2019 Case Summaries

November 25, 2019
Newton District Court
No. 1812 CR 648

The Client, 63-year old female nurse without a criminal record of any kind, is arrested for OUI- Drugs and Leaving the Scene after Causing Property Damage.  While she was operating her car, she side swiped several vehicles and left the area. Apparently, her vehicle then hit a curb, blowing out both tires on the passenger side. The police were summoned as a result of a 911 call. Upon their arrival, they discovered that the Client appeared to be under some ‘influence’ of a drug, based upon her demeanor, speech and physical balance. The police retrieved multiple bottles of prescribed medication from her vehicle, some bearing her name, others not. She is asked to perform a series of ‘field sobriety tests’ – at the conclusion of which she is arrested and transported to the police station. Atty. Kelly is retained and a series of hearings are conducted over the next 11 months. The focus of the hearings involve issues concerning the inadequate examination of the drugs at the Mass. State Police Lab, validity of ‘field sobriety testing’ (as to how same relates to OUI alcohol v. OUI drugs ) and the Prosecution’s request that they be allowed to employ the services of a ‘Drug Recognition Expert’ ( to determine upon review of the police report – that the Client ‘showed signs’ of drug use / impairment ).

On this day of trial, the prosecutor dismissed the OUI Drug charge and the Client was placed on Pre-Trial Probation for 6 months on the leaving the scene charge. She must attend a National Safety Drivers Course for 4 hours. After the successful conclusion of same, this charge will be dismissed as well.


September 26, 2019
Waltham District Court
No. 1951 CR 33

The Client, 29-year old male salesman with no criminal record is arrested for OUI after crossing traffic lines, almost colliding with oncoming traffic, etc. . He is eventually stopped by police, and fails a number of the sobriety tests, exhibits symptoms of alcohol in gestation and is thereby arrested. After a series of preliminary hearings, the matter comes before the court this day for jury trial. The prosecutor ‘answers not ready’, Atty. Kelly moves for a dismissal of the charges stating various reasons, the Court agrees – OUI CASE DISMISSED.


September 11, 2019
Newton District Court
No.(s) 1812 CR 662,663

The Client, 29-year old medical assistant at a major local hospital is accused of obtaining prescriptive drugs by fraud. The local police, as well as the DEA were involved in the investigation that lasted for several months, beginning in 2017. The Client was eventually charged and Atty. Kelly agreed to represent her. After a series of court hearings, Atty. Kelly informs the Prosecutor that it appears there are ‘irregularities’ in the processing of the confiscated drugs, namely that the appropriate ‘drug certification(s)’ appear to be ‘not available’ for inspection, etc. . On this 1st day of jury trial, the Prosecutor concedes that ‘it cannot go forward’ and dismisses both case(s).


September 10, 2019
Waltham District Court
No. 1951 CR 850

The Client, 30-year old mother is accused of assaulting her disabled Mother during a verbal fight that became physical. Atty. Kelly secured her release pending the trial date. He further requested that the Court order her to undergo mental health counseling, abstain from drugs and alcohol – of which she did. Her Mother addressed the Court at an earlier hearing and indicated that her daughter ( Client ) ‘is doing great and so are they’.  On this day of trial, as a result of the Mother not appearing, ( which was expected ) the Prosecutor ‘dismissed’ the case.


September 4, 2019
Waltham District Court
No. 1951 CR 360

The Client, 19-year old college Freshman from Bolivia ( in the US for the first time ) is arrested in May, 2019 while attempting to run away from Campus Police, who have arrived relative to a disturbance ‘complaint’ at a housing facility on Campus. A number of other students ran away, unfortunately the Client stumbled and fell while holding a can of beer. He is brought to Court the following Monday to be arraigned for ‘disorderly conduct’. Attorney Kelly happened to be present, an agreed to represent the young man Pro Bono ( without fee ). Attorney Kelly persuades the Court NOT to arraign him at this time. Shortly thereafter, the university expels the Client after an informal ‘student conduct hearing’. At the time of his expulsion, he was almost a straight ‘A’ student that was earned from the Fall semester. As a result of his departure from school, ( just 3 weeks from the end of the Spring semester ) – he lost forever, any and all grade(s) or hours of study, + money his parents had paid for said semester. Attorney Kelly steadfastly believes the university ( which will remain unnamed here ) overreacted and unjustly expelled this student without proper cause. On this day, the Prosecutor agreed with Attorney Kelly that his case should BE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ANY ARRAIGNMENT, and the Court agreed.


August 27, 2019
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 1881 CR 619

The Client, 54-year old male, father of 2 grown children has been involved in drugs just about his entire life. He once again is arrested for possession to distribute drugs, subsequent offense. A conviction carries a mandatory sentence of 3.5 years in State prison. After waiting trial for 6 months, Atty. Kelly is asked by the Court to handle the matter, ( prior Counsel is removed from the case ). The Client was held on $10,000.00 bail. Atty. Kelly persuades the Court to release him on GPS ( ankle bracelet ) with the requirement that he enter a drug treatment program while awaiting trial. For several months the Client tests negative for drugs, engages in intense counseling – and maybe for the first time in a long time, he earnestly addresses his ‘drug problem’. On this day, Atty. Kelly convinces the Prosecutor to amend the ‘mandatory’ portion of the indictment, thereby allowing the Court to sentence the Client to ‘probation’ for 18 months, and of course ( continue with drug counseling and follow up care ).


August 12, 2019
Suffolk Superior Court
Jury Session
No. 1884 CR 673

The Client, 32-year-old male, father of a single child with a significant history for gun offenses, is once again arrested for possession of a firearm. However in this case, the facts and penalty exposure, are much different then the ‘typical’ possession of gun/ammo charges. The Client’s friends are arrested in a motor vehicle where several guns are found in a ‘hidden compartment’ within the vehicle. Although the Client is not in the vehicle, he is in the area. The problem really is, his ‘fingerprint’ is located on (1) of the firearms. He is eventually indicted, held – an awaits trial. Attorney Kelly is asked to represent him by the Court. Through out the exchange of ‘discovery’, i.e. police reports, forensic reports,
( ballistics and fingerprint analysis ), Grand Jury minutes, Atty. Kelly realizes the Prosecutor has erred in his presentation before the Grand Jury, namely an improper ‘indictment’ relative to the ‘fingerprint firearm’.

The Client is facing a mandatory 20 years in State prison if convicted of possession of a firearm, why ? Because, his record ( State and Federal ) is replete with convictions for prior gun and violent crimes – which places him into a category known as ‘Armed Career Criminal’, which alone carries a 15 year ‘mando’.

On this day of trial, the Prosecutor offers the Client 2 ½ years State Prison, dismissing the 4 other charges, with no probation to follow. He has already waited 14 months for trial, thereby it is expected he will be released in 12 months or so, avoiding an unthinkable ‘double decade’ of State prison confinement. This ‘plea offer’ is largely based upon Atty. Kelly’s relentless conversation(s) and discussions with the Prosecutor concerning the state of the evidence, justice and what is a ‘fair sentence’ in view of the foregoing.

However, the ‘agreed upon sentence’, still needed to be approved by the trial judge.
Both parties, after long argument before the judge, were able to convince her to impose the aforementioned sentence.


August 9, 2019
Waltham District Court
Jury Session
No. 1951 CR 781

The Client, 29-year old male traveling salesman, is arrested and charged with O.U.I., after colliding with another motor vehicle at a stop light. The police arrive, smell alcohol on his person, glassy eyes and slurred speech. He is handcuffed, placed in the cruiser and transported to the police station for ‘booking’. Fortunately, he refuses to participate in any ‘field sobriety testing’ i.e. one leg stand, walk a straight line, alphabet, etc. . He further refuses to take a ‘breath test’ ( all good decisions ). His ‘booking’ at the station, is both audio and visually recorded, his performance is outstanding. On this day of trial, the Prosecutor fails/refuses to admit said video tape into evidence. However, Atty. Kelly presents same to the jury, who appear convinced that the prior testimony of the police officers that allege the Client had slurred speech, loss of balance at the tile of his arrest is not believable by jury. After an intense cross-examination of 3 police officer by Atty. Kelly, coupled with a ‘powerful’ closing to the jury, a verdict is returned – NOT GUILTY OF O.U.I. .


August 7, 2019
Newton District Court
No. 1912 CR 331

The Client. 19-year old female ( entering college , Fall 2019 ) is arrested and charged with assault and battery, et al upon several household family members. She is brought to Court, and arraigned on a felony charge A&B with a Dangerous Weapon. However, at the time – she was to be evaluated for a ‘Diversion Program’* which in essence ( if accepted by the D.A.’s Office ) WOULD RESULT IN HER NOT BE ARRAIGNED ON ANY CHARGES. Thereby preserving her ‘clean record’. Unfortunately, her then legal counsel failed to continue the arraignment for the aforementioned purpose. On or about July 25, 2019, the Court appointed Atty. Kelly to handle the matter, and perhaps ‘undo’ the apparent ‘wrongdoing’. Atty. Kelly, with little effort, convinces the D.A.’s Office of the ‘injustice’ and further persuades the Court, this day – that her record should be expunged. The Court agrees, her record is vacated/expunged and she is accepted into the ‘Diversion Program’.


* Diversion Program is available to young adults who take responsibility for their behavior
and agree to comply with various conditions for a period of time, i.e. no drugs, alcohol, no further criminal actions/cases, attend school, seek employment, etc. . At the successful conclusion, the case is dismissed and the young adult is never arraigned, thus no ‘criminal record’.

August 1, 2019
Waltham District Court
Jury Session
No. 1851 CR 934 et al

The Client, 45-year old female – non-citizen, is arrested and charged with 12 separate complaints for criminal violation(s) of a Restraining Order ( that was originally obtained by her husband who is a US citizen ). The Client claims that the husband, while commencing a divorce action, improperly and with malice, enticed the Client to ‘break’ said order by coming back into the US and contacting him. After her arraignment in the District Court, she was arrested by ICE ‘immigration customs enforcement’ and held in a Federal Detention Facility for 6 months awaiting trial. On this day of trial, the Prosecutor Nolle Prosqui ( Dismissed ) 11 of the 12 charges [ in the ‘interest of justice’ ] – the remaining ‘violation’ resulted in Pre-Trial Probation for 6 months. Although the end result was extremely favorable to the Client in the State Court herein, her ‘deportation’ in the Federal Immigration Court appears likely.


July 10, 2019
Concord District Court
Clerk Magistrate Session
No. 1847 AC 1089

The Client, 46-year old real estate administrator is charged with OUI Drugs, OUI Alcohol, and Negligent Operation of a MV. It is alleged that the Client was attempting to commit suicide after ingesting various drugs / alcohol and purposely ramming his motor vehicle into a roadway sign. Atty. Kelly is retained and investigates the cause of the accident, together with ordering a full evaluation of his mental state. After several months, Atty. Kelly is able to convince the sitting Clerk Magistrate and the local police prosecutor that ‘criminal process’ should not issue on the aforementioned charges. The Court and police prosecutor agree, on this day – the case is dismissed and the matter closed.


June 27, 2109
Suffolk Superior Court
No. 1884 CR 682

The Client, 35-year old husband and Father who as a result of his drug addiction, as been actively engaging in the sale of drugs and is caught in a ‘sting operation’. The police arrest him, a high bail is set and he is eventually indicted by a Grand Jury. The ‘drug trafficking’ indictments carry a potential sentence of multiple years of incarceration. Atty. Kelly agrees to represent the Client. His family is able to ‘post bail’, he is freed and enters a ‘drug rehab’ to regain control of his life. On this day, the Client pleads guilty to a significantly reduced charge in exchange for his agreement to accept a sentence of 2 years.


June 26, 2019
Newton District Court
No. 1912 CR 182

The Client, 29-year old male, construction worker with a recent history of a heroin addiction, is charged with operating his motor vehicle under the influence of drugs and negligent operation. The Client is transported to the hospital for evaluation. A blood or urine screen for narcotics was not performed. The police and prosecutor believe at the outset, that because ‘drugs’ were found in his motor vehicle it will be enough to prosecute and obtain a guilty verdict. On this day of jury trial, the Prosecution pleads with the Court for a continuance based upon the unavailability of a so-called expert who is expected to opine as to the effects of drugs upon a person. The Court states that (1) No there will be no continuance and (2) if the so-called expert was here – he/she would not be permitted to testify as set forth, for the reason said person never interviewed the Client at the time of the ‘event’. As a result, the case was Dismissed by the Court.


June 17, 2019
Boston Municipal Court
Central Division
No. 1803 CR 226

The Client, 34-year old male, construction worker and Father of a small child, is alleged to have driven erratically while under the influence of alcohol and causing an accident with another motor vehicle. The Mass. State Police arrive ‘MSP’ and arrested 2nd Offense OUI – the Client and transport him to the nearest MSP Barracks. Without affording him his Miranda Rights ( right to an attorney, remain silent, etc. ) he is ordered to submit to ‘field sobriety tests’ ‘FST’ and is asked a series of questions. Atty. Kelly is retained and files a Motion to Suppress his Statements and the result(s) of the FST’s. A hearing is eventually held and the Court agrees with Atty. Kelly ( All statements by the Client and his performance on the FST’s are inadmissible ). A trial jury trial date is selected, on this day the Prosecutor finally realizes that ‘he does not have a case and asks the Court to dismiss the case.


May 27, 2019
Newton District Court
Motion Hearing
No. 1812 CR 716

The Client, 56-year old male with mental illness and other medical problems, is a resident at a ‘nursing home’ when he allegedly engages in an act of indecent assault and battery on a disabled man over the age of 60. Atty. Kelly is requested by the Court to represent the Client. Atty. Kelly employs the services of a forensic psychiatrist who examines the Client and finds he is not ‘competent to stand’ trial. The Court, upon reviewing said findings, then orders the Client to be further examined by the Mass. Dept. of Mental Health (DMH) relative to the same issue – ‘competency’. After a lengthy examination and evaluation, by several doctors and clinicians, the DMH opines that “he will never be able to be restored to competency”. Atty. Kelly forwards this information to the Prosecutor, who refuses to dismiss the case. On this day, Atty. Kelly files and argues a Motion to Dismiss based upon the medical finding(s). The Court agrees, case dismissed.


May 2, 2019
Waltham District Court
Jury Session
No. 1851 CR 763

The Client, 33-year old male, private contractor – is charged with operating his motor vehicle under the influence of drugs. The Client’s motor vehicle struck a tree after leaving the roadway. Police, fire and EMT’s arrive, he is questioned. It is reported that drugs were found in the motor vehicle and that he allegedly admitted to drug use just prior to the accident. He is transported to an area hospital for possible injuries, a toxicology screen for the presence of drugs is performed. The results are NEGATIVE FOR ANY DRUGS !

However, prior to the ‘discovery’ of the ‘screen’ results, the Client is charged with OUI Drugs and arraigned in Court. Atty. Kelly is retained and investigates all issues surrounding the ‘arrest’ and ‘hospital treatment/records’. Atty. Kelly presents the ‘lack of evidence’ to the Prosecutor, who declines to dismiss the case. On this day, a trial is held – after the Prosecutor presents it’s entire case, Attorney Kelly files a MOTION FOR A FINDING OF NOT GUILTY – stating in short that the Prosecutor has presented an ‘insufficient case’ to the court based upon a lack of factual and legal argument. The Court agrees, and is quite frankly troubled why this case was even prosecuted by the Commonwealth. NOT GUILTY OUI DRUGS !


April 30, 2019
Worcester District Court
Jury Session
No. 1867 CR 1174

The Client, 25-year old male, interior designer, is charged with operating his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by a Mass. State Police Trooper while he was on his way home around 10:00 pm, after consuming a few drinks with friends at a bar. The Trooper testified that his vehicle had ‘swayed’ in his lane of traffic. After the stop, the Trooper reported that the smell of alcohol was strong, speech slurred and ‘thick tongue’. He was asked to partake in a number of‘field sobriety test(s)’ hereafter FST    [ never a good idea ]. At the conclusion of which, he was arrested and transported to the Barracks without incident.  On this day of trial, Atty. Kelly cross-examined the Trooper on a number of issues        ( independent of his report ) that caused the Trooper to agree that the Client’s actions and behavior that night was ‘consistent with someone who was sober and not impaired by the consumption of alcohol ’. As a result he was found NOT GUILTY OF OUI.


April 25, 2019
Taunton District Court
Clerk’s Hearing
No. 1931 AC 114

The Client, 18 year-old Freshman at a local college is accused by the college campus police and the District Attorney’s Office of making a ‘false police report’. The background history to this case is as follows: The Client was attacked by a male classmate in the Fall of 2018, ( hereafter ‘male’ ) He was eventually charged with Assault and Battery ( trial is pending ) and a Restraining Order was issued by the Court, in short ‘for the male to stay 30 feet away from Client at all times, etc.’ ( and also, she is to report any ‘encounters’ to the campus police ). After several weeks from the ‘attack’, the Client is walking through the campus area when suddenly the male approaches and rides by her ( within 30 feet ) on a skateboard from behind, she is startled and reports same to the police. For whatever reason, the ‘campus police’ along with the assistance of the D.A.’s Office submit an application to the Clerk’s Office for a hearing relative to ‘filing a false police report’. The ‘incident’ is captured on surveillance video, which depicts the male coming within 30 feet of her, although it can be viewed as a ‘chance encounter’. Atty. Kelly is retained, his argument at the Clerk’s hearing is that SHE WAS NOT FILING A POLICE REPORT she was merely reporting the incident that she experienced. The Clerk obviously agreed and FOUND NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.


March 1, 2019
Middlesex Superior Court
No. 1986 CR 1299 / 1986 CR 1532
Comm. v. Michael Sullivan

Mr. Sullivan was arrested in 1986 and charged with 1st Degree Murder of another man in Somerville, MA. In 1987, the case went to trial and after testimony from civilians, police and forensic chemists, he was convicted by a jury of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Mr. Sullivan always professed his innocence from the day he was arrested.  After 28 years in State Prison and with the great assistance of the Innocence Project, in particular the remarkable work of Attorneys Lisa Kavanaugh and Dana Curhan, a Motion for a New Trial was presented to the Court. As such, Michael was granted a new trial and released from prison 4 ½ years ago with an ankle bracelet and a bail of 25K, ( that was posted by his family).  At that time Atty. Kelly was appointed as his ‘new trial counsel’ to defend him against the indictment of murder.  After a series of hearings over the last 4+ years, the Prosecutor finally realized ( after countless argument(s) and meetings with Atty. Kelly ) that in view of newly discovered DNA results and other issues, the Commonwealth was unable to proceed to trial.  As such, Mr. Sullivan’s case was dismissed on 2/28/2019, and on this day, he was forever released from his GPS, and the thought of returning to prison for the rest of his life.  To state that he and his family were overwhelmed with joy and relief, is an understatement.  See The Boston Globe article, date 3/3/2019 “I feel like a new Man…”


February 28, 2019
Lowell District Court
Jury Session
No. 1811 CR 5870

Client, 23-year old Marine reservist is charged with ‘operating’ his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. In this case, it is alleged that he caused his vehicle to roll down a steep grade of a parking lot at bar, striking several vehicles. Atty. Kelly is retained and investigates the allegations and the facts surrounding the accident. Apparently the Client drove several of his friends to bar with the understanding that he would not drive from the bar. In fact, another friend agreed to be the ‘designated driver’ [ DD ] and was handed the keys upon arrival at the bar. The Client eventually became severely intoxicated at the bar and was asked to leave. He was escorted out by the DD and placed in the vehicle and fell asleep. The vehicle has a ‘standard’ transmission. At some point, the vehicle slipped into neutral and rolled, striking and damaging 3 motor vehicles. The Client was awaken, police arrive , he is arrested for OUI. On this day of trial, after intense cross-examination of the arresting police officer by Atty. Kelly and after the testimony of the Client, both sides [ prosecutor and defense rests ]. The Court, after consideration of the evidence, finds that the Prosecutor failed to meet it’s burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and finds the Client NOT GUILTY OF OUI.


February 13, 2019
Framingham District Court
No. 1849 CR 1445

Client, 37-year old male without any criminal history, is arrested in a ‘sting operation’, involving the purchase of drugs. Atty. Kelly is retained and begins negotiations with the Prosecutor involving a ‘just resolution’ of the case.  On this day, after much discussion and presentment of letters of support, the following occurs: The Prosecutor and Atty. Kelly agree to allow the Client to be placed on Pre-Trial Probation ‘PTP’ for 6 months.  In essence, the Client does not offer a plea of any kind, but agrees to remain drug and ‘arrest’ free for 6 months.  At the conclusion, a dismissal will enter with respect to all charges.


February 12, 2019
Newton District Court
No. 1812 CR 596

Client, 50-year old male and owner of a trucking firm is charged with leaving the scene of a accident while operating his motor vehicle. The Client denies that he had any knowledge of the accident and/or that he was the driver of the MV.  A witness reported the plate # and a description of the MV, but could not see the driver to give a description.  Atty. Kelly is retained and sets the matter down for trial. On this day, the Prosecutor dismisses the case on the basis that there insufficient evidence for the Client to have been initially charged and thus could not proceed to trial.


January 10, 2019
Waltham District Court
No. 1851 CR 1110

Client, 29-year old single mother and student is charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon to wit: a rock ( felony ) and Wanton Destruction of Property. It is alleged that she had a verbal dispute with the Father of her child that apparently escalated. The police were summoned and the Client was arrested and charged with throwing a rock at his vehicle.  Further investigation revealed that the ‘Father’s story’ may not be as previously reported to the police. On this day, the Prosecutor was unable to proceed to jury trial. As such, Atty. Kelly requested a dismissal that was granted by the Court.


January 3, 2019
Waltham District Court
No. 1851 CR 747

Client, 27-year old female Harvard Graduate student is charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle under the influence of Drugs. It is alleged the Client drove through an intersection against the ‘red light’. This incident was observed by a police officer who promptly pulled her over and engaged in conversation. The officer noticed various ‘pill bottles’ in the console area of the vehicle, that had her father’s name upon the prescription bottle(s). The officer believed her ‘responses’ to his questions were slow and lethargic. She was asked to submit to field sobriety testing [ which are in fact designed to evaluate a person under the influence of alcohol, and not drugs ]. In any event, ( it is never a good idea to agree to perform these tests under any circumstances ). At the conclusion of which, the Client was arrested and charged with OUI-Drugs. From the inception of the case, Atty. Kelly stated to the Prosecutor on a number of dates, that they did not have a viable case to put to trial.
On this day, jury trial date – the Prosecutor conceded that it was ‘without sufficient evidence to proceed’ and requested a dismissal.