WELCOME TO THE BLOG OF THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL R. MORASKI, MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY

We blog about relevant issues in criminal defense law, discuss the misconceptions surrounding criminal defense law, and provide readers with helpful criminal defense information and resources.


Please visit www.massdefense.com for more information.


Saturday, December 29, 2012

Did You Know That Telling A Lie Is Against The Law? Well, It Is When It's Regarding A Federal Agent.

If ever you find yourself having to talk to a federal agent it is in your best interest to mind everything you say. It is imperative that you remember the mantra, "I will not answer anything without my attorney present." If an FBI agent asked you where you just came from and you responded "school" because you were nervous and you simply blurted it out, when in fact you didn't have school today, guess what? You are now subject to time in a federal penitentiary.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States."

Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed."

United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency.

United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

One can face prosecution for the tiniest of lies or misleadings, even if there is no personal or financial gain to be made. Something as simple as mistaking a time or a date could send you to prison. If you are ever in contact with a federal agent, or any employee of the federal government, refer to your mantra and call Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul Moraski.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Massachusetts Drug Lab Scandal Update

The latest news concerning Massachusetts State chemist Annie Dookhan has revealed her close, sometimes inappropriate, relationship with prosecutors. In an effort to trump up charges, Dookhan went as far as altering findings to ensure a victory for the prosecution. It's becoming more apparent that prosecutors and police alike were the beneficiaries of Dookhan's misdeeds.

This is just another revelation that the gross abuse of the legal system has left in its wake a number of broken laws and accomplices. The biggest victim in all of this mess are the people of Massachusetts. Tax payers will have to foot the bill for her indiscretions and countless individuals are wrongfully serving time behind bars, fulfilling her personal vendetta of "getting drug dealers off of the streets."

Emails obtained by the Boston Globe detail Dookhan's last nine years of correspondence with district attorneys. It's clear she views herself as part of a prosecution team. In a series of email exchanges with Norfolk's Assistant D.A., she agrees to increase the amount of marijuana found for the purpose of charging the suspect with drug trafficking. The minimum weight for trafficking is 50 pounds. She far exceeded that number by exaggerating the marijuana's weight to over 80 pounds.

It is daunting to think how many Annie Dookhan's are out there. As long as there are, then our justice system will suffer from their perversion. How can one receive a fair trial when the prosecution isn't playing by the rules? Personal vendettas and playing "God" are two of the justice systems biggest corruptions. It is not yet told how far her deceptive practice has reached but as the trial gets underway it is sure more evidence of tampering and accomplices will emerge.

To date, Attorney Moraski has been filing Motions for a New Trial, Motions to Stay the Execution of a Jail/Prison Sentences, Motions for Post Conviction Discovery Requests and Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. Contact Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul R. Moraski at (978) 744-1200, if you believe your drug conviction was jeopardized by improper testing


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Chemist Sends Enormous Ripple Throughout Massachusetts' Legal System

This past September, chemist Annie Dookhan, was arrested for falsifying drug test results. As we discussed in October's blog, her actions have sent an enormous ripple throughout the Massachusetts legal system.

As of today, the state of Massachusetts is forging ahead with a plan to retry every case that Dookhan's actions affected... which in reality is in the tens-of-thousands. Her tenure spans over nine years, and any evidence that came through her lab is now suspect whether or not she specifically handled a case. It is estimated by court administrators that in addition to the 34,000 cases in which she was personally involved, her actions would require that the remaining 102,000 cases that didn't bear her name, but did pass through her lab, also be retried.

You may be wondering the cost of all of this. The cost is becoming more astounding by the day. It is estimated that the preliminary costs could well exceed 30 million dollars. And that is merely the beginning. Many are discouraged with the state of Massachusetts' plan to retry each case. Its cost is staggering and piling on by the day, which is why many feel that it would be much more effective to release the prisoners and reenter them into society. This is a method that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino strongly favors, and one that has proven to work before. He has requested 15 million dollars to fund such a venture. The savings and the results would prove beneficial. If we continue with the status quo, it could cost over 50 million dollars and take more than five years to see through. Many would like to see an outside probe brought in to perform an independent review.

Annie Dookhan's blatant perversion of the law affected thousands of lives and will resonate emotionally and financially for the families and the state for years to come. Now that the elections are over, the state of Massachusetts is mired in the web of calamity that this scandal has presented. Sentiments to rethink the current method are growing.

To date, Attorney Moraski has been filing Motions for a New Trial, Motions to Stay the Execution of a Jail/Prison Sentences, Motions for Post Conviction Discovery Requests and Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. Contact Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul R. Moraski at (978) 744-1200, if you believe your drug conviction was jeopardized by improper testing.

The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

DNA Evidence Isn't Always A Slam Dunk For The Prosecution

The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski has recently taken on the case of a 25 year old man from Peabody, Massachusetts who was arrested on the following charges: 1st Degree Murder, Armed Home Invasion, Attempted Armed Robbery and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

Immediately, when we see or hear the acronym; ‘DNA’ we think of definitive proof, ‘the final answer, ‘the smoking gun’, etc... That isn’t always the case. As a matter of fact, DNA evidence can be, and often is, illegally obtained. In the case of Attorney Moraski’s client, a cigarette butt discarded as part of an undercover investigation that allegedly connected the client to DNA evidence at the crime scene. When such a notion is suggested, the immediate public perception is one of guilt for the accused. However, the client has NO prior criminal record. It is alleged that this was a result of a robbery in which cash and drugs were the target. Statistically, to even plan to engage in such criminal activity, one would likely already have a criminal record. Attorney Moraski’s client does not have an adult criminal record. In fact, he not only has a clean record, he maintained gainful employment and was a junior in College studying to obtain his degree in computer science.

In this case as in many, DNA is being portrayed as the “smoking gun.” In this case, the hat was allegedly left at the crime scene and the hat contained a mixture of DNA, meaning there was more than one person’s DNA found on the hat. Additionally, the hat is purely circumstantial evidence because it only places the hat at the crime scene, not Attorney Moraski’s client.

When faced with criminal charges, it is of great importance that you not only seek legal counsel, but that you have a true understanding of your rights. When threatened with DNA evidence, it is NOT a closed case or a slam dunk for the prosecution. There are many legalities surrounding how and when the DNA was obtained. There are also instances in which DNA, does not conclusively link the accused to the actual crime. For more information on this case and others involving DNA, follow us on Facebook and subscribe to our blog.

If you have been charged with a violent crime or a crime that uses DNA Evidence in the investigation to link you to the crime immediately contact Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Friday, November 2, 2012

Courtroom Etiquette

First impressions are important, especially when it comes from those around you at your arraignment or trial. It is critical that you understand that your appearance and demeanor in the courtroom are just as influential as the evidence presented. Everyone from the probation officer, the prosecutor, the judge, and especially the jurors will all be taking notice of you while determining your fate.

There are some definite do's and don'ts when it comes to courtroom attire. Your fashion faux pas here won't land you on a worst dressed list, it could land you with a harsher fine or jail time. When dressing for court, think conservatively. Appropriate court attire for women includes a skirt or slacks and a blouse or a dress. Refrain from wearing anything revealing or tight. A closed-toe, low heeled shoe is appropriate. Avoid wearing flashy jewelry. Dress as if you were going to a job interview.

When appearing in court, look well-groomed and professional. Men should wear a suit, if possible. Slacks and a collared shirt will do if you don’t own a suit. Make sure that any visible tattoos are hidden and remove all facial jewelry, this applies to men and women. Unless you’re already in custody and won’t have the opportunity to change, dressing appropriately is important. 

It is imperative that you arrive early to all court dates, 30 minutes early is a good amount of time. By allowing yourself ample time, should an unforeseen situation arise, such as traffic, you will not risk being late. Giving yourself additional time also allows you to become familiar with your surroundings, find parking, and ask me any last minute questions.

Leave your cell phone at home or in your vehicle. This prevents the risk of it accidentally ringing during court. Texting, taking phone calls, taking pictures, or recording is not permitted.

While in court, only speak and respond when asked. When answering a question by the judge, address them as Sir, Ma’am, or Your Honor. Speak in a loud, clear tone and avoid lengthy responses. Be polite. When someone is speaking, do not laugh, sigh, roll your eyes, or make any other noises or gestures. Being in the right frame of mind and being well mannered will show the judge your respect for the court.

The series of court dates you will endure should be treated as the most important thing in your life. It can be the difference between probation and spending years behind bars. If you are unsure if certain dress items or conduct is unacceptable, consult me first. When in doubt, refrain. As your Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney, I want to ensure that you receive the best possible outcome during your case. This involves you being a well informed, well prepared, and a well groomed defendant.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

What Does Chemist Annie Dookhan's Arrest Mean For Your Case?

Friday, September 28, chemist Annie Dookhan was arrested for falsifying drug tests results. Her actions resulted in countless convictions of people whose freedom depended on the accuracy of these tests. Her arrest has led to the closing of a Massachusetts State lab where she worked for nine years.

Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a news conference, "Annie Dookhan's alleged actions corrupted the integrity of the entire criminal justice system." She went on to add, "There are many victims as a result of this."

Following Dookhan's arrest, roughly 20 defendants have been released while their attorneys challenge the drug charges against them. During Dookhan's nine year career, she tested more that 60,000 drug samples pertaining to 34,000 defendant's cases. Many more defendants are expected to be released in the future.

Dookhan told state police that on occasion she would add cocaine to a negative sample in order to falsify a positive result. She also said that she would take roughly 20 samples and rather then testing them all, only test about five and then list them all as positive. Dookhan forged her co-worker's signatures and lied about having a master's degree in chemistry. State officials found 1,141 defendants who are currently serving time as a result of Dookhan's testing.

Governor Deval Patrick said that people currently incarcerated will be the state's first priority. That will be followed by people who have already served sentences and people awaiting trial. The problem is that the State is not going to do anything for your case or your loved one’s case without his or her attorney pushing for a New Trial, Stay of Execution (whether post conviction or after plea) or a looking into the discovery process after or before a conviction.

Attorney Paul R. Moraski is currently working dozens of cases because of these falsified drug results. Attorney Moraski is taking the approach that any case involving Annie Dookhan is tainted and warrants a new trial. Attorney Moraski is currently filing on the behalf of clients: Motions for a New Trial, Stays of Execution and Motions for Post Conviction Discovery.

Contact Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul R. Moraski at (978) 744-1200, if you believe your drug conviction was jeopardized by improper testing.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Hit and Run: A Criminal Offense

Being involved in a car accident is always unpleasant and can often lead to more complicated issues, but how you handle the immediate aftermath is paramount. In some cases of hit and runs, the person at fault may flee the scene due to a number of reasons that can include: no insurance, no license, suspended license, being intoxicated, or even to simply avoid any fines. Sometimes, however, the driver may panic and flee the scene when another person, or persons, may have been injured - even fatally so.

Car accidents, or the events leading up to the accident are more often considered civil than criminal. If negligence is found that results in the injury of another person, many states follow through with a criminal charge.

Colliding with another person or object, then fleeing the scene is immediately considered a criminal offense and if a fatality occurs, the driver could be charged with vehicular manslaughter, in addition to a number of charges related to fleeing the scene of a crime. That's why it is extremely important to always remain at the scene of the accident, no matter who is at fault.

Individuals convicted of a criminal charge can also then be sued in civil court for damages relating to the loss of a loved one, stacking the amount of damages one occurs after fleeing the scene exponentially.

Always remain calm and collected when the incident occurs and be sure to contact Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul Moraski if you believe the accident includes a criminal charge.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Monday, August 27, 2012

Be Careful What You Share On Social Media

As technology advances more everyday, the methods used by law enforcement to catch people seems to be keeping up. Social websites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and even Flickr have become the new "proving grounds" where law breakers go to show off their exploits. Whether it's through photos of stolen merchandise, self made videos of vandalism, or even posts describing their deeds, people have become more likely to share their stories online – something the Police have started to take notice of.

Recently, a 21-year old man was caught posting photos of himself holding a stolen name plate from a Ft. Lauderdale Judge. The photo of him with the stolen goods was posted to his girlfriend's Facebook page.

Despite not receiving special training when it comes to using social media as a tool to catch criminal activity, many officers are utilizing their self taught knowledge to track down and prosecute individuals that publicly out themselves to their friends.

Even when posters are anonymous, like in the case of a computer hacker, Police are still able to use the meta data in a photo, or the special code that contains information such as GPS location, time, etc, to track and arrest suspects.

Even with the tightest security settings possible, authorities are still able to gain access to a suspects profile, and in turn, their photos, posts, videos, and friends. Keep in mind that while you may have only intended to share things with close friends, any information you post to your social media accounts will be on the internet forever, and thereby findable by Police.

If you have been in the situation where authorities have used evidence from your social media accounts in a case against you, rest assured that Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul R. Moraski can help. Contact our office to schedule your consultation today.

The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski 
221 Essex Street, Suite 51 
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 
Tel: 978.744.1200 
Cell: 978.397.0011 
Fax: 978.825.1370 

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com 
www.northofbostonlaw.com 
www.massdefense.com 
www.massdrugdefense.com

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Were Your Miranda Rights Violated?

Miranda rights have been put in place to ensure that our constitutional rights against self incrimination and our right to an attorney are protected. Are you wondering if your Miranda rights have been violated? In most situations that is a complex question to which only the courts can provide the answer to. However, there are procedures that police are required to follow when taking a person into custody.

Your Miranda rights must be read when two circumstances occur: the first is you must be placed in custody and the second provision is when a custodial interrogation begins.

A custodial interrogation is generally any questioning by a police officer after a person has been detained (held against their will, hand cuffed, placed in the back of a police car, or deprived of freedom in any way).

When a person has been detained, a police officer must inform you of your right to remain silent and your right to have an attorney present. There are of course exceptions to this. In an instance where you were pulled over for a routine traffic stop and a police officer asked you questions, they are not required to read you your Miranda rights. A traffic stop is not considered custodial, even though you are not really free to leave during questioning. This situation would be considered a Terry stop and Miranda rights are not mandatory.

If you are asked questions about your involvement in a crime or about a crime itself then your Miranda rights must be read. Any questions designed to obtain incriminating information must be preceded by Miranda rights. A line of questioning including, “Where did you get these drugs?” or “Do you have permission to drive this car?” or “What were you doing there?” are all examples, of when Miranda might attach.

Although law enforcement have been using Miranda warnings in the United States since 1966, errors continue to be made. Attorney Moraski will determine whether a Miranda warning was required for your case and if so, he will fight to get a damaging statement or confession suppressed in court. This can immensely affect the outcome of your criminal case.

The question of whether your Miranda rights have been violated or not is an extremely intricate one. Just because you confessed to a crime or made a damaging admission, does not mean that your case is hopeless, so if you suspect that your rights have been violated contact Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Paul R. Moraski.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Massachusetts' "Three-Strikes" Law In The Works

Passed by both the House and Senate, the new “three strikes” law will force repeat offenders to serve tougher sentences for violent crimes. If passed, the law eradicates parole for someone who has at least one conviction with a minimum three year prison term and has been convicted three times for one of 35 violent crimes.

The law passed in the Senate 31-7 and 139-14 in the House.

The initiative to pass the bill was a result of two specific cases. In one case, a Woburn police officer was murdered by a felon in 2010 and in the other case a school teacher was raped and murdered in 1999 by a felon with 27 previous convictions. The ladder case resulted in what is known today as “Melissa’s Law.”

Besides cracking down on violent criminals, the law would soften mandatory sentencing on drug offenses that are nonviolent. It would also reduce the size of school zones since most urban areas reside largely within them.

This new law has made some concerned since it leads to an increase in incarcerations and prison costs, but only slightly effects the states crime rate. Anyone convicted of a second violent felony will be forced to carry out two-thirds of their sentence (verses the current half) before being eligible for parole. Anyone convicted of one of the 35 specific violent crimes as a third offense would be required to serve the maximum penalty for the crime.

The over crowding of the jails, coupled with the cost that taxpayers will incur isn’t boding well for Massachusetts residents. Studies have even shown that three-strikes laws may not be that effective in deterring violent crime. With every 10% increase in incarcerations, there is a 2 to 4% drop in crime, according to "Three Strikes: The Wrong Way to Justice," a report released in June, 2012 by Harvard Law School.”

Governor Patrick has until July 31 to approve or reject the legislation.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Manditory Life Sentence Without Parole For Teens Deemed Cruel And Unusual Punishment

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Currently there are 61 people serving life sentences for murders they committed as teens, and today it is unclear how this ruling will impact them. The Massachusetts Department of Corrections said that the 61 prisoners were serving the state’s toughest sentence for murders committed before the age of 18.

Justice Elena Kagen believes that the mandatory sentencing “prevents those meting out punishment from considering a juvenile’s ‘lessened culpability’ and greater ‘capacity for change.’” Kagen went on to say, “We therefore hold that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.”

Many defense attorneys are hopeful that the Supreme Court ruling may lead to new trials and the chance for release of their clients, which may not have been possible before. In the future, a juvenile can still be sentenced to life without parole, but as of today, that would no longer be a mandatory sentence.

Massachusetts child advocate Gail Garinger says she’s ecstatic about the ruling. “As a former juvenile court judge I’ve seen the kind of turnabouts that young adults can make in their lives.”

Jake Wark, the spokesperson for the Suffolk County district attorney’s office told the Boston Herald that the state needs to amend the existing statute and referred to the immediate impact of today’s ruling as “minimal.” Wark went on to say that, “Very few juveniles were ever subject to this sentence, and those who were have no guarantee that they’ll be released one day due to this ruling.”

At this time, officials with the Department of Corrections are determining which cases will be appropriate for review under this new ruling.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Thursday, June 21, 2012

CWOF Does Not Equal A Prior Conviction When Dealing With The RMV

On May 17th, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that within the Massachusetts OUI statute, a “continuance without finding” or CWOF is not the same as being “convicted.” For the purpose of RMV license suspensions, a CWOF cannot be treated as a prior conviction for a Breathalyzer test refusal on an OUI, even if an individual received a CWOF on a prior offense.

An issue arose when a Paul Souza appealed the RMV’s decision to suspend his license over a period of three years. In a previous OUI case, he admitted to sufficient facts and his case was continued without finding. Subsequently, Souza was arrested a second time for OUI and this time refused the Breathalyzer test. He was given a 3 year suspension on his drivers license, however, he believed that his license should only be suspended for 180 days due to the fact that he was never found guilty and therefore was not previously “convicted” of an OUI. In light of Melanie’s Law, the RMV felt as though a CWOF is equal to a guilty plea. Stated in Massachusetts General Laws, a person that refuses to submit to a Breathalyzer test following arrest for suspicion of OUI faces suspension of their license. If the driver has a prior “conviction” for OUI the time frame that the license is suspended increases. This increase corresponds directly with the number of previous “convictions” one has on their record.

The Supreme Judicial Court argued that if legislature had intended on including an admission of sufficient facts in the definition of “conviction,” they would have done so. The SJC went on to signify that the meaning of the word “conviction” is confined to a finding of guilty, a judgement of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere when in the context of an Administrative License Suspension Hearing. Within the context of criminal law, a CWOF is not interpreted as a criminal conviction, however, a CWOF case will appear on a CORI check.

When sufficient facts are admitted by the defendant and a CWOF is received, the case can be dismissed if the defendant has satisfied all of the conditions of their probation. A CWOF is a common disposition for defendants in regards to a first offense of OUI. One of the benefits is not having to indicate that there is a conviction on your record because a guilty finding was not entered.

After the SJC’s ruling, House Judiciary Chair Eugene O'Flaherty, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and state Senator Katherine Clark came together to work towards amending the definition of “conviction” to now include CWOFs and to close what they perceive as a “loophole.”

The outcome of Souza’s case is important and can effect your case if you have previously admitted to sufficient facts in a first OUI offense. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Thursday, May 31, 2012

The New CORI Reform And How It Can Help You

On August 6th, 2010, Governor Patrick signed into law Chapter 256 of the Acts of 2010, also known as CORI Reform which made significant changes to the CORI law. The new provisions of the reform went into effect on May 4, 2012.

CORI stands for Criminal Offender Record Information.

When a person is charged with a crime, it is documented on a permanent record. That documentation remains forever whether the charges are dismissed, you are found not guilty after trial, or you are sentenced to prison. It is permanent unless you file a motion to have your record sealed.

Previous to the changes of the CORI Reform, one of the conditions for sealing your CORI was that 10 to 15 years had to pass since the end of the probation of the prison sentence. The new law shortens these waiting periods to 5 years for a misdemeanor and 10 years for a felony. In addition to the waiting period, you cannot have been found guilty of any criminal offense during that waiting period. The exception to this rule are motor vehicle offenses in which the penalty does not exceed a fine of $50.

While Abuse Orders and Harassment Orders are considered misdemeanors for the purpose of sentencing, under the new law these crimes are considered felonies for the purpose of sealing. Any person with a conviction of these crimes will now have to wait 10 years to seal their record, rather than the typical 5.

The change to the law also includes an employers ability to now receive CORI information over the internet for the first time ever. Employment applications are now prohibited from questioning someone’s criminal record, however, a potential employer can verbally ask this question during a job interview. This is a way of giving an ex-offender a greater chance of obtaining a job.

The reform of the new CORI law means that prior charges will become eligible for sealing. Sealing is an area of the law that is largely misunderstood, so the best way to determine if your record can be sealed is to work with an attorney that has experience in filing motions or petitions to seal your record and also understands what needs to be done in order to increase your chances of sealing your records in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Do not hesitate to contact Massachusetts Attorney Paul R. Moraski for more information, at 1-978-744-1200.


Paul R. Moraski, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370
attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Your Fourth Amendment Rights

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us all the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also provides a buffer between citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement.

Implemented during the American Revolution, the Bill made it so that law enforcement officers must acknowledge only the evidence pertaining to the immediate scope of the alleged offense. Now, with probable cause, any warrant must be judicially sanctioned before a search is allowed. Under the Fourth Amendment, any evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court under the Exclusionary Rule.

There are many facts and circumstances that involve each case and therefore lead to many exceptions to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. To understand if your Fourth Amendment Rights have been violated, a test is given to determine whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. As an example, a person can expect a greater amount of privacy in one’s home and privacy to a lesser degree in one’s vehicle. The lack of privacy in a vehicle is due to the fact that there is a risk of a suspect fleeing the scene with evidence.

The lack of privacy is also to protect police officers. Many times an officer may ask if they can search your vehicle, you have the right to say no. Once a person gives consent to a search, that search is now made legal and many police officers are trained in savvy methods of making you waive your rights.

During a traffic stop, a police officer is able to search a vehicle without a warrant if the vehicle has been pulled over for a valid infraction and there is reason to believe that the car contains illegal items. Under federal law, the driver and passengers may be ordered out of the vehicle without any justification by the officer and if an officer has any reason to believe that any occupant in the vehicle is dangerous, the officer may perform a protective search of the vehicle. Without probable cause, a warrant, or the driver’s consent, the police may not search a vehicle, however, within the “plain view” doctrine, an officer may confiscate any weapons or contraband and use them as evidence if they are visible from outside the vehicle.

When you are pulled over, respectfully decline when asked by officers to search your vehicle and never offer more information than asked. Since each is fact based, depending on the circumstances behind the Search and Seizure, it is extremely important for you to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. If you find yourself arrested after a Search and Seizure, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.

Paul R. Moraski, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Whether You Should Take the Breathalyzer?

When prompted by a Police Officer to take a Breathalyzer test after you have been arrested for DUI/OUI, it is very important to understand your options. Most people assume that they have no choice but to take the Breathalyzer test, however, this is not the case. There are several things to keep in mind when you find yourself in this situation.

You need to know that you are not required to take a Breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take this test, you will have your license suspended for a period of time but the prosecutor will not be able to use this test against you in court. However, if you choose to take the test and fail, the results will definitely be used against you at your trial. Please keep in mind that we live in an era where most of your potential jurors are of the CSI mindset. Meaning if they hear evidence that you were over the legal limit in Massachusetts, which is .08%, it will be very hard to convince them that you were not impaired at the time of your DUI/OUI arrest. Although you face a license loss (described below in more detail) if you choose not to take the breathalyzer and are found over the legal limit, at the time of trial, the prosecutor will have less evidence to work with.

If you are over 21 the time of your arrest without any prior OUI/DUI driving offenses on your record and you refuse the Breathalyzer, your driver’s license will be suspended for 180 days. In the instance that you have 1 previous offense and refuse the test, your license will be suspended for 3 years. In the situation that you have 2 prior offenses and refuse, your license can be suspended for 5 years. If you have had 3 or more previous OUI/DUI offenses and refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, you may face a lifetime suspension.

The amount of time for a license suspension varies for people under the age of 21 and even under 18. If you are under 21 and refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, your license will be suspended for at least 3.5 years up to 4 years if you are under the age of 18; even if there are no previous offenses for OUI/DUI. If there is one or more prior offenses, your license will be suspended for even longer.

Even if you take the Breathalyzer and the result is over the legal limit, all is not lost, as far as defending your case. A successful Motion to Suppress can be brought on your behalf, by a seasoned attorney, who knows the ins and outs of the Breath Test Procedure. Sometimes, Law Enforcement Officers do not follow the correct breath test procedure or the breath test machine is not properly maintained. An experienced DUI/OUI Attorney will be able to request all of these records in the discovery process to determine whether or not you have a good opportunity to suppress the Breathalyzer Results. Additionally, these records may show that the particular Breathalyzer Machine used at the Police Station had been giving inaccurate Breath Test Results for a period of time, before and after, your particular case. If any of these issues are raised at the Motion to Suppress and a trial Judge finds that there is no indicia of reliability for the Breath Test Results, the Breathalyzer will be suppressed, leaving you with less evidence against you.

It is imperative that you understand your options in this scenario because it can make all the difference in your DUI/OUI trial. Whether you have taken the Breathalyzer or not, you still need to contact a Criminal Defense Attorney with extensive knowledge and experience handling these types of cases. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


 The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Some of the Things You Should Think About If You Are Asked to Perform Field Sobriety Tests

If you ever find yourself pulled over by a Police Officer and the Officer suspects that you may be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a combination of both, the Officer will ask you to exit your vehicle. The Officer will then ask you to perform some field sobriety tests. As a Criminal Defense Attorney, some of the most common questions I get regarding DUI/OUI cases, is “do I need to take these "tests" and whether I should take them?”

What most people do not realize is that these tests are designed in such a way that it is easy for people to fail them, even if they are not under the influence. For example, in the so-called "One-Legged Stand Test," the Police Officer is trained to look for eight separate things. Even if you were to do six of the eight things correctly (which would have been a passing grade in school, 75% or a C), it is still considered to be a failure. Furthermore, there are numerous reasons why people do not perform these tests adequately. For example, some people will not perform these tests to the Police Officers liking because, they have an injury, they are overweight, they are tired, they are nervous or because they have a learning disability.

The good news is that, unlike the case with refusing the breathalyzer test, your license will not be suspended just because you refuse to take the "field sobriety tests." It is also great news that, in Massachusetts, the prosecutor and the police are not allowed at trial to make any mention of the fact that you refused these "tests." In fact, sometimes jurors are left with the impression that the police officer conducted a shoddy investigation and didn't even give you the tests. Thus, there are some very good reasons to refuse these tests, depending on the circumstances.

However, even if you have taken these "tests" and done poorly, all hope is not lost. With the help of a top-notch attorney, many people who failed the tests can still beat their DUI/OUI Case. Oftentimes, what the Police Officer claims is an indicator of impairment can be parsed out with good cross-examination to show a Jury or a Judge, that the Police Officer made a mistake. For example, what the Police Officer interpreted to be a failing score on a field sobriety test can easily be explained with medical documentation that you were injured. That is why it is so important to contact an attorney immediately if you have been arrested and charged with a DUI/OUI. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a DUI/OUI Charge, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Penalties Regarding First Time Offender DUI/OUI Charges and Why Litigation May be the Best Option

If you are charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI ) and you are a First Time Offender you can be looking at about $1,800.00 worth of fines and fees and a one year probationary period. Additionally, if you want to obtain the minimum license loss of 45 days, you will have to enroll in an Alcohol Education Program, which typically takes 16 week to complete. This type of disposition is commonly referred to as a 24D (section of statute) Disposition. It allows First Time DUI/OUI Offenders to receive a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF) and a shorter license loss.

The bad news for First Time Offenders, is that even with a successful completion of probation, this First Time Offense (even though it shows up as dismissed on your record) is considered to be a Second Offense if you are charged arrested again for Operating Under the Influence, pursuant to Melanie’s Law. Furthermore, if you do not complete your probationary period successfully your Continuance Without a Finding can be turned into a Guilty Finding, and you could potentially face 2 ½ years in Jail.

This is why it is important to hire an attorney who can aggressively and zealously advocate on your behalf. What most people do not realize is that DUI/OUI Charges can be litigated successfully, by an experienced attorney. Police Officers have to abide by the Constitution and need to have “probable cause” in order to pull your vehicle over in the first place. Secondly, Police need to have a legitimate reason to ask you to get out of your vehicle and issue you an “exit order.” If Police Officers violate your rights in anyway, a Motion to Suppress can be filed and if allowed by the Court, all of the evidence may be suppressed and your case dismissed.

Just because you failed a couple of Field Sobriety Tests, does not mean that you will be found guilty by a Jury. Field Sobriety Tests are designed in such a manner so that it is easy for people to fail them, even if they are not intoxicated. Police Officers are trained to look for certain clues of impairment. Oftentimes, what may be interpreted as a clue of impairment to a Police Officer is later seen by a Jury to be nervousness or unfamiliarity with the test. Remember, most Field Sobriety Tests take place at nighttime, in a poorly lit area, while you are on the side of the road attempting tests that you have never done before, while traffic is zipping by you. What a Police Officer may interpret as a failing score can usually be explained by being nervous, tired, injured, overweight or unfamiliar. A careful and thorough cross examination of the Arresting Police Officer can usually shed light on why you may not have passed the Field Sobriety Tests.

If you find yourself charged with DUI/OUI, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Restraining Order Laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (209A Order)

Restraining Orders are designed to allow an order to be issued very quickly and easily; however, they are not so easy to get rid of. In Massachusetts, a person may obtain a Restraining Order ex parte, meaning; the accused will most likely not be present in front of the Judge to explain his or her side of the story. Rather, the Judge will rule based on the accusers version of the events, which oftentimes will be satisfied by just reading the accuser’s affidavit. Restraining Order laws have been enacted in order to protect people that have been suffering from abuse. However, sometimes people abuse the laws and take out Frivolous Restraining Orders, for personal gain.

In most cases, the accuser will be able to get a temporary 10 day Restraining Order issued against you. The Judge will then give you a date to come back to Court, usually within the 10 days. When you come back to Court on the 10 Day Hearing Date, you have the opportunity to have a full evidentiary hearing. It is imperative that you get an experienced attorney who can present your version of the facts. At the Full Restraining Order Hearing you have the right to have an attorney cross examine the person applying for the Restraining Order, submit exhibits to the Court and present witnesses on your own behalf.

Most people think they can simply give the Judge their account of the situation, and everything will be okay; that is most often not the case. The Judicial Process can be overwhelming and if all of the facts are not properly presented, you can find yourself in a life altering scenario. Even though a Restraining Order is considered to be a Civil Matter, it has Criminal implications. This means the accuser has been just granted a weapon in which to use against you. This person can now call the police anytime he or she is upset with you, angry that a custody proceeding didn’t go his or her way or mad that you are in a new dating relationship. If a Restraining Order is issued by the Court you may be ordered to vacate your home, avoid contact with the accuser, not abuse the accuser in anyway, and surrender all of your firearms and ammunition to the local police station. It is also possible that if the Restraining Order is issued out of the District Court, which oftentimes they are, you may not have any contact with your own children until the Restraining Order gets modified in the Probate and Family Court, which can take time.

Restraining Orders are used with great success in our society to protect citizens from harm. However, in today’s society, a Restraining Order is being used more and more for litigation purposes to manipulate divorce proceedings, child custody hearings and for one’s own personal gain. If a Restraining Order is issued against you and you violate the terms of that order for whatever reason, you will be subject to arrest, jail time, fines and a permanent criminal record. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a Restraining Order, please contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 1-978-744-1200.


The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Cell: 978.397.0011
Fax: 978.825.1370

attorneymoraski@yahoo.com
www.northofbostonlaw.com
www.massdefense.com
www.massdrugdefense.com

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Domestic Violence Laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Domestic Violence is a term that renders a knee-jerk reaction when mentioned. When one has been accused of Domestic Violence, it often places that person in a difficult position. Especially if the allegations are false.

Domestic Violence laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have served victims of crimes in many situations; however this is not always the case. In Massachusetts, when there are false allegations being made, oftentimes it becomes a race… The finish line?  The police station. He or she who arrives first will be the one pressing charges. Second place, a trip to jail, criminal record and/or loss of employment. Unfair odds when we are talking about someone’s life, reputation in the community or livelihood. Domestic Violence is not a game and shouldn't be treated as such.  

Oftentimes, Police Officers do not know whose word to believe and that is why many times the person who reports the crime first will be in the driver’s seat.  What many citizens of Massachusetts do not realize is that the Domestic Violence Law, by statute, prefers arresting the person who is alleged to be the aggressor, even if there is no physical evidence to corroborate the complaining witnesses’ story.  This is why an experienced and thorough Criminal Defense Attorney can conduct an investigation into the facts, witnesses, participants and physical evidence in an effort to uncover the truth.  It is common for bitter ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend, spouse or in-law to report a False Allegation regarding Domestic Abuse in order to get the upper hand in a custody battle, revenge or monetary gain.  The worst mistake that someone can make when a False Allegation is made regarding Domestic Violence is not hiring an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney.  Not doing so could lead to a lifetime of major difficulties whether obtaining employment, housing, credit, etc. 

Don’t let yourself become a victim of a False Allegation regarding Domestic Violence.  It is paramount to exercise your rights in such dire situations. For more information on this matter and any other domestic violence-related charges such as Domestic Assault and Battery, Domestic Assault, Criminal Harassment, Stalking, Threatening, and/or Intimidation of a Witness in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, please Contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 978-744-1200.
Paul R. Moraski, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel:  978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Educate Yourself About The Marijuana Laws In Massachusetts

It is important to understand that the differences in how marijuana is carried can vastly affect your penalty ranging from a civil offense to a mandatory prison sentence.  
Under current Massachusetts Law, possessing under an ounce (28 grams) of marijuana is considered to be a civil offense and could result in a $100 fine.  However, the way marijuana is packaged could be the difference between paying a $100 fine to serving a prison sentence of at least two years.  Someone who possesses an ounce of marijuana could pay the $100 fine if it is packaged in one bag only--on the contrary, someone who possesses five so called “20 sacks” (which is roughly 5 grams of marijuana) could be charged with distribution. 
While possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is considered decriminalized, a defendant may be criminally charged with possession with the intent to distribute if the defendant gives the impression that a marijuana sale is being conducted.  Examples of this would be the fact that marijuana is divided into individual baggies, the presence of a drug scale, money, customer lists, multiple cell phones and numerous empty baggies.  All of these things are indicia of drug dealing as opposed to just mere possession. Being that possession with the intent to distribute marijuana is considered a felony; if the individual is arrested within 1,000 feet of a school zone or a 100 feet of a park, there is a minimum mandatory two year prison sentence. 
By better educating yourself about the marijuana laws in Massachusetts, you can enjoy piece of mind that you are abiding by the law. For additional information or to set up a consultation please Contact Attorney Paul R. Moraski at 978-744-1200, or Visit our websites at www.MassDefense.com,  www.MassDrugDefense.com and www.NorthofBostonLaw.com
The Law Office of Paul R. Moraski
221 Essex Street, Suite 51
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Tel: 978.744.1200
Fax: 978.825.1370