2015 Case Summaries

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.


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.


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 ).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 !


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.


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’.