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, October 2, 2012
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)