2013 Case Summaries

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.


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.


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

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

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.