2017 Case Summaries

December 19, 2017
Newton District Court
No. 1712 CR 694

Client, 50-year old active veteran firefighter [ Lieutenant ], is charged with receiving stolen property over $250.00 – a felony. It was reported that items from an abandoned fire truck had been removed. The local police department was called to investigate and interviewed approximately 12 firefighters. At the conclusion of all the interviews, none of the firefighters admitted to the ‘theft’, nor implicated anyone within the department as having any knowledge of the incident. The Client spoke with the police and offered to speak with each firefighter and report back to the detective in charge of the investigation. Within a couple of days, the items were returned and the Client informed the detective of same WITHOUT indicating who or how the items were returned. As a ‘reward’, the Client was immediately charged as indicated. Atty. Kelly was retained and filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the lack of ‘probable cause’ to charge. A hearing was held before a Judge of the Newton Court – whereby the Motion was allowed prior to arraignment. Case Dismissed.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

RESULT: Case Dismissed.

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Committed Jail Time Avoided.

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

RESULT: Case Dismissed, Immigration/Citizenship issues avoided.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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