Massachusetts Criminal Case Wins 2016

December 2016

Charge: OUI 1st Offense

Plymouth District Court

Result: Not Guilty

Our client, a 57 year old male, was charged with OUI Liquor when he was found in his car asleep with the engine running. The client’s car was stopped, still in drive, in the driveway of beachfront community. The client was most worried about his record since his job required passing strict background checks.

Attorney Stacey took the case after the client came to us unhappy with his first attorney. During the consultation Attorney Stacey deduced that the area the client was found in was not a public way, and therefore, did not fall under the statute. Attorney Stacey pushed the case to trial before a judge, turning all three of the prosecutor’s witnesses against the Commonwealth’s case.

After the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Stacey asked the Judge to find his client not guilty, without even putting on his own case. The Judge agreed that the Commonwealth had failed to prove even the possibility that the client was guilty and stopped the trial halfway through. The client was found Not Guilty and will never face repercussions from his employer.

December 2016

Charge: Breaking & Entering (Felony), Assault & Battery

Fitchburg District Court

Result: CWOF (probation)

Our client, a 30 year old certified nursing assistant, was charged with Felony Breaking & Entering and Assault & Battery after he was accusing of entering the home of his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend’s house at night without permission and punching him in the face.

Charged with a serious felony and facing substantial jail time, our client retained the services of our firm and was represented in court by Attorney Bullen. Attorney Bullen was able to work a resolution with the prosecutor in which our client received neither jail time nor a conviction on his record.

This disposition was largely based upon Attorney Bullen’s representation to the court that our client’s actions weren’t based out of malice but out of jealousy and committed in the heat of passion.

The court accepted the joint recommendation and, as long as our client stays out of trouble with the law, his case will be dismissed.

December 2016

Charge: Operating to Endanger

Concord District Court

Result: Continued for 1 year, to be Dismissed

Our client, an 18 year old recent high school grad, was charged with operating to endanger after he got nervous when a police officer tried to pull him over for running a red light and took off. The police report indicated that our client sped through a residential neighborhood trying to evade police, and nearly hit several cars in the process.

Attorney Griffiths appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing at the Concord District Court and argued that the client was young and made a huge mistake that was likely to derail his plans of becoming a doctor if the complaint issued.

The clerk was very upset by the details of the police report and indicated that she was inclined to issue the complaint. Attorney Griffiths cited his age, lack of driving record, and his later compliance with police questioning when arguing that the case should be filed. She suggested Community Service as an option that would allow the client to preserve his record while still taking responsibility and giving back. The clerk accepted attorney Griffiths’ recommendation, filed the case for 1 year and ordered 50 hours of community service. Client will now be able to finish his gap year and start college with a clean slate.

December 2016

Charge: Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle

Waltham District Court

Result: Continued for 1 year, to be Dismissed

This case was particularly interesting because it seemed the client truly had done nothing wrong, other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our client, a 34 year old male was charged with Negligent Operation after getting into an accident with a motorcycle police unit entering a rotary. The officer on the motorcycle suffered injuries but was discharged from the hospital the following day.

Our client, visiting from New York, had gotten off a major highway, had been traveling within the speed limit, and had stayed within his lane using a green light to enter a busy intersection. The officer had been responding to a funeral procession he was not scheduled to be at, using his emergency lights which he was not authorized to use at the time, and entered the intersection against a red light, changing lanes while turning, entering our client’s lane of travel.

As the officer came into our client’s lane, he cut our client off, and our client’s bumper clipped his right saddlebag, causing the officer to lose control. Our client stopped immediately to offer help and call for an ambulance.

After our client was allowed to leave the scene, the police conducted an investigation of our client’s car and determined that perhaps, given the GPS, the radio volume, and the A/C on full blast, that our client could not hear the siren of the officer as he should have.

Attorney Stacey represented the client throughout the case. Through discovery, he obtained proof from the police that the officer was not assigned to the funeral procession. Attorney Stacey also obtained copies of the department’s emergency light protocol, which stated that emergency lights should only be used in situations where significant injury or loss of life were probable, and that responding to a funeral procession did not fall into such a category.

Attorney Stacey also reviewed several witness statements taken at the time of the accident, noticing that none of the witnesses mentioned that the officer came to a stop at the red light before proceeding into the intersection, which is also department protocol. The client felt extremely victimized by the entire situation, feeling that had the other party not been a police officer he would never have been accused of any wrongdoing. As it was, the client was so shaken by the accident that he has not driven since.

In terms of the case, the client wanted to fight the charges and was unwilling to take responsibility for something he truly felt (and the facts pointed towards) he did not do. Attorney Stacey approached the Commonwealth with the evidence he had obtained and information about his client.

Confident about his client’s case at trial, Attorney Stacey negotiated a favorable resolution to the case that would not require his client to travel back and forth from New York, and make no admissions.

Hearing the evidence against them, and all the favorable facts about the client, the Commonwealth agreed to a general continuance of the case for one year. This means that the case was paused, prior to trial, and put on hold for one year.

The client made no admissions and took no responsibility for any criminal charges. If the client does not commit any new offenses in that year period, the case will be dismissed and cannot be held against him on his record.

In many ways, this was a more favorable result than going to trial because it removes all the risk of going to trial. Further, the client has not waived any rights, and if he does commit any new offenses, the case would just resume where it left off. In essence, this is a modified pretrial probation without any conditions that the client must abide by.

December 2016

Charge: Minor in Possession of Alcohol, Using a False ID

Boston Municipal District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 18 year old female college student was charged with possession of alcohol and using a fake ID when the Boston Police found her sitting at the bar of a local restaurant with some friends.

The police were there on a routine liquor license check and the three females sitting together at the bar were apparently underage to the officer. When the officer approached and asked the girls for ID, they all admitted to being under 21. All three girls were cited and told to appear in court.

Our client’s main concern was how the case would impact her future. She had just turned 18 and was in the area from out of state to attend college. She had never been in trouble before and did not want anything on her permanent record.

Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing at the BMC. Attorney Stacey provided the Clerk with copies of his client’s high school transcripts and proof of her out of school activities. He argued that his client was a good student who was taking the situation very seriously, and instead of beginning a permanent record the incident should be used as a teaching moment for his young client.

The Clerk agreed, and filed the complaint for 12 months and levied a $100 fine. If the client can stay out of trouble for one year the case will be dismissed like it never happened.

December 2016

Charge: Shoplifting

Boston Municipal District Court

Result: Dismissed Prior to Arraignment

Our client, a 19 year old female college student was charged with shoplifting when she was caught taking several items from a local Sephora store. It is more typical for a person to be issued a criminal citation in shoplifting cases, but in this situation, she was arrested, and at risk of there being a record of an arrest appearing on a CORI search.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the arraignment and spoke to the Assistant District Attorney before the session began. Attorney Stacey showed the ADA proof that his client was an excellent student and was very involved in the community.

The ADA agreed to dismiss the case prior to arraignment on the completion of 12 hours of community service. This means that as long as the client completes 12 volunteer hours at any non-profit organization, the case will be dismissed without any entry being made on her permanent criminal record. It will be like the incident never happened.

December 2016

Charge: Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon

Hingham District Court

Result: Felony Dismissed, CWOF on misdemeanor A&B

Our client, a 17 year-old Junior at a local High School, was involved in a fist fight with a classmate during their town’s 4th of July fireworks display, which arose from our client being constantly bullied and harassed by the classmate.  Our client, who had been attacked earlier in the night by the classmate, was accused of retaliating by punching, kicking and biting the other party when they encountered each other later in the night.  

Our client, as as well as his legal guardian, was particularly concerned about the effect a delinquent finding would have on his current enrollment status at the high school, as well as his prospects for continuing his education after high school.  

Attorney Berman, citing the client’s otherwise clean record, future prospects and good character of the client, was able to negotiate an outright dismissal of the ABDW charge and a continuation without a finding on the A&B charge until the juvenile’s 18th birthday, which will ultimately result that charge being dismissed as well.

December 2016

Charge: Disturbing the Peace

Framingham District Court

Result: Dismissed after 1 year

Our client, a 49-year-old computer scientist, was charged with disturbing the peace after he approached and confronted a group of abortion protesters in front of a hospital.

The police report alleged that he had approached a protester, asked them to stop their chant, and when they ignored him he grabbed the protesters rosary beads and threw them on the ground.

Attorney Griffiths appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing at the Natick District Court (in Framingham), and argued that our client had acted out against his character and under the pressure of incredible emotional distress resulting from the serious illness of his daughter who was being treated at the hospital.

The Clerk found probable cause for the much more serious charge of Assault and Battery, but acknowledged the argument that Attorney Griffiths had presented and filed the case for one year. Our client avoided a criminal record (and nothing will appear on his CORI). He also will avoid any possible repercussions to his employment as well as the added stress of dealing with a criminal charge at an already challenging time in his life.

November 2016

Charge: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Charlestown District Court

Result: CWOF (probation)

Our client, a 45 year old researcher, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage after the rental car he was driving came into contact with another vehicle on the road. Hurrying to catch an international flight, our client returned his rental car and left the country, only to find out months later he had both a warrant and a criminal charge issued against him.

After retaining our services, Attorney Stacey was able to not only clear the warrant but to convince the court to accept a resolution in which our client received probation with no conviction on his criminal record, provided that his insurance covered the damage to the other vehicle.

As long as our client’s insurance resolves the claim and he does not commit any further criminal violations, his record will remain free of any convictions.

November 2016

Charge: Operating on a Suspended License After an OUI

Worcester District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 29 year old male was charged with Operating After Suspension for OUI when he was pulled over one day on his way between construction sites in Worcester.

The events leading to this incident approach comical in how unlucky this particular client was to find himself requiring our services.

About five years prior, our client had pled guilty to an OUI in Florida, receiving a state maximum sentence for a first time offender, including some jail time and a five year suspension of his license (MA only carries a maximum penalty of 90 days suspension for first time offense).

Years later, the client had moved to MA to start a construction business with his father. He moved here with a friend who was employed specifically as his driver, and who worked with the company. Sadly, shortly after the move up here, the friend’s girlfriend tragically died in a car accident. The client’s friend was extremely distraught over the loss, to the point that he was not sleeping, getting at most an hour or two per night.

On the day of the incident, the friend was driving Client from one jobsite to another, only a few miles apart within the city of Worcester. Sleep deprived, the friend began nodding off behind the wheel. Our client had his friend pull over as a safety precaution and decided to drive the remaining mile to the second jobsite.

During this last mile of the drive, the engine of the company truck began to smoke. The truck had been in the shop the day before and the mechanic had used the wrong parts to fix it. The smoke drew the attention of a state trooper who pulled in behind our client just as he arrived at his destination simply to ask if he needed any help. When the trooper asked for our client’s license our client had to admit that he did not have one.

At the time, the client was only a few months from getting his license restored. The client’s situation was a precarious one because OAS for OUI carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 60 days in jail in MA. Further, if the client received any new charges it would have triggered a suspended jail sentence in Florida that he would have to serve.

November 2016

Charge: Larceny over $250

Boston Municipal District Court

Result: 2 Year Continuance, followed by dismissal

Our client, a 24 year old male was charged with two counts of felony larceny by his employer, a high-end retail store. The client reportedly had taken part in a scheme to help customers defraud the store of thousands of dollars of merchandise by knowingly ringing up purchases using a stolen credit card.

There were two occasions where the customer had made purchases, totaling in a merchandise loss of over $20,000 for the store. This amount was not being laid on the shoulders of the client. When the store confronted the client about the situation, the client admitted to his involvement, and added that in addition to his commissions on the sales the customers were going to pay him a sum of money and give him some of the merchandise. When asked if he could turn in the customers, the client was unable to since he did not know their real name, and was further afraid to because they had a violent reputation.

Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing. During this hearing Attorney Stacey pointed out some issues with the paperwork the store had filed, and ultimately convinced the store to only pursue a single charge of Larceny by Scheme over $250 encompassing both transactions instead of two separate charges. The hearing was then continued for several weeks to allow the store to refile the necessary paperwork. During this time Attorney Stacey enlisted the help of the client’s father to gather the funds necessary to pay restitution to the store, and work with the store to come to an agreement.

Attorney Stacey’s efforts came to fruition at the next hearing date when he made the offer of restitution to the store in the hearing in front of the Clerk and asked the Clerk to not issue the criminal complaint, saying that with the store fully compensated there was little point in pursuing a criminal case. With a check in hand, the store agreed. The Clerk filed the matter for two years, and impressed upon the client that he was being given a huge opportunity. As long as he remained out of trouble for the next two years, this felony would never appear on his record.

November 2016

Charge: Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injury

Lawrence District Court

Result: 6 Month General Continuance, followed by dismissal

Our client, a 19 year-old Sophomore at a UMass Amherst, accidentally struck a car in front of her. Having never having been in trouble before and concerned that she had been drinking earlier in the evening,  panicked and drove off.   She was found by the police a short distance away, extremely upset and with extensive damage to her car.  The driver of the other vehicle sustained minor injuries to her thumb and was taken to the hospital.

Our client was on a scholarship and had a work-study job with the school, both of which would have been in jeopardy if she was convicted of Leaving the Scene After Personal Injury, which cannot be continued without a finding and which carries a 60-day loss of license if convicted.

Attorney Berman subpoenaed the victim’s medical records (which showed very minor injuries) and provided the District Attorney with the client’s impeccable driving and criminal history.  With this information, in conjunction with the client’s promising future, we were able to convince the ADA and the court to enter a “general continuance” for 6 months. After the continuance period the case will be dismissed assuming the client is not arrested again and completes an online driver’s education class.

We were able to help the client avoid any criminal conviction on her record, and the license suspension.

November 2016

Charge: Possession Class B

Wrentham District Court

Result: 6 Month CWOF with unsupervised probation

Our client, a 32-year-old package delivery driver, was charged with possession of suboxone (class B substance), and Xanax and valium (Class C). Facing the possibility of losing his license and therefore his job, it was imperative for this client that the case be disposed of quickly and without a conviction appearing on his record.

Attorney Griffiths met with the ADA at the Wrentham District Court and learned that they were recommending a 1 year CWOF with supervised probation on the Class B charge and that they were unwilling to agree to anything less than that. With the client’s goals in mind, Attorney Griffiths went before the judge and explained the nature of the client’s situation as well as the potential ramifications of the recommended plea.

These included the fact that the client’s job would not be able to accommodate supervised probation, and the imposition of it would result in the client becoming unemployed. The judge agreed to a 6 month CWOF and unsupervised probation, terms that will allow the client to continue work uninterrupted.

November 2016

Charge: OUI 1st Offense

Worcester District Court

Result: 1 Year CWOF, 24D/Q, 45-day Loss of License

Our client, a 57-year-old artist, was arrested for operating under the influence of liquor. She called us after she had already been arraigned, and her next court date was scheduled for over a month later.

Because the best option for her case was a plea, it was her goal to get into court as soon as possible and have the case resolved. Attorney Griffiths called the ADA assigned to the case in an attempt to have the matter advanced to an earlier date and resolved.

When a plan could not be agreed upon, Attorney Griffiths went into court, coordinated with the ADA supervisor for the case to be brought forward, and resolved it with a plea. The client was able to start her 45-day license suspension while the 30-day breath test failure suspension of her license was still in effect.

Because the 45 days takes the place of the 30, resolving the matter in advance of the scheduled court date allowed the client to serve 24 fewer days of suspension and avoid an additional $500 reinstatement fee. This was particularly important for this client since she was caring for a terminally ill family member and a suspended license was a major impediment to her ability to care for them.

October 2016

Charge: Leaving the Scene of an Accident

Woburn District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 17 year old male was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after he struck another car in the parking lot of his work. Police were able to identify the car from video surveillance.

The car was seen entering the parking lot, pulling into a space, striking another car, and then changing spaces before the occupant went into the store. Not knowing who the occupant was, the police issued a citation to the registered owner of the vehicle, the client’s mother.

Attorney Stacey represented both the mother and the son. First, Attorney Stacey contacted the Police Prosecutor to explain the situation – how the mother was not the one driving and was not involved in any wrongdoing.

Attorney Stacey then represented the son at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing, providing proof that his client was in all respects a good kid.  Insurance had already stepped in and covered any damage that had been done. The clerk was satisfied and dismissed the case.

October 2016

Charge: Negligent Operation

Quincy District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 22 year old male was charged with Negligent Operation after he got into a car accident when he fell asleep at the wheel coming home one night from work. Only one block from his home, the client had dozed off, missing his turn and driving into a closed garage of a house. There were two parked cars in the garage, and damage done to the house as a result of the accident. At the scene the client admitted to police that he had fallen asleep.

Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing. Despite the seriousness of the accident, Attorney Stacey appealed to the Clerk that the client was young and had no criminal history of any kind. Also, he was only recently in the country and amassing a criminal record would have grave consequences on his immigration status for a young man that was a hard worker and a good student, with aspirations of going into law enforcement.

Attorney Stacey also brought proof that an insurance claim had already begun, and part of the damage had already been paid for, and that the remaining damage just needed time to be processed. The Clerk agreed that the client was deserving of leniency, and filed the matter for 11 months, and levied a fine of $500 due to the court in 3 months. The Clerk added that if the fine was paid by the 3 month date the case could be dismissed at that time.

October 2016

Charge: Disorderly Conduct

Newburyport District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 22 year old male, was charged with disorderly conduct after police reportedly saw our client urinating in an alley after a night of drinking. The client made matters worse by running from police, and even attempting to blend in with a crowd of strangers.

The client did not have any prior criminal history, and was very concerned that this charge would affect his employment at a financial institution. Being a recent graduate, he could not afford to have this blemish on his record so early in his career. 

Attorney Stacey handled the case, appearing in Newburyport District Court. Attorney Stacey spoke to the Assistant District Attorney and convinced them to dismiss the case in lieu of a civil violation. The ADA obliged, dropping the criminal charge down to a civil violation with a small fine.

Because the case was dismissed for a civil ticket, the charge would not appear on his record to his employer, and the civil violation would not show on any background check or be on any database.

October 2016

Charge: Operating to Endanger

Uxbridge District Court

Result: Continued without a finding for 3 months

Our client, a 65 year old retired Navy veteran was charged with Operating to Endanger after he attempted to pass another car while driving and the other vehicle sped up, almost causing an accident. A police officer witnessed the event and cited our client, who promptly retained our services. 

Attorney Bullen represented our client on his court date at the Uxbridge District court and spoke with the prosecutor on his behalf. Although the prosecutor initially wanted a conviction to resolve the case, an agreement was reached in which our client would be placed on probation for three months. At the end of those three months, as long as he doesn’t pick up a new criminal charge, our client’s case will be dismissed.Uxbridge District court and spoke with the prosecutor on his behalf.

Although the prosecutor initially wanted a conviction to resolve the case, an agreement was reached in which our client would be placed on probation for three months. At the end of those three months, as long as he doesn’t pick up a new criminal charge, our client’s case will be dismissed.

October 2016

Charge: Warrant Removal

Waltham District Court

Result: Warrant Removal and Dismissal of drag racing and failure to stop charges

Our client, a 35-year-old resident of Key West Florida, called us when he went to renew his Florida driver’s license and was unable to due to a warrant here in Massachusetts. Being a beer salesman, it was imperative that he get the warrant removed quickly and get his license back.

We determined that the warrant was due to 15-year-old charges for drag racing and failure to stop for police that had never been resolved in court. Attorney Griffiths met with the ADA and negotiated a deal to dismiss both of the charges on $200 court costs so that the client could fly up and resolve the entire issue in one day.

The client flew up from Florida the following day, and the warrant was removed and the charges dismissed. Attorney Griffiths then accompanied him to the RMV to ensure that the license suspension was properly removed. The client returned to Florida and was immediately able to have his Florida license renewed and return to work.

October 2016

Charge: Possession Class B

Springfield District Court

Result: 6 month CWOF

Our client, a 19 year old construction worker and part-time student living with his parents, was charged with Drug Possession after he was pulled over and a small amount cocaine was found in his car. Facing a criminal conviction and potential jail time, our client called our offices and retained our services.

Attorney Bullen accompanied our client and his family to court and spoke with the prosecutor, highlighting our client’s age and lack of criminal record. Despite the strength of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Bullen was able to negotiate a resolution in which our client serves a six month probationary period after which his case gets dismissed.

As long as he isn’t criminally charged again, our client’s criminal record will remain clean.

October 2016

Charges: Threats

Dedham District Court

Result: Filed for 2 months, Dismissed.

Our young female client was charged with making threats towards her neighbor. The police report alleged that a dispute over house repairs led to the neighbor entering our client’s yard where our client threatened to get her gun and shoot her if she did not leave.

Attorney Griffiths represented the client at the Clerk Magistrates hearing, and argued that the facts alleged in the police report represented the culmination of an ongoing pattern of hostile behavior and harassment that was started by the neighbor.

Attorney Griffiths explained that the client had been driven to a breaking point by a neighbor who was watching her every move and repeatedly encroaching on her private property and harassing her. The Clerk, noting that the police report contained facts sufficient to issue the complaint, agreed to file the case for two months based on the additional facts presented.

Not only was the client able to preserve her clean criminal record, but she was able to avoid likely immigration consequences that would have resulted from a criminal charge.

October 2016

Charges: Assault and Battery

Cambridge District Court

Result: Complaint not issued at Clerk’s Hearing

Our client, a 60 year old hospital worker, was charged with Assault & Battery after getting into a physical altercation with his neighbor. Unfortunately for him, the police report indicated that he had started the fight.

Fearing that his clean criminal record could be in jeopardy, our client retained our services to represent him at his clerk’s hearing at the Cambridge District Court. Before the hearing took place, Attorney Bullen was assigned to the case and reached out to the Police Prosecutor to discuss a possible resolution.

After speaking with the Police Prosecutor and our client’s neighbor, it became clear that the best thing for everyone involved would be to drop the charges. The clerk agreed and chose not to issue either complaint. As long as he stays away from his neighbor, our client’s case will be dismissed and his record will remain clean.

October 2016

Charges: Shoplifting

Woburn District Court

Result: Complaint not issued at Clerk’s Hearing

Our client, a 35 year old tech salesman, was charged with shoplifting after store security caught him removing the security tags off of clothing items and attempting to leave the store. Despite being very cooperative, our client was still charged with multiple shoplifting related counts.

The client was issued a citation for larceny, so he requested a clerk’s hearing, and retained the services of our firm. Attorney Bullen represented him in his hearing and was able to speak with the Police Prosecutor immediately before the hearing.

Attorney Bullen argued that despite the evidence against our client, he was a productive member of society who just made a mistake and didn’t deserve an entry on his criminal record as a result. The police prosecutor agreed and decided to resolve the case with a fine prior to the hearing. As long as our client pays for some of the items, his criminal record will remain clean.

October 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, Negligent Operation

Dudley District Court

Result: Dismissed/Continued without a Finding, no Driver’s License Suspension

Our client, a 45 year old mother of two, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage and Negligent Operation after she struck an SUV while driving and didn’t stop. To make matters worse, our client had been pulled over for speeding just before the accident.

After the police came to her house to serve her with a citation, our client called our office and retained our services. At her court date in Dudley, Attorney Bullen was able to speak with the prosecutor and explain that not only was this incident out of character for our client, but that she was willing to take a driver’s safety course to ensure this did not happen again.

The prosecutor agreed, dismissing one of the charges and resolving the other with a short probationary period. As long as our client remains safe on the road, this charge will be dismissed as well.

October 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injury

Framingham District Court

Result: No Criminal Complaint Issued. Filed, to be Dismissed after 7 months

Our client, a 35-year-old male, was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury after he hit two teenagers that were crossing the street and then drove away. The teenagers were later transported by ambulance to the hospital. Testimony from witnesses indicated that one of the victims had been seen to fly up in the air after being struck, and the driver “took off speeding” after the incident.

Attorney Griffiths represented the client at the Clerk Magistrates hearing and argued that the police report did not tell the whole story. Attorney Griffiths explained that the client had been pulling out of a parking lot into traffic when a truck to his left stopped to let him make a left-hand turn. As he moved out into traffic, the client struck the two teenagers who were crossing the street in front of the truck. The client got out of the car and asked them if they were ok, they indicated that they were, and he left.

Attorney Griffiths cited the additional facts, the client’s lack of criminal history and his excellent driving history to support her argument. The clerk agreed with the argument presented, and filed the matter for 7 months. 

Provided that he stays out of trouble for the 7-month period, Client will continue to have a clean criminal record. We also avoided the mandatory 1 year license loss and 6 months in jail (could be suspended) that would have come with a conviction.

October 2016

Charges: Shoplifting by Asportation,

Wrentham District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our clients, a middle-aged married couple, were charged with shoplifting after getting caught removing tags from merchandise and leaving the store without paying. The incident happened at the Wrentham premium outlets mall.

Attorney Stacey represented both parties at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing at the Wrentham District Court. Attorney Stacey told the Clerk about his client’s backgrounds, including how hardworking they were and the fact that they had young children to take care of. He also pointed out that neither party had previous criminal history and asked that this be a learning experience for his clients, one that did not include criminal charges. The Clerk thanked Attorney Stacey for his honesty and agreed to not issue the complaint.

September 2016

Charges: Shoplifting

Lowell District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 20 year old female was charged with shoplifting after getting caught stealing a couple of articles of clothing at a local Kohls. The client had no prior criminal record and was about to go on vacation with her family. Her only excuse was that she didn’t have enough money for all the items at the time. 

Attorney Stacey appeared for the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing, along with the client’s family for support. Attorney Stacey explained that this was a one-time mistake born of extremely poor judgment, and that the client took the matter extremely seriously. 

Attorney Stacey argued that this was not the time to begin a permanent criminal record as it would forever derail the client’s goal of going into education. The Clerk, understanding that the store did not lose any merchandise, and that the client had no prior history of criminal activity, filed the matter for 3 months, at which time the matter would be dismissed like it never happened.

September 2016

Charges: Operating to Endanger

Quincy District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 30 year old male was charged with negligent operation after driving home from the city one night. He apparently had fallen asleep, hit the guardrail, and flipped his jeep. Luckily, he and his passenger only received very minor injuries.

Negligent operation on its own is not an overly serious charge, however, this client was also on probation for OUI at the time, and could not incur any additional criminal charges. The issuance of additional charges would open up the client to the possibility of jail time on his OUI case.

Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing at the Quincy District Court. Attorney Stacey leveled with the Clerk and police prosecutor and called the incident what it was – an accident. Having made contact with the passenger-friend, Attorney Stacey was able to relay to the court that there were no outstanding claims that needed to be worried about, and the passenger was not seeking any legal remedies.

Attorney Stacey further informed the Court about his client’s background as a physicist and his employment in the energy field, pointing out that this client was not someone the court needed to be concerned with seeing again. The Clerk agreed and dismissed the case on payment of $200.

September 2016

Charges: Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle

Pittsfield District Court

Result: No Criminal Charge Issued at Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing

Our client, a 24-year-old male, was charged with Negligent Operation after getting into an accident late at night. The police showed up after our client’s vehicle had left the road, skidded through one yard and into another, coming to rest against a house. Our client had lost consciousness during the accident but remembered swerving to avoid hitting a deer.

Attorney Stacey appeared in Pittsfield court to handle the hearing. Attorney Stacey made sure that there was a witness present, a passenger in the car, who could attest to the deer. Pointing out that no other nefarious or questionable circumstances were at play (such as alcohol or drugs) Attorney Stacey argued that his young client should not face a criminal record for something that was an accident and essentially out of his client’s control.

The Clerk wanted to issue the complaint at first, but after Attorney objected, again citing his client’s background and forthright nature, the clerk left it up to the police prosecutor who agreed with Attorney Stacey. Our client was found responsible for a civil violation, but there was no criminal charge.

September 2016

Charges: Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle

Fall River Court

Result: Complaint not issued at Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing

Our client, a 32-year-old salesman, was charged with Operating to Endanger and other motor vehicle violations when he attempted to pass another car in an unauthorized passing zone. After retaining our services, our client was advised to request a clerk’s hearing. 

After retaining our services, we advised the client to request a clerk’s hearing. Attorney Bullen represented our client at his clerk’s hearing at the Fall River District Court and was able to speak with the Police Officer and work out a deal before the hearing. 

Although the Clerk was initially inclined to issue the complaint, after hearing of the resolution worked out by Attorney Bullen the Clerk ultimately declined to issue the complaint. After he completes a one-day driver’s safety course, our client’s complaint will be dismissed and his record will remain clean.

September 2016

Charges: Negligent Operation, Failure to Stop for Police, Marked Lanes, Speeding

Boston Municipal Court

Result: CWOF

Our client, a 26 year old construction worker, was charged with several civil and criminal motor vehicle infractions after a Massachusetts State Trooper accused him of speeding, not stopping when ordered to do so, and weaving in and out of traffic in order to avoid being stopped.

In addition, the State Trooper requested an Imminent Threat Suspension of our client’s license, which was granted by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Without a license and facing criminal prosecution, our client retained the services of our firm. Attorney Bullen represented our client in court.

With the Commonwealth unwilling to consider any resolution less than a guilty conviction, Attorney Bullen presented evidence to the court that our client’s behavior was not intentional, as he was not aware at the time that the Trooper was attempting to pull him over.

The judge agreed with this analysis, and spared our client a guilty conviction. As long as he stays out of trouble, our client’s case will be dismissed entirely.

September 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

East Boston District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client, an 35 year old groundsworker at Logan Airport, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage after side-swiping two parked cars on a narrow Boston street. Despite our client’s filling out of a crash report, the police were still suspicious and filed for criminal charges.

Due to the sensitive nature of his employment, our client was extremely concerned about the effects of a criminal conviction. After retaining our services, our client was represented by Attorney Bullen at his Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing.

Despite the police prosecutor’s insistence of issuing a complaint, Attorney Bullen was able to convince the clerk that our client had made a mistake and learned his lesson, and presented as evidence our client’s certificate from a recognized driver’s safety course.

As a result, the Clerk denied the complaint and no criminal charges were filed against our client.

August 2016

Charges: Felony Vandalism

Woburn District Court

Result: Reduced to Misdemeanor, Continued without a Finding.

Our client, a 19 year old male, was charged with vandalism, a felony offense, when he allegedly slashed the tire of his ex-girlfriend. The ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend was the only witness. The client had an alibi witness that the client was supposedly with then the incident occurred.

Attorney Stacey stepped in to handle the case, dealing with a stubborn prosecutor. Given the eye witness and apparent motive, this was not a case to take to trial, especially with the chance of the client receiving a guilty verdict on a felony. Attorney Stacey was able to negotiate, not only a non-conviction (a Continuance Without a Finding), but had the charge broken down to Misdemeanor Destruction of Property. This means that the client will not have to admit guilt to a felony charge AND the charge will be dismissed after serving some probation.

This means that the client did not have to admit guilt to a felony charge AND the charge will be dismissed after serving some probation.

August 2016

Charges: Operating to Endanger, Failure to Stop for a Police Officer

Uxbridge District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client, a 26 year old female, was charged with Operating to Endanger after she was seen speeding (70 in a 35) and reportedly refused to stop for police. Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Clerk Magistrates hearing in the Uxbridge District Court and worked to mitigate the really bad facts of the case. Attorney Stacey explained that the client was traveling to her boyfriend’s house in moderate traffic, and although she was certainly speeding, the estimated speed was unlikely. 

Attorney Stacey further addressed the most damaging fact of allegedly attempting to evade police, saying that was a misunderstanding and that the client would never do such a thing while acknowledging that is exactly how it appeared. Attorney Stacey also produced the client’s out-of-state driving record showing that she had not committed any driving offenses in 3 years. 

The clerk agreed not to issue the criminal complaint but found the client responsible for speeding. The clerk was initially going to issue a ticket in the amount of $300 but Attorney Stacey talked the Clerk down to the minimum fine of $105. The Client will continue to have a clean criminal record.

August 2016

Charges: Negligent Operation, Speeding

Hingham District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client, a 52 year old male, was charged with negligent operation and speeding after an off duty officer saw the client swerve out of his lane and almost cause two accidents. The client had been lost and was looking at his phone.

The off duty officer tried to pull the car over but was in his personal vehicle and made it sound like the client ran from him.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk Magistrates hearing on behalf of the client. He pointed out the fact that our client had no reason to stop for an off duty officer in an unmarked car.

Attorney Stacey further brought light to the fact the client had fairly severe diabetes (his blood sugar was checked on scene and was fine). Attorney Stacey said there was no concern for his client’s driving and this was more of a misunderstanding. The clerk agreed and dismissed the complaint for negligent operation, and only gave a fine for the speeding.

August 2016

Charges: Operating on a Suspended License

Orleans District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client, a 46 year old female, was charged with driving without a license when she was stopped on the Cape for a headlight that was out. The officer initially gave her a warning for the headlight, but when a search returned that her NY license was suspended for an unpaid toll ticket he gave her a citation.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing and told the clerk how the client had experienced a financial hardship many times in excess of what the criminal charge would call for (due to having to towing costs and having to fly back home since she could not drive).

Attorney Stacey argued that those costs were sufficient and that a criminal complaint should not issue. The clerk agreed and dismissed the complaint outright.

August 2016

Charges: Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D

Hingham District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client, a 17 year old male, was charged with Possession with intent to distribute for marijuana.

Undercover officers were monitoring a local park that was popular for teenagers to drink and smoke at. Officers approached the client after seeing him speak with other kids who were smoking.

The client allowed police to search his backpack where they found 1.5 ounces of marijuana and a scale. The client’s mother attempted to resolve the case before hiring an attorney. She spoke with the police prosecutor who said that he would seek the complaint to issue, and that her son would be referred to a diversion program. However, when she spoke with a prosecutor she was told given the distribution aspect the client would not qualify for diversion and would be prosecuted.

Attorney Stacey was retained to handle the matter. He immediately started gathering any information to support that the client was a good kid – his grades, extra-curricular activities, even his scholarships he had been granted for college. The family was especially worried because the client had earned large sums for scholarships and had no other way of paying for tuition if he lost those scholarships.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing and relayed to the Clerk that the client understood the severity of the situation, and how his whole future possibly rested on the outcome of the hearing. Attorney Stacey explained that the 1.5 ounces of marijuana was not as much for sale as splitting up between the client and two friends, who would usually buy a larger amount to share because it was cheaper that way.

Attorney Stacey argued that, although his client had clearly made some bad decisions, he should not be given a criminal record for the rest of his life due to them. The Clerk begrudgingly agreed, and filed the matter for six months. After that time, if the client stays out of trouble, the case will be dismissed and there will be no record of the charges.

The client maintains his clean record, and gets to keep his scholarships and attend college this fall.

August 2016

Charges: Assault and Battery – Domestic

Gardner District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client, a 56 year old restaurant equipment technician, was arrested for Domestic Assault & Battery after an argument with his wife turned physical. Witnesses, including one of the couples’ grown children, had spoken to police and provided statements that the prosecution intended to use against our client. 

After our services were retained, Attorney Bullen spoke with both the prosecutor and our client’s wife’s attorney in an effort to resolve this case short of trial. Attorney Bullen expressed to the prosecutor that all witnesses and involved parties were eager to put this incident behind them and move on.

After lengthy negotiations, the Commonwealth eventually agreed to dismiss the charges against our client, preserving his clean record.

August 2016

Charges: Violation of a Restraining Order

Milford District Court

Result: Pretrial Probation.

Our client, a 45 year old male, was charged with violating a restraining order when police pulled over a vehicle registered to our client, driven by the alleged victim. Our client was in the passenger seat.

Attorney Stacey appeared on behalf of the client at the Milford District Court and explained the situation to the Assistant District Attorney (ADA). Another court in Rhode Island had issued the order against the wishes of the “victim.” Clearly, by the client being a passenger in his own car he was not posing any danger to the driver. 

The ADA agreed with me and we resolved the case via pretrial probation. A pretrial probation is a very good outcome for the client. It means that the client did not have to make any admissions and the case will be dismissed if the client can stay out of trouble for 90 days.

August 2016

Charges: Larceny over $250

Quincy District Court

Result: No criminal charge issued, case dismissed.

Our client, a 33 year-old mother, was charged with felony shoplifting over $250.00 worth of shirts from Lord & Taylor for her husband.  The client had no prior criminal record, deeply regretted what she did and took immediate responsibility for her actions.    

She was primarily concerned about her children learning of the charges and the embarrassment of facing criminal charges in open court.  Attorney Berman appeared at the clerk-magistrate’s hearing and successfully convinced the clerk that, in light of this being the client’s first offense and given her issues with anxiety and depression, that she should be given a second chance.  

The clerk agreed and no charges were issued, contingent upon the client staying out of trouble for 6 months.  

August 2016

Charges: Threat to Commit a Crime (Assault & Battery)

Hingham District Court

Result: No criminal charge to issue.

Our clients were two 17-year-old high school students who came to the aid of a third friend who was being assaulted by a mutual acquaintance.  One client had pepper spray (not allowed under the age of 18) that she threatened to use if the fight didn’t stop while the other juvenile was accused of punching the acquaintance to assist their friend.  

After a hearing at the Hingham District Court, the clerk found probable cause for both charges to issue.  However, Attorney Berman argued that, given the absence of any prior criminal record on the part of both clients, and given their motivation in attempting to assist their friend, that it was more appropriate for the charges to not issue and be held open for a period of 6 months.  The clerk agreed and, if the clients stay out of trouble, they will avoid any criminal charges and there will be no record of the allegations.

August 2016

Charges: OUI and Negligent Operation

Quincy District Court

Result: Not guilty on both charges.

Our client, a 33-year-old man, was charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation of his motor vehicle.  He was pulled over on the highway late one weekend evening while driving home.  The arresting officer said that our client was going 85 mph in a 55 mph zone.  He further alleged that our client was driving erratically and was unable to stay within the boundaries of a single lane of travel.

When the officer spoke with our client, he said that he was overcome with the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from our client’s mouth and car.  Our client was taken out of the car and submitted to a number of field sobriety tests.  After the tests, it was the officer’s belief that our client was under the influence of alcohol.   Our client was later arraigned in Quincy District Court.

Attorney Etesse represented the client at his trial.   After extensive cross-examination of the officer and presentation of his defense, he argued to the Jury that the results of the field sobriety tests were unreliable.  He further contended that the testimony of the arresting officer at trial was also unreliable, and as such, he argued, the Jury could not convict our client.

After long deliberations, the Jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both criminal charges.

July 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, Negligent Operation

East Brookfield District Court

Result: Dismissed Prior to Arraignment

Our client, a 70 year old retired naval veteran, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage after crashing his car into a wooden fence near his home.

Despite going to the police the next morning to explain what happened, our client learned that criminal charges were filed against him and immediately retained our firm’s services. Attorney Bullen represented our client at his arraignment and argued that the case should be dismissed prior to arraignment, which the Commonwealth opposed.

After hearing Attorney Bullen’s motion to dismiss, the judge agreed and facilitated a resolution in which our client’s case was dismissed prior to arraignment upon payment of nominal court fees. As a result, our client maintained a clean criminal record.

July 2016

Charges: Shoplifting by Asportation

Wrentham District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 37 year old financial adviser, was charged with shoplifting by asportation and unlawful possession of a theft detection device deactivator. He was caught removing a security tag from a pair of shoes and attempting to take them from the store without paying for them. Our client was caught by store security and held until police arrived and provided him with a citation and a summons to appear in court.

Our client requested a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing on the charge and called our office to retain our services. At the hearing, Attorney Bullen presented evidence that our client was guilty of nothing more than a simple lapse in judgment, had no history of this type of behavior, and had successfully completed an online shoplifter’s awareness and education program.

The clerk, persuaded by these arguments, declined to issue the complaint and as a result our client’s clean criminal record was preserved.

July 2016

Charges: Minor in Possession of Alcohol

Wrentham District Court

Result: Pretrial Diversion

Our client, a 20 year old female, was arrested on a minor in possession of alcohol charge when police approached her group of friends during a concert. The client was holding a red solo cup, but it had iced tea in it. 

Attorney Stacey contacted the District Attorney’s Office before the scheduled arraignment. The client absolutely denied having alcohol. Attorney Stacey had an extensive argument with the police prosecutor to fight for a dismissal, but the police prosecutor wouldn’t budge and go against the police officer’s statement.

We could have fought the charge at a motion to dismiss hearing, or a trial. But that would have resulted in an arraignment and a formal criminal charge being issued at that time. We would have had to dispute the contested facts at a later court date.

The client was anxious to resolve the case in any way that kept it off her record as she was looking to become a police officer after graduation. The client was ultimately willing to accept the pretrial probation terms to immediately avoid a criminal record, which was critical to her.

Attorney Stacey contacted the District Attorney’s Office before the scheduled arraignment to have his client entered into the Diversion Program.

The pretrial diversion program is only offered to defendants of a certain age who are charged with minor offenses. This means that the client was never formally arraigned on the charge (so it will not appear on her record) and if she completes the program the case will be dismissed. No future employer will ever know the arrest happened.

July 2016

Charges: Possession of a Class B Substance (LSD)

Attleboro District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 35-year-old sales representative, was charged with Possession of Class B Substance after attempting to purchase 5 hits of LSD outside of a Phish concert at the Xfinity Center. After our services were retained, Attorney Bullen appeared at our client’s arraignment at the Attleboro District Court and conferenced with the prosecutor on his behalf.

Despite the fact that police had observed the suspected transaction take place, Attorney Bullen was able to negotiate an agreement with the prosecutor that resulted in the dismissal of our client’s charge along with a nominal fee. After this fee was paid, our client’s case was officially dismissed.

July 2016

Charges: Minor in Possession of Alcohol

East Boston District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 19 year old male, was cited for underage drinking when he and a group of his friends were caught drinking beers on Revere Beach. 

Attorney Stacey was immediately contacted by the client’s parents. Attorney Stacey gathered evidence of the client’s stellar academic performance. The client also had several large scholarships that were in jeopardy if the criminal complaint issued.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing and presented the Clerk with a stack of the client’s acheivements, arguing that a small mistake should not derail a lifetime of good work. The Clerk gave my client a lecture and did not issue the complaint. The charge will never appear on his record and it is like the incident never happened.

July 2016

Charges: Possession of a Class B Substance (Cocaine + Ecstasy)

Attleboro District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 37 year old teacher, was charged with two counts of Possession of Class B Substance after she was caught attempting to bring cocaine and ecstasy into a Phish concert. Fearful that her criminal record might forever be tainted, she retained our services. Attorney Bullen represented her at her arraignment and spoke with the prosecutor in order to resolve the case as soon as possible.

Highlighting our client’s profession and clean criminal record, as well as the unlikelihood of reoffense, Attorney Bullen was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the case. After paying a nominal fee, our client resolved her case the same day as her arraignment.

July 2016

Charges: Minor Possession of Alcohol, Operating on Suspended License

Clinton District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, an 18-year-old college student, was charged with multiple motor vehicle offenses after a police officer observed him driving erratically with a suspended license and open containers of alcohol in the car. In order to keep these charges from our client’s criminal record, our office was retained and Attorney Bullen represented our client at his Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing.

At the Hearing Attorney Bullen provided context for our client’s erratic driving (he was distracted by being tailgated by the police officer) and presented evidence that he had in good faith believed his license was valid and that the alcohol did not belong to him. It was his father’s truck and six pack of beer.

After considering this evidence, the Clerk declined to issue any of the charges our client faced. As long as he stays out of trouble, our client’s criminal record will remain clean.

July 2016

Charges: Possession of a Class B Substance (Cocaine)

Belchertown District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 50 year old female, was charged with Possession of Class B (cocaine) when an officer came to her house on request for a safety check. The client’s brother, who lives with her, called the police after his sister was unresponsive and would not come out of her bedroom.

Police arrived and found our client to be acting erratic, confessing that she had used cocaine. Police then found a white powdery substance in her bathroom. The client was taken to the hospital and charged with Possession of Class B.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing and explained to the Clerk and Police Prosecutor the circumstances which lead to his client acting so out of character. Attorney Stacey had spent a great deal of time with the client prior to the hearing, making sure the client found counseling and attending support groups.

Attorney Stacey then went into the hearing with this information and argued that the problematic behavior was already being addressed and criminal charges were not necessary. The Clerk begrudgingly agreed, stating that he was doing so against his better judgment. The complaint did not issue and there will never be any record of the incident on the client’s record.

July 2016

Charges: Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle

Plymouth District Court

Result: Pretrial Diversion

Our client, a 22 year old male, was charged with negligent operation after he fell asleep while driving to his girlfriend’s house at 4AM. A serious accident ensued where the client’s car had jumped the curb, struck a rock wall, and bounced to the opposite side of the street. 

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk’s Hearing in Plymouth but could not convince the police prosecutor to not issue the complaint. The police, concerned about the seriousness of the accident, felt the criminal complaint should issue.

Attorney Stacey contacted the District Attorney’s Office before the scheduled arraignment to try and have his client entered into the Diversion Program. This program is only offered to defendant’s of a certain age who are charged with minor offenses. Initially, Attorney Stacey was told that, given the accident, the client was ineligible for the Diversion Program.

Attorney Stacey appealed directly to the person in charge of the program and convinced them to allow our client in. This means that the client was never formally arraigned on the charge (so it will not appear on his record) and if he completes the program the case will be dismissed.

June 2016

Charges: Larceny Over $250

Salem District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 30 year old mother of two, was charged with Larceny after she was caught at the Kohl’s in Danvers stealing clothes for her children during a period of unemployment.

Distraught and upset, she reached out to our office and retained counsel.

Attorney Bullen appeared at the Salem District Court with her, spoke with the prosecutor on her behalf, and negotiated a resolution that prevented a conviction from entering on her record. Upon the completion of community service, our client’s case will be dismissed.

June 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, Operating to Endanger, Marked Lanes

Salem District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 21 year old college student, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage and other motor vehicle offenses after falling asleep at the wheel and crashing into a utility pole.

When the police arrived, they believed our client had been drunk driving but could not prove it. After receiving a summons to appear in court and requesting a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, our client retained our services to represent him at the hearing.

Attorney Bullen appeared on his behalf and explained to the clerk and police prosecutor that alcohol was not a factor and that the crash was a simple mistake. After Attorney Bullen highlighted our client’s pristine criminal and driving record and his willingness to take a driver’s safety course, the clerk declined to issue the complaint.

As long as our client completes the course, his record will remain clean.

June 2016

Charges: Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle

Lawrence District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 40 year old veteran and computer sciences student, after accidentally cutting off an undercover officer in traffic. Despite his best efforts to request a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, the court still issued him a summons for a criminal arraignment.

Worried about his criminal record, our client retained our services and was represented by Attorney Bullen in Lawrence District Court. After speaking with the prosecutor, Attorney Bullen asked the court to dismiss the case in order to allow our client to exercise his right to request a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing.

The judge accepted Attorney Bullen’s motion and dismissed the case. Even if the police decide to refile the charges, our client’s criminal record was kept clear of any charges at this time.

June 2016

Charges: OUI

Wrentham District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 44 year old male, was cited for operating under the influence after getting into a serious car accident on the highway and making several incriminating statements to police. Attorney Stacey advanced the case in order to have it resolved faster.

Attorney Stacey presented evidence to the prosecutor prior to the arraignment showing that the client was not intoxicated, and even had no alcohol in his system. The client had struck his head during the accident and was not aware of his statements to police that he had just drank 3 beers. The prosecutor was unable to refute the hospital records and was forced to dismiss the charge prior to arraignment. The charge will never show up on the client’s record.

June 2016

Charges: Shoplifting

Attleboro District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 35 year-old father, was charged with shoplifting $14.00 worth of Nike socks at a Kohl’s, as a gift for his 14-year-old son.

The client had no prior criminal record, admitted what he did to the police and was primarily concerned about whether the charge would affect his ability to retain his license to carry a firearm.

Attorney Berman appeared prepared to ask that the court dismiss the charge so that the matter could be heard at a Clerk-Magistrate’s hearing before the charges issued.  However, he was able to negotiate a straight dismissal of the charges, with the payment of modest court costs, thereby avoiding a criminal record and avoiding any consequences to the client’s license to carry.  

June 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Malden Police Department

Result: Dismissed, No Citation Issued

Our client, a 35 year old male, was going to be charged with leaving the scene of property damage by the Malden police.

Attorney Stacey was called to step in in order to avoid the criminal charge. The client, who suffers from Diabetes, had lost consciousness while driving and had evidently hit a store sign. He did not remember anything about the accident or the immediate aftermath.

Attorney Stacey met with the charging police department and arranged for an exchange of insurance information, and have the matter resolved and dispatched without going to court at all. No citation issued.

May 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Somerville District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 26 year old female was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage after rear-ending another car at a red light and failing to stop. Our client had several passengers in the car and followed through with taking them home, about 15 minutes away, before finally stopping for police.

Attorney Stacey appeared on her behalf at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing at the Somerville District Court. Attorney Stacey led the Clerk through the client’s long, well documented history of severe anxiety and other social disorders, arguing that given the stressful situation the client had gone into auto-pilot mode and just finished taking her passengers home before waiting for police. Attorney Stacey also presented some sympathetic material from the client’s background to explain how she had come to have these anxiety issues.

The Clerk agreed that this may not be the time to have the client begin a criminal record and continued the case for 6 months, at which time the case will be dismissed. The charge will never appear on the client’s record.

May 2016

Charges: Shoplifting

Dedham District Court

Result: Pretrial Probation

Our client, a 32 year old single mother, was charged with Shoplifting/Larceny in the Dedham District Court after she was caught stealing food from Whole Foods.

After our office was retained, Attorney Bullen was able to speak with the prosecutor and work out a deal through which our client served no jail time, avoiding both an admission and a conviction on her criminal record.

In support of this disposition, Attorney Bullen drafted a lengthy letter in support of probation detailing our client’s contributions to her community which was instrumental in securing such a favorable resolution. Our client’s criminal record remains clean.

May 2016

Charges: Shoplifting

Woburn District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 22 year old female, was charged with Shoplifting from her job when she was found to have taken a bathing suit home after work one day without paying for it.

Attorney Stacey represented her at the Woburn District Court and argued at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing that this was a one-time mistake by the young woman.

Attorney Stacey talked about the client’s history of community service. The Clerk agreed and refused the application for criminal complaint.

May 2016

Charges: Felony Malicious Property Damage, Leaving the Scene

East Charlestown District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 33 year old teacher, was charged with multiple felony and misdemeanor motor vehicle offenses after she crashed into a State Police warning sign in the middle of the road and drove away from the scene in her boyfriend’s car. 

Upon finding open containers of alcohol in the car, the State Police were suspicious and charged our client with multiple offenses. Knowing that she had not been drinking and had just made a mistake, she retained our services and was represented by Attorney Bullen during her Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. 

After a lengthy hearing, including direct and cross examination of the responding State Trooper and our client’s boyfriend, Attorney Bullen persuaded the Clerk to dismiss the felony charges against our client. The misdemeanor charges that did issue will likely result in probation, but our client managed to avoid a felony charge on her criminal record.

May 2016

Charges: Possession of a Dangerous Weapon

Taunton District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 31 year old construction worker, was charged with Felony Possession of a Dangerous Weapon after a police officer stopped him and found brass knuckles in his car.

Worried about the effects of a felony conviction on his record, our client called our office to retain our services. Attorney Bullen met our client at court the next day and appeared on his behalf in the hopes of resolving the case favorably.

After speaking with the prosecutor, Attorney Bullen was able to secure a dismissal of the charge upon payment of nominal court fees. After this payment was made, our client’s felony charge was officially dismissed.

April 2016

Charges: Shoplifting

Lawrence District Court

Result: Continued for 6 months  / Dismissed

Our client, a 50 year old female, was charged with shoplifting after reportedly intentionally mis-scanning items in the self-checkout lane at a local grocery store. The store had noted that they had several confirmed instances of our client engaging in this type of activity.

The client was extremely nervous and had never been arrested before. Attorney Stacey was able to calm the client down, and successfully negotiated a special resolution to the case. 

The Commonwealth agreed to generally continue the case for six months, at which time, if the client has stayed out of trouble, the case would be dismissed. This means that the client does not have to admit to a crime, and can avoid probation and any fees associated with that.

April 2016

Charges: Assault and Battery

Clinton District Court

Result: Pretrial Probation.

Our client, a 32 year old sales manager, was charged with Assault & Battery after a dispute between he and a co-worker became physical. With the co-worker accusing our client of physically attacking him, our office was retained to fight these charges.

At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Bullen presented evidence that the incident was a misunderstanding between friends that unfortunately got out of control. The Clerk agreed and, over the objection of the police prosecutor, denied the issuance of the complaint.

As a result, the case was dismissed and our client’s criminal record remained clean.

April 2016

Charges: Trespassing

East Boston District Court

Result: Pretrial Probation.

Our client, a 27 year old male, was charged with trespassing after walking through the Callahan Tunnel carrying a camera and taking pictures. A relatively minor charge became much more when local authorities suspected our client of being a terrorist conspirator.  

Attorney Stacey represented the client in court, making sure the client, an exchange student from a Middle Eastern country, was cleared of all suspicions of terrorism. Attorney Stacey convinced the prosecutor that the matter was a simple mistake.

The prosecutor agreed to place the client on Pretrial Probation for 18 months. The client would not need to make any admissions, and once the probation term was up the case would be dismissed, keeping the client’s clean record intact.

March 2016

Charges: Shoplifting and Conspiracy

Fall River District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 26 year old female, was charged with shoplifting and conspiracy after several area CVS pharmacies were shoplifted from on a single day. Our client had driven her boyfriend and one of his friends to a CVS as a favor. Our client stayed in the car and never entered the store. A short time later, the friend ran from the store, got into the car, and yelled at her to drive.

Our client had been in an abusive relationship with her boyfriend at the time and was scared of the friend who had threatened her with violence if she did not cooperate. Our client drove the friend and her boyfriend to several other CVS locations in the area. The next day our client moved out of her boyfriend’s apartment. The day after that she went to the local police station and informed them of what happened. A different police department decided to charge her with shoplifting.

Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. The Clerk, hearing the facts, agreed with Attorney Stacey that the complaint should not issue. Case dismissed.

March 2016

Charges: Domestic Assault and Battery

Lynn District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 46 year old male was charged with assault and battery on a family member when he slapped his live in girlfriend over the head over sleeping arrangements.  

Attorney Stacey represented the client and got the case to the trial stage quickly. Attorney Stacey was able to get the case dismissed on the trial date when the prosecutor answered not ready for trial.

March 2016

Charges: Domestic Assault and Battery

Boston Municipal District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 28 year old male, and practicing attorney, was charged with assault and battery on a family member. He was accused of pushing his live-in girlfriend in the elevator on their way up to the apartment after each were out drinking.

The officers who responded to the scene only noted marks on our client, and determined that these had been defensive wounds. Attorney Stacey represented the client at the Boston Municpal District Court and got the case to the trial stage quickly.

If anything more than a dismissal occurred, the client would likely have lost his license to practice law. Attorney Stacey was able to get both cases dismissed on the trial date when the prosecutor answered not ready for trial.

March 2016

Charges: OUI – Drugs

Plymouth District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 35 year old technology specialist, was charged with Operating Under the Influence of Drugs after driving his car offroad in an open field and damaging residential property. The client had open alcohol containers in his vehicle and was exhibiting some signs of drug intoxication.

Attorney Bullen filed a Motion to Dismiss at the Plymouth District Court on the client’s behalf. During oral argument on the motion, Attorney Bullen was able to challenge probable cause by producing and citing relevant case law that showed the Commonwealth did not have enough evidence to prove the charge. After hearing Attorney Bullen’s argument and examining the case law, the Judge agreed and dismissed the client’s charge of Operating Under the Influence of Drugs.

March 2016

Charges: Larceny over $250

Wrentham District Court

Result: Dismissed.

Our client is a 28 year-old woman was questioned by her employer, a retail store for alleged larceny upon the store.  The store alleged that our client had taken certain merchandise valued in the thousands.  The client admitted to the thefts when interviewed by loss prevention.  The police arrived and cited her for the larceny.

Attorney Etesse represented the client at her Clerk Magistrate hearing.  He argued that these charges were very inconsistent with the client’s character.  Furthermore, the client made full restitution and apology to the store.  

He advocated that the client has been going through a series of domestic difficulties that has resulted in her emotional and mental distress.  This distress has caused her to act in a manner that greatly varies from her normal behavior.  Attorney Etesse recommended that the complaint not issue.  The Clerk agreed with the attorney and did not issue the complaint.

March 2016

Charges: Larceny under $250

Wrentham District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 28 year old graduate student with plans of living abroad, was charged with Larceny for taking items from the Saks Off 5th Avenue outlet store at the Wrentham Village Premium Outlets. 

Not wanting this lapse in judgment to affect her criminal record, our client immediately retained our services. Attorney Bullen accompanied our client to her Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing in Wrentham District Court and argued for leniency on her behalf.

Attorney Bullen was able to persuade both the Clerk and the police prosecutor to drop the charge with no conditions. As a result, nothing was entered on our client’s criminal record.

February 2016

Charges: Open and Gross Lewdness

Brockton District Court

Result: Continued without a Finding

Our client, a 44 year old male, was charged with Open and Gross Lewdness when he was alleged to have masturbated while driving around Brockton. 

Attorney Stacey appeared for the client and fought the charges. Attorney Stacey was able to argue to the judge that his client should not be given a guilty on this felony charge as it would be his first, and his client would be overly burdened by having a felony conviction on his record.

The judge agreed with Attorney Stacey’s recommendation and entered a Continuation Without a Finding on this felony charge, denying the prosecutor’s request for a guilty. This will allow the client to move on from this case without being a convicted felon, and having the stigma of such a finding follow him for the rest of his life.

February 2016

Charges: Operating on a Suspended Driver’s License, Speeding

Springfield District Court

Result: Nolle Prosequi prior to arraignment

Our client, was stopped by the Massachusetts State Police for speeding.  He was cited for his speeding and Driving on a Suspended License.  He subsequently returned his citation to the Springfield District Court to request his Clerk’s hearing.  This request was misfiled, as a result, he was summoned to Court for an arraignment on the charges.

Attorney Etesse represented the client at the Arraignment. Attorney Etesse argued to the Commonwealth that this case should not go forward since the client was not awarded his probable cause hearing.  Further, he argued that the client’s license suspension has been lifted.  So the prosecution of the case is moot.  The Commonwealth agreed not to prosecute the case and the client was not arraigned and avoided a criminal record in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

February 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation

Worcester District Court

Result: Complaint not to issue upon payment of court costs

Our client, a 27 year-old man, was charged with Negligent Operation, Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, Speeding, and Marked Lane Violations when he was seen speeding down the freeway and hit another vehicle.  The witness said that the car was driving erratically, hit her vehicle, then fled the scene.  The police found our client at his home and viewed the damage on his car.  Upon questioning, our client admitted to the collision and also admitted to hitting a fence also while trying to flee the scene.  He was cited by the police and issued a criminal summons to appear at a Clerk Magistrate hearing.

Attorney Etesse represented the client at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing.  Attorney Etesse argued that this incident was uncharacteristic of the client and that his actions were based on fear rather than malice.  He said that the client was very apologetic and has learned from this experience and should not be punished further.  The Clerk agreed with Attorney Etesse and dismissed the complaint and all charges upon payment of court costs.

February 2016

Charges: Minor in Possession of Alcohol

Dedham District Court (Juvenile)

Result: PreTrial Probation, Dismissed after 4 Months

Our client, a 17 year old high school student, was charged with Minor in Possession of Alcohol after the police caught him driving his friends around with open beer and liquor bottles. After retaining our services, Attorney Bullen accompanied the client and his father to the arraignment in Juvenile Court.

At the arraignment, it was discovered that a second complaint was issued against our client from another incident where he drove his car after curfew.

After negotiations with the prosecutor in which Attorney Bullen highlighted our young client’s embarrassment and remorse, as well as his continued academic success and future promise, the Commonwealth agreed to a disposition of Pretrial Probation on both cases.

As long as our client completes a single, brief probationary period, both cases will be wiped from his record as if they never happened.

February 2016

Charges: Larceny Over $250 (Felony)

Waltham District Court

Result: Complaint not issued

Our client, a 40 year old single mother of four, was charged with Felony Larceny after she was caught on video stealing a wallet that had been dropped in a supermarket.

Despite the felony nature of the charges, the client was given a Clerk’s Hearing to determine if a criminal complaint was warranted. After retaining our services, the client and Attorney Bullen attended her Hearing in Waltham District Court.

Without admitting her guilt, Attorney Bullen expressed the client’s remorse over the incident and provided explanatory context, including the client’s ongoing financial and mental health issues. Attorney Bullen was further able to secure arrangements for restitution with the police prosecutor. The Clerk subsequently agreed to continue the complaint for two months without issuing it, as long as the client pays restitution. At that time, her case will be dismissed entirely.

February 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Cambridge Police Department

Result: Complaint not sought by police

Our client, a 40 year old construction worker, received a letter from the Cambridge Police Department regarding a hit and run that occurred in Cambridge a few days prior. The police had received a 911 call that the client’s vehicle, a commercial pickup truck, had left the scene of the accident and that his presence was required at the station to discuss his potential involvement.

After retaining our services, Attorney Bullen accompanied the client to the Cambridge Police Department and spoke with the investigating officer on his behalf.

Without admitting the client’s responsibility, Attorney Bullen was able to assure that insurance would take care of any damage and that a criminal complaint would not further the interest of any party involved.

The investigating officer agreed, and declined to seek a complaint against the client, provided all insurance claims are paid. By proactively addressing the police department’s concerns, we prevented a citation from being issued.

February 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Quincy District Court

Result: Dismissed at Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing

Our client, a 24 year old male, was charged with leaving the scene of property damage after someone called the police and gave a matching description of the client’s truck and license plate. The client had no recollection of ever hitting anyone, but was in the area at the time.

Attorney Stacey appeared at the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing at the Quincy District Court and presented evidence to the clerk that called into question whether the accident even occurred. There were differing accounts given by the alleged victim, as well as no evidence of damage to the client’s truck.

Attorney Stacey further argued that this was an issue for the insurance companies to investigate and resolve, and not a situation where the client should be criminally charged. The Clerk agreed, and dismissed the case.

February 2016

Charges: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Westborough District Court

Result: Dismissed after 2 months

Our client, a 60 year old Sales Account Executive at a metals distributor was charged with leaving the scene of property damage after driving through a yield sign, striking another vehicle, and leaving the scene before the police arrived. Attorney Bullen was retained to represent the client at his Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing in Westborough District Court.

At the hearing, Attorney Bullen produced evidence explaining the context of the incident, including the fact that it occurred at night and in inclement weather, as well as mitigating factors such as the client’s total insurance coverage and positive performance reviews at work. After explaining that the client’s vehicle and driving privileges were an integral part of his continued employment, the Clerk was persuaded to file the complaint for two months.

At the end of two months, the complaint’s erasure will ensure that the client’s criminal record remains clean.

February 2016

Charges: Operating on a Suspended License, Speeding, Seatbelt Violation

Plymouth District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 32-year-old man, was stopped by the police for speeding on a public way. The officers clocked him going at a rate of speed of 50mph in a 35mph zone. The officer upon inquiry noticed that the client’s license was suspended for a previous speeding ticket fine that was not paid. The officer also cited him for a failure to wear a safety belt violation. The client was summonsed to an arraignment on the charges in Plymouth District Court.

Attorney Etesse represented the client at his arraignment. He argued that the case should be resolved today because the client has now paid the reinstatement fee to the RMV and that the underlying charges should be dismissed in light of the remedial measures taken by the client.

The Commonwealth agreed and dismissed the case on court costs. They also agreed to find the client not responsible for speeding or failure to wear a seatbelt.

January 2016

Charges: Operating to Endanger

Attleboro District Court

Result: Dismissed

Attorney Etesse represented our client, an eighteen-year-old man who was accused of speeding down a highway in competition with a friend. It was alleged that our client was driving at a rate of over 80 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. This incident occurred prior to the client’s eighteenth birthday. The client was cited for Drag Racing, and Operating to Endanger. He was summonsed to a Clerk Magistrate hearing in the District Court. At the Clerk’s hearing, Attorney Etesse requested that the case be dismissed since the alleged incident occurred while the client was a juvenile and the matter was brought in the incorrect court. The Clerk decided to transfer the case to the juvenile court for another Clerk’s hearing.

At the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing Attorney Etesse argued that these alleged actions were out of the character of the client. He supplemented his argument with proof of the client’s good academic performance in school, and argued further that the child was heavily involved in extracurricular activities at his school. He further argued that the case was initially brought in District Court, but the case was not resolved there, it was sent down to juvenile court, which has weighed heavily on the client and his family mentally and emotionally.

He requested that the case be dismissed because the client has suffered greatly for his mistake and has since learned from it. The Clerk agreed with Attorney Etesse’s argument and dismissed the case.

January 2016

Charges: Larceny Over $250

Quincy District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 45 year old male, was charged with Larceny over $250 by way of fraud when he engaged in a verbal contract that involved the sum of $30,000 to have a friend from China come to the States for medical treatment. The agreement between the parties was very ambiguous and the client had never facilitated such an arrangement before. The funds were to be used for living and medical expenses for the friend while she was in MA receiving treatment.

When funds were not allocated properly, and the balance not returned to the friend upon request, the friend filed a complaint with the local police. Attorney Stacey was retained after the client was first contacted about the matter by police.

The client was very concerned about his professional career as a cancer researcher at a local hospital and how having a criminal record would negatively impact that. Attorney Stacey immediately set to work communicating with both sides on clearly defining the contract between them.

Within one week, Attorney Stacey had both sides in agreement on what was owed and had the money paid out. This allowed Attorney Stacey to present evidence at the Clerk’s Hearing that the conflict had already been resolved and all parties involved were satisfied.

Attorney Stacey argued that there was no need in filing the complaint and the Clerk agreed, and dismissed the case.

January 2016

Charges:  Operating to Endanger

Orange District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, an eighteen-year-old female, was charged with Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Speeding when she was cited by the police, who clocked her and another vehicle driving down a public roadway at 93 miles per hour. The speed limit for this particular roadway was 50 miles per hour.

Attorney Russell Matson attended the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing on the client’s behalf. He advised the Clerk that our client was willing to take responsibility for her actions. He further advised that the client was starting school soon and has a promising future. He argued that this ordeal should be used as a learning experience for the client’s benefit.

The Clerk agreed with Attorney Matson, and the criminal complaint did not issue.

January 2016

Charges:  Negligent Operation

Brockton District Court

Result: Dismissed

Our client, a 52 year-old female, was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle when she lost control of her car and crashed into an occupied restaurant.

Police believed that the cause of the accident was due to the client’s carelessness. Attorney Stacey negotiated with the police prosecutor, offering proof of insurance payments for all of the damage that was done by her vehicle. The police prosecutor agreed to drop the charges at the next court date.

At the pretrial conference Attorney Etesse accompanied our client to Court, and the prosecutor dismissed the case.

January 2016

Charges:  Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Woburn District Court

Result: Dismissed after 3 months

Our client, a 36-year-old male, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage after hitting a parked car, while attempting to avoid a wild animal that darted into the road. The force from the crash sent the vehicle reeling 200 feet from the scene of the accident. The crash damaged the client’s car severely, such that he was not able to turn around. When the police arrived they cited him for Leaving the Scene of Property Damage.

Attorney Etesse attended the Clerk Magistrates hearing on the client’s behalf. He argued that the facts of the case tend to show that the client had no intent on leaving the scene of property damage, but rather his attempts to double-back to the victim’s car were unsuccessful due to his vehicle being so damaged. Attorney Etesse submitted proof of insurance payment and assurance by the insurer that any claim that the victim would submit for the property damage to their vehicle would be paid.

The Clerk filed the complaint, pending insurance payments, after which no record will appear for the client.

January 2016

Charges:  OUI, Negligent Operation

Lynn District Court

Result: OUI Dismissed at Hearing

Our client, a 57-year-old male, was charged with OUI after getting into a serious accident when driving home from his son’s house. Several witnesses reported that the client had driven through a red light at a busy intersection. The client suffered a concussion during the accident and was delirious. He made several comments to officers that he had been “drinking a lot” and his breadth reportedly had a strong odor of alcohol.

Attorney Stacey handled the case and gathered several pieces of important evidence, including the client’s hospital records, insurance records, and speaking to the client’s doctor. Attorney Stacey presented this evidence at the Clerk’s hearing, arguing that despite the client’s statements and the officer’s observations, the client did not have any alcohol in his system based on certain ailments that prevented the client from drinking alcohol. Attorney Stacey further argued that the client’s statements were due to the client’s concussion and his confused state following the accident.

The Clerk agreed and dismissed the OUI charge, but issued the complaint on the Negligent Operation. The client will not experience any loss of license and likely after serving a short probation, the case will be dismissed, preserving the client’s clean record.