2014 Case Summaries
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.