, further Court Involvement Avoided. 

September 9, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 428

Client, 21 year-old single mother of a young child with no criminal record, is charged with assault and battery on her boyfriend.  The police officer investigating the ‘incident’ determines that the Client is the "primary aggressor" ( despite credible evidence to contrary ).  She is arrested, booked, held in jail and arraigned.  Attorney Kelly immediately investigates and provides the Prosecutor with ‘information/evidence’ that the Client is more likely to have been a ‘victim’ rather then an ‘unprovoked combatant’.  The Prosecutor concedes and the case is dismissed.

Result: Conviction Avoided, ‘Clean Record’ Preserved, Case Dismissed.

September 8, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 496

Client, 30 year-old Chinese immigrant with no criminal record is charged with several counts of identity fraud which include (2) felony counts.  The circumstances of the case involve the application for credit cards and the purchase of items based upon ‘false identity’ information.  A conviction on the felony charges will likely lead to deportation and/or adversely impact the Client’s ability to leave the U.S. and freely return and/or become a U.S. citizen.  Attorney Kelly persuades the Prosecutor to dismiss the felony charges, thereby leaving (2) minor misdemeanor charges to which the Client ‘admits to sufficient facts’ and is placed upon ‘administrative probation’.  After a successful completion of a 6 month probation period, his case will be dismissed. 

Result: Felony/Misdemeanor Conviction and Adverse Immigration Consequences Avoided. 

September 2, 2011
Lowell District Court
No. 1111 CR 1537

Client, 48 year-old former US Marine was legally hunting on public property when he was confronted by an off-duty police officer and another male.  After a brief ex-change of words a fight broke out between my Client and the other two men.  The Client sustained lacerations and bruising to his face and neck.  One of the other men was also injured in the melee.  All parties were charged with various assault and battery complaints.  As a result of lengthy discussions and meetings with the prosecution, the charge(s) against the Client were dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Result: Case Dismissed, further Court Involvement and Potential Criminal Record Avoided.

August 16, 2011
Attleboro District Court
No. 1134 CR 1130

Client, 58 year-old male with a history of domestic assault charges and mental health problems, is charged with violating a restraining order while incarcerated.  The R.O. was issued to his ex-girlfriend prior to the Client’s confinement on an unrelated matter.  The Client is alleged to have enlisted a former inmate to contact his ex-girlfriend upon his release from prison.  A hearing was held before the Clerk- Magistrate who issued the criminal complaint for violation of the R.O., despite the lack of evidence that the Client encouraged, requested or enlisted the former inmate to contact said person on his behalf.  The Client was arraigned and the case scheduled for a hearing for a ‘Motion to Dismiss’.  On this day a hearing was held before a District Court judge who agreed with Attorney Kelly, that the ‘...criminal complaint should have never issued...’  As a result, the Court allowed the Motion to Dismiss and the case was dismissed forthwith. 

Result: Case Dismissed, further Incarceration Avoided. 

August 15, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 237

Client, 46 year-old female is charged with a felony charge of Assault and Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon, a ‘baseball bat’.  The Client is alleged to have confronted her ex-boyfriend over an undisclosed personal issue, that led to a physical altercation and the eventual ‘alleged use’ of a baseball bat upon him.  When Police arrived, the Client had left the area.  The ex-boyfriend had apparently suffered injuries to his legs and upper body and reports that his ex-girlfriend attacked him without provocation.  The Client was eventually located, arrested and charged as stated.  After several hearings, the case was set for trial.  Attorney Kelly investigated the incident and discovered several ‘inconsistencies’ in the ex-boyfriend’s ‘story’.  On this the day of trial, the prosecution dismissed the case, citing an inability to locate the ‘ex-boyfriend’. 

Result: Case Dismissed, Felony Conviction Avoided.

August 9, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No.

Client, 72 year-old retired engineer was operating his motor vehicle in the City of Boston when a grade school student, late for her bus, ran  in front of the Client’s vehicle resulting in minor injuries.  Several witnesses to the incident claimed the Client attempted to leave the area without stopping.  The police arrived and the Client was summoned to Court for a hearing to determine whether a ‘criminal complaint’ should issue against him for Leaving the Scene after causing Personal Injury.  Attorney Kelly’s investigation revealed that the Client was merely attempting to secure his vehicle ‘outside’ the traffic lane, and was not attempting to flee the area.  The Magistrate agreed, an the criminal complaint did not issue.

Result: Criminal Complaint Application Denied, Case Dismissed.

August 8, 2011
Dedham District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. Withheld

Client, 58 year-old male with a history of mental issues and a long standing criminal record is summoned to Court for a ‘criminal complaint hearing’ alleging the crime of ‘Criminal Harassment’ .  In short, said crime is defined as a series of acts directed at a person who would likely suffer emotional distress as a result therefrom.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the police prosecutor failed to establish the elements required for the criminal complaint to issue. 

Result: Criminal Complaint Application Denied, Case Dismissed.

August 3, 2011
Quincy District Court
No. 1150 CR 3047

Client, 23 year-old college student with no criminal record is charged with a number of motor vehicle infractions and several criminal charges that stem from the ‘improper’ use of a motorcycle.  The Client is alleged to have operated his motorcycle without proper equipment, license, and further failed to stop for police while operating in a negligent and endangering manner, etc. .  A complete discussion of the facts is not necessary, suffice to say, the Client faced the loss of his motor vehicle license and his ‘clean record’.  The Prosecutor sought a guilty finding on the criminal charge(s).  Attorney Kelly persuaded the Court to continue the criminal charges ‘without a finding’ and to enter a ‘not responsible’ on the civil motor vehicle infractions, thereby preserving his ‘clean record’ and avoiding a suspension of his driver’s license.

Result: Conviction Avoided, Lack of Criminal Record Preserved, Suspension of Driver’s License Avoided. 

August 2, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 909

Client, 51 year-old female with long history of substance abuse and associated criminal record was charged with a felony charge of malicious destruction of property and assault and battery upon her Sister.  A conviction on either charge would have certainly resulted in significant incarceration based in part on the Client’s record and the purported facts of this case.  An investigation by Attorney Kelly revealed that the Prosecutor would likely face obstacles concerning the ‘victim’ and another witness.  Prior to scheduling the case for trial, the prosecutor agreed and filed a "nolle prosequi" on all charges.  In essence, the trial does not proceed and the case is dismissed. 

Result: Conviction, Imprisonment Avoided. 

August 1, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 1816

Client, 36 year-old married father of 3 young children was arrested for allegedly improperly securing a number of firearms at his home.  The police arrived at the Client’s home at the request of the Client’s in-laws who demanded that he and his ‘guns’ be removed from the duplex home that they owned, and that he ( Client ) his wife and children resided in.  The Client was not arrested, but voluntarily left the residence to avoid any further altercations.  The firearms and ammunition were removed by the police and held as evidence.  Through out the protracted pendency of the case, Attorney Kelly continued to stress the point to the prosecutor that the allegation(s) his Client ‘...improperly stored and/or secured his firearms is totally without merit...’   A trial occurred this day on the central issue as to whether the Client improperly stored the firearms in question.  At the conclusion of the Prosecutor’s case, the Court directed a Not Guilty verdict to all charges

Result: Not Guilty Verdict, Conviction, Imprisonment, Criminal Record, Avoided.

July 29, 2011
Natick District Court
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
No. 1187 AC 324

Client, 17 year-old female college bound high school senior was arrested with several other teenage friends in the Mall after attempting to leave a store with several ‘concealed’ garments.  All the teenagers were arrested, parents notified and the case was continued for hearing before a Magistrate to determine whether a ‘criminal complaint’ for larceny should issue. ( The issuance of a criminal complaint creates a record of ‘public’ court involvement.)  Attorney Kelly persuaded the Magistrate not to issue the complaint, thereby avoiding a record of court involvement.  The teenager(s) where ordered not to return to the Mall for six months and remain otherwise free of any criminal mischief.

Result: Criminal Complaint and ‘Court Record’ Avoided.

July 12, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 352

Client, 47-year old Russian immigrant is charged with Attempting to Murder his wife during a domestic dispute.  Attorney Kelly investigates the allegations and a series of hearing(s) are held over several months.  During the pendency of the case, Attorney Kelly persuades the Court to allow the Client to be ‘free from jail confinement’ on the basis that he can be monitored by a GPS ‘ankle bracelet’.  On a April 25, 2011, Attorney Kelly and the prosecutor agree that there is ‘insufficient evidence’ to proceed on the ‘Attempted Murder Count’ and the charge is dismissed.  On this day, ( day of trial ) the remaining charge of assault and battery is dismissed as well, due to the failure of the Prosecutor to proceed to trial.

Result: Client Released from GPS, All Charges Dismissed, Jail Sentence Avoided, Immigration Consequences Avoided.

July 11, 2011
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 641

Client, 58 year-old male is charged with Attempting to Murder his landlord during a fight over issues involving the Client’s tenancy.  The landlord ‘victim’ suffers significant head trauma.  The Client has a history of ‘mental health’ issues and a lengthy ‘violent’ criminal record.  Attorney Kelly employs the services of a forensic psychiatrist to examine the Client relative various issues pertaining to his mental health.  A number of conferences are held between Attorney Kelly, the prosecutor, the Court, family member(s) of the Client and the Client.  The Prosecutor requests that the Court impose a 5-7 year State Prison Sentence which is in accordance with proposed ‘sentencing guidelines’.  As a result of the psychiatrists ‘report’ and Attorney Kelly’s sentencing argument and recommendation, the Court departs from ‘sentencing guidelines’ and imposes a 3-5 year State Prison with 3 years of supervised probation to follow upon his release. 

Result: Additional State Prison Time Avoided. 

July 11, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1012 CR 824

Client, 17 year-old female senior high school student was charged possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute upon school grounds.  It was alleged that school officials had witnessed a ‘sale’ or distribution between Client and another student. ( a conviction of the distribution of ‘drugs’ within a ‘school zone’ carries a mandatory 2 year jail sentence ).  Attorney Kelly filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence based upon the claim that school officials violated the Client’s Constitutional Rights and the General Laws of Massachusetts during their search and investigation of the incident.  A hearing was held to address these issues, on June 21, 2011, the Court ‘suppressed’ any and all evidence confiscated by the school officials and the police.  As a result, all criminal charges where dismissed this day. 

Result: Conviction Of All Charges And A Mandatory Jail Sentence Avoided.

June 24, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 37

Client, 55 year-old female college professor was charged with a felony charge of assaulting her son with a dangerous weapon.  It was alleged that during a verbal argument, that she struck her son with a telephone.  In response, a 911 call was made to police and she was arrested, charged and arraigned in Court.  After several pre-trial hearings, the Judge agreed with Attorney Kelly’s request that Client  be placed on ‘pre-trial probation’ for approximately a month.  At the conclusion of which her case will be dismissed and her previous ‘clean record’ will be preserved. 

Result: Felony Conviction Avoided.

June 7, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 35

Client, 22 year-old college student was charged with various violations of a restraining order and alleged assaultive conduct towards a former girlfriend.  The client consistently maintained his innocense relative to any assaultive behavior.  After several hearings that focused on the information pertaining to alleged violent acts, the Prosecutor conceded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on those charges.  As a result, all of the domestic Assault and Battery charges were dismissed.  The Client acknowledged that he had ‘technically’ violated one of the restraining order charges to which he was placed on probation for 3 months.  At the conclusion of which, his case will be dismissed.  The remaining violation(s) of a restraining order were dismissed for a lack of credible evidence.

Result: Assault and Battery, Violation of Restraining Order Charge(s) Dismissed, Remaining Charge Continued Without a Finding for 3 Months.

June 6, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1981 CR 1008

Client, in 1981 was a 19 year-old teenager who happened at that time to follow with the ‘wrong group’ of kids.  As a result, he was arrested and charged with stealing automobile tires in excess of $100.00.  In 1981, under Mass. Law, any theft of items over $100.00 was a felony.  The Client was brought to court, an attorney was appointed to him and his case was continued to another day.  On the next court date, the client, upon the advice of his attorney, pled guilty to the felony.  As a result, the Client became a ‘convicted felon’ thereby limiting his career development and other countless opportunities.  Approximately 30 years later, the Client retains Attorney Kelly to essentially ‘undo the injustice’ of so many years ago.  A hearing is held, arguments for a new trial based upon ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’ and ‘injustice’ are heard before the Court.  The Court agrees, the Client’s felony conviction is vacated from his record

Result: Felony Conviction Vacated, Record Cleared.

May 27, 2011
Cambridge District Court
No. 1152 CR 562

Client, 52 year-old German Scientist is charged with Assault and Battery after punching another motorist in a ‘Road Rage’ incident.  Client initiated a ‘fight’ with this male after a brief verbal argument concerning the ‘victim’s’ driving actions.  Attorney Kelly contacted the ‘victim’ whereby an ‘Accord and Satisfaction’ was executed.   In essence, the victim receives a sum of money and indicates to the Court that [he] has been compensated and requests the Court to dismiss the case.  The Judge agreed with Attorney Kelly’s Motion to Dismiss the Charge Prior to Arraignment over the objection of the Prosecutor. 

Result: Case Dismissed Prior to Arraignment, No Record of Court Involvement 

May 26, 2011
Waltham District Court
No(s). 1151 CR 691, 1151 CR 486

Client, 27 year-old aspiring fire fighter is charged with OUI.  Any unfavorable disposition will likely result in his inability to become a fire fighter.  Attorney Kelly indicates to the prosecutor that the alleged facts relative to the central issue of operating under the influence of alcohol are in serious doubt.  The Prosecutor agrees and dismisses the OUI charge and allows the defendant to plead to the significantly less charge of operating to endanger.  The defendant is placed upon a period of short probation, upon successful completion, his case will be dismissed.

Result: OUI Charge Dismissed, lesser charge Dismissed upon Completion of Probation, ‘Clean Record’ Preserved. 

May 17, 2011
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 2010 CR 291

Client, 28 year-oldmale with a history of mental issues, rang the door bell of a high school friend he had not seen for many years until recently.  It was a week before Christmas and as the victim answered the door, the Client uttered the words ‘Happy Holidays’ and plunged a knife into the stomach of the victim and ran away.  The victim was rushed to the hospital and survived the attack.  The Client was subsequently arrested and charged with home invasion and attempted murder.  Attorney Kelly immediately retained the services of a forensic psychiatrist who along with another doctor concluded that the Client was not criminally responsible for his actions based upon severe mental illness at the time of the incident.  After approximately 2 years of pre-trial hearings and mental health treatment and evaluations, the case was finally scheduled for trial.  On this day, after the conclusion of a jury waived trial, a Superior Court Judge found the Client Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect

Result: Verdict - Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity.

May 16, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 1993

Client, 21 year-old male college student was charged with Breaking and Entering into his girlfriend’s home and committing an Assault and Battery.  The Client's family immediately retained the services of Attorney Kelly who initiated an investigation, utilizing the services of his private investigator and other resources.  After several months of pre-trial hearings and meetings with the Prosecutor and police, the Prosecutor this day filed a "nolle prosequi", essentially dismissing the case before trial. 

Result: Case Dismissed.

May 13, 2011
West Roxbury District Court
No. 1106 CR 165

Client, 36 year-male was arrested and charged with 3 counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, alleging that his vehicle attempted to strike several Boston Police Officers and caused Malicious Destruction to a police vehicle.  The police were responding to the Client’s home as a result of a family disturbance.  Upon their arrival, the Client was emotionally enraged and attempted to leave the area in his motor vehicleA standoff ensued and the State Police and  Boston Police SWAT Team were summoned to the scene.  The Client was eventually arrested and transported to a local hospital for psychiatric evaluation.  On this day, after several pre-trial conferences, Attorney Kelly persuaded the Prosecutor that his Client was unjustly charged with regard to the Assault charges and that his vehicle unintentionally struck the police cruiser.  As a result, the assault charges were summarily dismissed and the malicious damage charge was continued without a finding for a year.  The Client was placed on ‘administrative probation’, and the remaining charge will be dismissed as well as long as the Client remains free from further court/police involvement. 

Result: Felony Charges Dismissed.

May 4, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 2161

Client, 25 year-old male was charged with Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle with another in the Night Time with the Intent to Commit a Felony.  The issue of the Client’s involvement rested upon the a valid identification of him at trial by the owner of said vehicle.  Attorney Kelly’s pre-trial investigation revealed that the ‘owner’ was unlikely to cooperate with the prosecution.  Attorney Kelly and co-counsel for the co-defendant set the matter for trial and on this day, the Prosecutor filed a "nolle prosequi", essentially dismissing the case before trial.

Result: Case Dismissed.

May 3, 2011
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2011 CR 10252

Client, 50 year-old male is on probation for a multitude of offenses involving assaultive behavior against his ex-wife.  While attending a ‘divorce hearing’ in Probate Court, the Client said the word ‘hello’ to his ex-wife.  The terms and conditions of his probation prohibited any contact directly or indirectly with her.  The ex-wife’s divorce attorney brought the matter to a Clerk-Magistrate of the local District Court and a complaint was issued against the Client for Violation of a Restraining Order.  Today, the Client’s Superior Court Probation Officer requested that the Client be sentenced to State Prison for 18 months for said violation.  Attorney Kelly argued to the Superior Court Justice that the request for any term of incarceration for uttering the word ‘hello’ was "unconscionable and egregious". Today, the Court agreed and the Client was released without any confinement. 

Result: Prison Sentence Averted.

April 29, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1012 CR 982

Client, 74 year-old female, was charged with Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition without an FID Card.  Client, who lives primarily in the State of Florida was visiting in Massachusetts.  The Client apparently engaged in an argument with another which brought the attention of the police.  After a brief investigation, the police sought a complaint against the 74 year-old grandmother and she was eventually arraigned in Court.  These particular charges carry a possible jail sentence if convicted.  Attorney Kelly persuaded the Court to allow the Client to ‘admit to sufficient facts’ relative to the incident, and continue her case essentially without a finding.  At the conclusion of an ‘administrative’ period of probation, ( whereby the Client need not report to the Probation Department ) her case will be dismissed in 11 months by the Court. 

Result: Conviction / Jail Sentence Avoided. 

April 26, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 1291

Client, 77 year-old male, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Attempted Murder of his wife.  The police alleged that the Client stabbed his wife with a knife with the intent to kill her.  A police investigation revealed a number of ‘uncertainties’ relative to the claim(s) alleged by Client’s wife.  However, the Client was arrested and later arraigned in Court.  A complete investigation by Attorney Kelly relative to the incident was provided to the Prosecutor.  After several pre-trial hearings, the Prosecutor today filed a "nolle prosequi" on all charges.  In essence, ending the case without any further action. 

Result: Case Dismissed.

April 26, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 683

Client, 30 year-old male electrician, was alleged to have driven his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, striking a cab and later the side of a building.  This was the Client’s 2nd O.U.I. offense within 10 years.  The Client was further charged with Operating to Endanger, Leaving the Scene of an Accident and several civil infractions.  The Client faced a minimum of 14 days in jail or 14 days in a residential alcohol facility, together with enhanced penalties associated with a conviction of a O.U.I. 2nd.  Today, Attorney Kelly persuaded the Prosecutor to reduce the 2nd offense O.U.I. charge to a 1st offender charge and continue without a finding the other criminal offenses for a year.  As long as Client re-attends and completes the 1st offender alcohol program, and adheres to the standard requirements of probation, the later offenses will be dismissed in a year and his license to operate a motor will be promptly reinstated

Result: Client Avoids 2nd Offender Conviction and Disposition, Conviction on (2) Criminal Motor Vehicle Offenses and Loss of Privilege to Operate a Motor Vehicle is Significantly Reduced.

April 5, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1112 CR 1102

Client, a 48 year-old woman, was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery.  The Newton Police alleged that she assaulted her husband after an argument.  She was arrested and arraigned in the Newton District Court.  Today, at the pre-trial conference, based upon legal argument, Attorney Kelly persuaded the Prosecutor and the Judge to dismiss the criminal case against her.

Result: Case Dismissed.

March 22, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1151 CR 26

Client, an 18 year-old female high school student with college aspirations faced a charge of Assault and Battery upon an individual at a restaurant.  Although the alleged victim was a male,the police believed Client was the 'primary aggressor' and she was arrested.  Attorney Kelly investigated the incident and convinced the Prosecutor that the police had arrested the 'wrong person'. 

Result: Case Dismissed.

March 9, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 2290

Client, a 28 year-old male was charged with multiple offenses of Assault and Battery and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon upon (2) individuals.  The police claimed the Client along with another, attacked these individuals at the conclusion of a ‘house party’.  In view of the Client's prior record, a conviction would certainly result in a lengthy committed jail sentence.  The case was scheduled for immediate trial based in part upon Attorney Kelly's belief that the 'alleged victims’ would not be present at time of trial.  On this day, the case was called for trial, the Prosecutor could not proceed as a result of the absence of witnesses and the case was dismissed by the Court. 

Result: Case Dismissed.

February 22, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1012 CR 977

Client, a 39 year-old male was charged with an Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon upon his Brother during a family gathering.  It was alleged that the Client struck his Brother with their Mother’s teapot.  After conversation(s) with the Brother, and witnesses to the incident, Attorney Kelly persuaded the Prosecutor to dismiss the case upon payment of ‘medical expenses’ by the Client. 

Result: Case Dismissed.

February 1, 2011
Newton District Court
No. 1012 CR 884

Client, 26 year-old graduate student was alleged to have threatened his live in girlfriend by ‘smashing her head with his laptop’ after discovering she had sent nude photographs to another man.  The Client was arrested and charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.  After several short court appearance(s), Attorney Kelly persuaded the Prosecutor to dismiss the charges, thereby preserving the Client previously ‘clean record’. 

Result: Case Dismissed. 

January 20, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 640

Client, a 29 year-old male with a prior criminal record was charged initially with Unarmed Assault to Rob.  It was alleged by the police that the Client and another robbed an individual of his property.  A photo array was compiled by police, the Client’s photo was chosen and he was arrested and charged.  After the initial pre-trial conference, Attorney Kelly convinced the Prosecutor that the Client was ‘improperly charged’, Prosecutor agreed and the charge was reduced to Larceny from the Person.  On the day of the scheduled jury trial, the Prosecutor announced to the Court that it was dismissing the remaining ‘amended charge’. 

Result: Case Dismissed. 

January 10, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 2246

Client, a 25 year-old male with previous court involvement for assaultive behavior was charged by police with Assault and Battery and Intimidation of a Witness.  The Client is alleged to have struck his girlfriend after she grabbed his arms during an argument.  Both individuals were highly intoxicated at the time police arrived.  Client was arrested and arraigned.  Today, on the day of trial, the Prosecutor agrees to file a "nolle prosequi" on all charges.  That means that the trial does not go forward, and the case is effectively dismissed. The Client is released from any further court appearances.

Result: Case Dismissed.

January 18, 2011
Waltham District Court
No. 1051 CR 2160

Client, 38 year-old male with extensive criminal record is alleged to have Assault and Battered his girlfriend at her apartment.  The police responding to a 911 call, interviewed the alleged victim and she claimed that the Client had scratched her, punched her and pushed her to the floor.  The police did not observe any marks upon the alleged victim, but decided to arrest the Client for Domestic Assault and Battery despite his claims of innocense.  On this day of trial, the court dismissed the charge based primarily upon the ‘lack of evidence to proceed’.

Result: Case Dismissed.

January 6, 2011
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 2008 CR 10878

Client, 45 year-old father of four children and general contractor by trade was examining the home of a previous client to give an estimate relative to the repair of a porch.  Upon the Client’s arrival to the home he was met by a Grandmother and her Granddaughter ( 12 years of age ).  The Granddaughter was instructed by the Grandmother to take the Client to the basement to examine a ‘crawl space’ area that leads to porch that was in need of structural repair.  The Client and Granddaughter were alone in the basement area for just a few minutes when the Granddaughter ran up the stairs, told her Grandmother that the Client touched her in her private parts.  The police were called, the Client denied ever touching the girl, however he was immediately arrested.  Subsequently, without corroborating forensic evidence of any kind, the Client was indicted and arraigned in Superior Court and charged with Rape of a Child by Force and Indecent Assault and Batter on a Child under 14 years of age based exclusively on the child’s accusation.  Attorney Kelly was able to secure the Client’s release from jail pending the trial date at the time of his arraignment.  Attorney Kelly spent the next 2 ½ years investigating and preparing for trial.  He also prepared a devastating cross-examination of each witness as well as the investigating police officers.  Today, after a week long trial, the Client was acquitted of all indictments. 

Result: Not Guilty Verdicts after Jury Trial. 

December 22, 2010
Newton District Court
No. 1012 CR 548

Client, young college student charged with OUI - Drugs.  Client was operating his motor vehicle with several young adults when he was stopped for speeding.  The police officer detecting the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, requested the Client to exit the vehicle and perform a series of ‘field sobriety tests’ to which the officer alleges he failed.  The case went to trial today before a jury who returned a Not Guilty Verdict within 20 minutes.  Attorney Kelly’s aggressive cross-examination and closing argument likely influenced the jury’s decision. 

Result: Not Guilty Verdict after Jury Trial.