No one is above the law!

Police officer arrested on domestic assault charge - Bowling Green Daily News: News

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court takes giant step in the right direction.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has taken a giant step forward in the reliability of eyewitness identification debate. Check out this excellent article by Mark Scolforo from the Associated Press.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/54fd8955783e4676a9526f7f5dd547a5/PA--Eyewitness-Identification

Psychologists and lawyers have known for years that eyewitness testimony is one of the most UNreliable forms of evidence. Anyone who has ever seen the simple example where 10 people are shown a scene and when queried a few minutes later relate 10 wildly different descriptions of what they saw, can attest that eyewitness testimony is wildly unreliable. Yet courts have based verdicts on such testimony for years and banned lawyers from using these well documented studies to show how unreliable this evidence can be. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reversed the rulings banning these challenges. Massachusetts needs to follow their lead. After all, isn't the goal the same for all states in all courts.... to get the verdict right!



Tell us your opinion. Do you agree that lawyers should be able to challenge eyewitness evidence with scientific studies.

Client Testimonial

Client Testimonial

We received the following Client Testimonial today, which was also posted on Avvo.com but I am posting it here as well. This client was charged with Domestic Assault & Battery. It was a family get together with some alcohol involved. Our client lives in Colorado and was visiting here in Massachusetts when the incident occurred. He appeared at arraignment and returned to Colorado. We were able to have his charges dismissed without his ever returning to Massachusetts.

From our client:

While visiting Massachusetts from out of state, I found myself involved in an unfortunate incident and with a criminal offense charged against me. Due to the necessity for counsel to act in my behalf while I was back at home I was careful in my selection of Attorneys. A list of 10 became a list of two, then one.

 Attorney Casale's enthusiasm, knowledge of the law, patience, and the respect he commands amongst the Court and his peers was demonstrated repeatedly, and ultimately resulted in a most favorable outcome regarding my case. Attorney Casale's defense was so thorough I was able to resolve my charge without having to reappear in court. Though my case may not be typical, I believe the positive outcome rests largely on the skills of Attorney Casale.

As in any other industry, there are vast choices available to a prospective client and making the right choice is paramount, especially when the courts are involved. Attorney Casale is that right choice.

 

For additional Client Testimonials, go to our website at www.LawWorcester.com or at avvo.com, where you can search for Gregory Casale and read the full Rating as well as Testimonials from numerous clients.

Man named "Smallwood" arrested with his pants down.

Man without pants arrested at Rock Hill Waffle House, police say

Happy Mother's Day

Happy Mothers Day to all of you current and future mom's out there. This is a picture of my mother who passed away this year at 94. She was an incredible woman who was loved by everyone that he touched. In all my life I never hear my mother utter an unkind word towards anyone nor anyone say anything negative about her. She was truly special. She is pictured here with my son who she adored and he her. She is dearly missed by many. No one more than me. Laura Casale 4/25/19 - 3/15/14

Court: THC in driver's blood not enough to prove DUI

Court: THC in driver's blood not enough to prove DUI

The Five Biggest Mistakes of the Criminal Defendant

Brought to you by the Law Office of Gregory Casale Attorney At Law

On the web at www.LawWorcester.com or Google+ at http://google.com/+GregoryCasale

Top Five Biggest Mistakes of the Criminal Defendant

Criminal defendants can make a bunch of mistakes between commission of crime and trial. But, some cause significantly more harm to their case then others.  Below are five of the biggest errors that I repeatedly come across:

5.  Talking

  

Please stop talking. You're only making the case against you stronger for the prosecution. Don't talk to police at the scene of your arrest, don't provide detectives with an oral or written statement following your arrest, don't talk to other inmates on your block and most importantly, don't talk on prison phones to anyone about your case.  I've essentially never seen a situation where a defendant helped himself by providing a statement.  Talking will only hurt your case.  

Most people watch too much TV and think that a cop must read them their Miranda rights upon arrest as they're carefully guiding your head into the police cruiser. This simply is not true. A detective only needs to provide you with Miranda warnings if you're in custody and he is seeking to interrogate or question you about a crime. This almost always happens at the police station following your arrest if/when you're taken up to a detective bureau.  So many clients tell me that their rights were violated because they were never read their Miranda warnings. And, when I ask if they ever gave a statement to detectives, their answer is, "No, they never gave me a chance to tell my side of the story."  My response, "Good. I don't want you giving your 'side of the story.'"  I can tell a jury your side of the story in my closing after cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses and possibly presenting defense witnesses.

Once arrested, every criminal defendant has a 5th Amendment Constitutional right to remain silent. And, every defendant should exercise that right and shut up. Unfortunately, the incarcerated can't seem to help themselves. Despite the knowledge that "this call is being recorded", they talk about their involvement to loved ones on prison phones. They always tell me they haven't talked on the phones.  But, about 30 days before trial I get a CD from the prosecution filled with hundreds of calls.  While they're smart enough to not simply confess to the crime, they talk about their associates and friends who may have been involved, they talk about motives ("He owed me $50 from the drugs I gave him last week") or they talk about details that only someone who was at the scene would know about.

If you talk, you're only providing the prosecution with additional evidence. And, the less evidence, the better. So please, stop talking.

4.Facebook/YouTube/Texting
All three have become integral parts of our lives in the 21^st century. And while I'd like to, I know I'm not going to convince you to delete your Facebook or YouTube accounts or get rid of your smartphones. But, remember, like recorded prison phone calls, a post on Facebook or a video on YouTube is forever. You can't take it back once it's out there. And, prosecutors and law enforcement are more and more turning to social media to gather additional evidence to strengthen a case or to hurt a defendant at trial. If you get arrested for possession with intent to distribute and tell pre-trial services that you're unemployed, how do you think a picture of you holding fanned out twenties on Facebook looks?  It makes you look like a drug dealer. Delete these pictures off of your Facebook account now. It may be too late as others may have saved or shared them. But please don't upload anymore. This story of a guy arrested for failing to pay child support after police saw his own Facebook pictures of him rolling in money proves the point. 

 

Imagine you're charged with gunpoint robbery and you’re arrested moments after the robbery with no gun and no proceeds from the robbery. Sounds like a pretty defendable case, right? With that evidence alone, it absolutely is. But, then the prosecutor goes on Facebook and finds a picture of you holding a gun and giving the camera the finger. He shows that picture to the victim and she identifies that gun as the one that was pointed at her chest. Next, the prosecutor starts searching YouTube. He finds a video of you and your friends singing about how you rob people at gunpoint. How's the evidence look now? And all of the damaging evidence is self-inflicted wounds. 

  

Further, don't Facebook message or text anyone involved in the alleged crime. That includes co-defendants, witnesses or victims. This type of evidence can seal the prosecution's case against you. Take this example:  You and a co-defendant are trying to make some money by scrapping copper. You break into what you think is an abandoned house and steal pipes. Nobody is home, so no one calls the police. You drive off in a van and get dropped off down the road. You text each other about where he's taking the pipes for sale and what percentage you'll get paid. But, police pull your co-defendant over and see all the pipes. He's arrested and charged with receiving stolen property and burglary after a report comes in that those pipes were taken from a nearby home. Police don't know that a second person was involved until they recover his phone and see the text messages. The phone number is traced back to you and you're arrested with the phone that has the same text messages. Your own words are what proved the prosecution’s case.

3. Don't Run

If police approach two people on the street and one runs while the other stands there, which one is guilty? Exactly. The police will catch you and you're simply making the case against you stronger. The one who runs has a guilty conscience and a judge or jury understands that common sense point. Additionally, a judge, at the prosecution's request will often read a "consciousness of guilt" instruction to the jury. So, now the facts (running) and the law (jury instruction) have hurt your case. Additionally, if you're in possession of drugs, a gun or other contraband, you're providing the police with greater suspicion to justify stopping you and thereby lower your chance of having police violate your rights when searching you. If police receive an anonymous radio call that someone wearing certain clothing on a corner is in possession of a gun, that information alone is insufficient to justify a stop of a person meeting the description. The police need more to corroborate that call to give rise to reasonable suspicion to justify a pat down or a Terry Frisk. If you run, you're giving the police that additional justification to stop you. Don't give the police the justification they need and make the prosecution's case stronger. Rather, stand there, let the police frisk or search you and recover what they would have recovered anyway if you ran. Then, in court, you will have a much better chance of successfully litigating a motion to supress as the police just violated your expectation of privacy and conducted an illegal search.
2.  Don't Throw Things

As a follow-up to the last point, you only maintain an expectation of privacy to items that are in your possession (or, in your personal property such as your house, car, wallet, purse, etc.).  So, if you throw drugs, you are abandoning them and thereby giving up or losing your expectation of privacy. Therefore, unless the police violated your rights prior to you tossing the drugs, the discarded contraband is admissible against you at trial. If you are in possession of a gun, drugs or other contraband and police exit their vehicle but do not indicate that they are investigating you and you drop the illegal item to the ground, you will likely be unsuccessful in litigating a motion to suppress because you gave up your privacy right when you discarded or abandoned the illegal object. So, if police approach you on the street and you are in possession of anything illegal, don’t panic. Do not run and do not try to get rid of the illegal item. Instead, allow police to investigate, frisk and search you. While you will obviously be arrested for possession of drugs or a gun, you will give yourself and your attorney a much greater chance to beat your case by demonstrating that the police violated your rights.

 

1. Don't Hire a Lawyer Who Makes Promises

 

"If I pay you, will you promise to beat my case?" "If I hire you, you'll get the detainer lifted and my boyfriend will come home, right?" These are two questions that I often get about 10 minutes after meeting a prospective client or their family. My answer: "No. I don't make promises about the outcome of cases. What I will promise you is that you will get a diligent, hard-working attorney who will do all he can to fight to protect your rights, use all means at my disposal to defend against your case and communicate with you and your family about the case and all of your options. I will be honest and upfront with you, even if that means giving you an answer you don't want to hear." Amazingly, I sometimes get this response: "But I just met with Lawyer X and she told me that if I pay her, I will win my case." My response: “Was Lawyer X wearing a black robe or a jury badge when you met with her? Of course she wasn't. So, how can she possibly promises you that she'll win the case when the people that decide guilt or innocence, lift detainers, grant motions to suppress are judges and jurors.”

 

Be very wary of lawyers that make promises as to the outcome of a case. Many tell you what you want to hear so you open your wallet. But, when it comes time to serve your sentence, I promise they won't be serving that sentence with you. I will review the discovery, get your side of the story, investigate any possible defense witnesses and explore all possible defenses. I will also give you my advice on the strengths and weaknesses of your case. If, after thoroughly preparing for your case, a pre-trial offer is conveyed by the prosecution, I must convey that offer to you. If you choose not to accept the offer, we will fight the case together. But, I will give you my honest opinion about your case and your chances of winning. If you're looking for promises, you've got the wrong lawyer.

Once Charged, Always Guilty!

We have a strange process in this country where even after a charge is Dismissed, or even worse, is adjudicated Not Guilty, the Dismissal and/or Not Guilty remains on your record. 

Anyone who has a CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) knows, even a Not Guilty or Dismissal from 20 years ago will continue to haunt you for the rest of your life. Try going for a job or applying for a license to carry and see how that Not Guilty or Dismissal is viewed. Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be one of the guiding principles of law in our nation. However the actual application is far closer to, Once charged, always guilty!

Why should an acquitted person continue to suffer the consequence of that charge remaining on your record. Try applying for a job with a record that includes a Not Guilty on a Domestic Assault & Battery or Breaking & Entering. Why should you live with the stigma of the charge after being exonerated. Every prosecuters holds Dismissals and Not Guilty against the defendant when a new charge arises. It is assumed that the Not Guilty was merely the result of hiring the right lawyer. The assumption is that the person committed the crime, they just beat it on a technicality or a sharp lawyer. We have a mentality in this country that you are guilty if charged. 

Some states allow for charges to be "expunged" whereby the charge is permanently removed from your record (CORI). In Massachusetts, although we do have the expungement in the General Laws under M.G.L. c.258, §7, the actual application only applies to very specific situations where the wrong person was wrongly charged. In all other instances, the remedy is "sealing" where although certain segments of the population can no longer see the charge(s), they remain on your CORI.

A little legal humor.

OUI E. Brookfield District Court April 14, 2014

Found on Google+ as Gregory Casale Attorney At Law or on the web at www.LawWorcester.com

 

 

April 14, 2014
OUI - Not Guilty
Negligent Operation - Not Guilty

No Operation Established

Both of the charges OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and Negligent Operation share the common element Operation. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Operated the motor vehicle, as well as the other elements of each charge in order to get a conviction. The case that I tried Monday, April 14, 2014 was in the E. Brookfield District Court (more detail description of the case can be found at my website at http://www.lawworcester.com/CM/CaseSummaries/OUI-DUI-Case.asp . For the purpose of this Blog, I would like to discuss the issue of Operation. 

While it may seem obvious whether or not a defendant was driving, the Operator, in the legal sense is not as cut and dry. For instance, a person may be deemed the Operator of a motor vehicle if the key is in the ignition, even if the car is not started. This could include the person that knows they have had too much, pulls over and shuts the car and sleeps it off.  If the key was left in, he's screwed. On the opposite side of the spectrum of legal license, Operation cannot be proven by the driver's own admission, if not corroborated by independant evidence. So a person admits they were the driver and it's not enough. This is the issue that brought about the Not Guilty verdict on Monday's trial.

Responding to an us identified call, police responded to the site of an accident in which a car had gone off the road and struck a street grader parked on the side of the road. The police report indicated that our client admitted that she was the driver of the car. The report further indicated that two males heard the crash and went to check on the driver. Those two males were never identified by name in the police report. Without them present, no one could testify that they observed our client sitting in the vehicle. Besides her admission ther was no corroborating evidence. The officer never said who the car was registered d too. He never said how soon after the accident they came upon the scene. Nothing such as a still warm hood or engine. In other words, no corroborating evidence. 

We never reached the issues of The other elements of OUI Liquor and Negligent Operation were never adjudicated. It was clear after the close of the Commonwealth's evidence that they had failed to establish the element Operation, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it was impossible for the Commonwealth to prove each element of either charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The client was found not guilty of OUI as well as Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle.

For Case Summaries, Client Testimonials and information on Attorney Casale and more Massachusetts charges, go to Gregory Casale Attorney At Law or on Google+ at google.com/+GregoryCasale

Giant Gets A Pass for Being Obese

Reports that the defendant celebrated wth 5 extra large pizzas with everything could not be confirmed.

Prosecutor v Liam Johnston (2013) H&FLR 2014-1

Prosecutor v Liam Johnston (2013) H&FLR 2014-1

Livingston Sheriff Court (Scotland)

Circa 4 October 2013

Coram: Sheriff Rafferty

Appearing for the prosecutor: Not known

Appearing for the defendant: Alan Jackson (solicitor)

Catchwords: Scotland – fraud – fail to attend – sentencing – arrest

Facts: On four occasions in or about 2013 the defendant bought pizzas valued at about £30.00 each using another person’s credit card.  He pleaded guilty to obtaining goods by fraud.  He was ordered to pay compensation to the relevant Domino’s Pizza outlet (it is unclear why he was not ordered to compensate the card holder) but failed to do so.

The matter was again brought before Livingston Sheriff Court for formal sentencing.  The defendant – whose reported weight was approximately 254 kilos / 560 pounds – did not attend.  Counsel for the defendant advised the Court that he (the defendant) had“extreme difficulty getting out of the house [and] … can’t physically get out of the house even with assistance”.

Held: Semble, that a defendant’s physical size can be a relevant consideration for the Court in considering whether to grant a warrant for their arrest.  Per Sheriff Rafferty: “’It’s only because I can see huge practical difficulties with him being apprehended by the police that I’ll not grant a warrant in this case.”

Judgment

No written judgment available.

Sources: Reports in the Mirror, Daily Mail, and Scotsman.

How do I find a good lawyer?

 

Gregory Casale Attorney At Law

306 Main St.

Worcester, MA 01608

(508) 752-7500

www.LawWorcester.com

gc@attycasale.com

 

How do you hire the right attorney? There are thousands of attorneys in every state. If you Google Criminal Defense Lawyer in MA you will have hundreds if not thousands of options. How do you know what to look for? How do you know if the lawyer you call is qualified. What is their reputation. You can ask your friends and colleagues, but many people do not want their close friends and associates to know of their difficulties. This video will provide some insight to help with this important decision.

Criminal Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts

 

 

 Gregory Casale Attorney At Law

306 Main St.
Worcester, MA 01608
(508) 752-7500
www.lawworcester.com
gc@attycasale.com

A day in the life of a Criminal Defense Lawyer

Gregory Casale Attorney At Law on the Web

Today I represented a 33 year old gentleman who contacted our office after learning that he could not renew his license in the state of New Hampshire because he had a Massachusetts open warrant. Apparently he had charges from 1999 when he lived here in MA that were never resolved.

In 1999 he was charged in the Dudley District Court on one docket for Possession of Class B Drug and Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle, as well as Failure to Wear a Seat Belt and Speeding (2 civil infractions). Back in 1999 the gentleman was stopped for Speeding, which led to a RMV check, which revealed that his license had been suspended. While being placed under arrest Southbridge Police conducted an inventory search of his vehicle and discovered a razor blade and white powder believed to be cocaine.

On a separate date, also in 1999, and charged under a different docket, the same defendant was again charged with Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Failure to use Turn Signal. On this occasion he was stopped by Sturbridge Police for making a right turn without a signal and again when his license status was checked it came back suspended.

In this situation the client benefitted from the amount of time that elapsed. Evidence of the drug had long ago been lost or discarded and the file had insufficient evidence to convict. I was able to have all charges dismissed upon payment of $200 in court costs. The client will now be able to reinstate his license in New Hampshire. The gentleman returned to New Hampshire with a letter indicating that his warrant had been recalled and a docket that showed his charges dismissed. He will now be eligible to have his license reinstated.

Gregory Casale Attorney At Law on Google Plus

 

DUI Lawyer

 Found on the web at Gregory Casale Attorney At Law or on Google+ at Gregory Casale Attorney At Law

 

 

April 7, 2014   Fitchburg District Court

OUI Liquor - Not Guilty

Negligent Operation - Not Guilty

Person Under 21 in Possession of Liquor - Dismissed

Our client, an 18 year old female resident of Clinton MA was stopped for speeding in May of 2013 and subsequently charged with OUI Liquor, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Person Under 21 in Possession of Alcohol, Speeding, Registration Not in Possession and Open Container of Alcohol. Just prior to being clocked for speeding, another driver stopped to inform the officer that our client was driving erratically and had almost struck two pedestrians in the roadway.

The arresting officer testified on Direct Examination that our client was speeding, took off into an apartment complex cul de sac, was eventually stopped and failed Field Sobriety Tests causing him to arrest her. He claimed that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, that she smelled of alcoholic beverage and that she failed Field Sobriety Tests (FST), namely the Alphabet Test, the 9 Step Walk & Turn and the One-Legged Stand.

He claimed that she had no registration in possession, struggled to produce her license, started all FSTs too early, that she recited the alphabet in a manner that was slow and deliberate, that she missed touching her heel to toe on several steps, that she missed the number 15 while counting during the One Legged Stand and that she showed signs of instability throughout the process. He also testified that a  half empty, 1.75liter bottle of Strawberry Vodka was found in her possession.

On Cross-Examination, Attorney Casale was able to elicit that our client was not wearing shoes and that much of her instability was actually simply her finding pavement free of stones or pebbles, that she never staggered or swayed throughout the interactions, that she never slurred her speech, that she actually *passed* the Alphabet Test, that she was able to keep her foot raised longer than the requisite 30 count on the One-Legged Stand, and that although she started each test before being told to do so, that the arresting officer had told her that the test only started when her told her to begin, so this starting early was not part of the testing criteria. The officer also admitted on cross-examination that the bottle of vodka was actually found in the trunk, in a closed backpack owned by someone other than our client. Evidence of the witness was kept out of evidence by Attorney Casale because the officer had failed to secure the witnesses identification and as such was inadmissible hearsay.

At the close of evidence our client was found Not Guilty on the OUI Liquor and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The Possession of Alcohol by a Person Under 21 was Dismissed, she was found Not Responsible for Registration Not in Possession. 

Contact Attorney Casale at (508) 752-7500.

OUI Trial Fitchburg District Court April 7, 2014

Found on Google+ as Gregory Casale Attorney At Law or on the web at www.LawWorcester.com

 

DUI Liquor Person Under 21

April 7, 2014   Fitchburg District Court

OUI Liquor - Not Guilty

Negligent Operation - Not Guilty

Person Under 21 in Possession of Liquor - Dismissed

Our client, an 18 year old female resident of Clinton MA was stopped for speeding in May of 2013 and subsequently charged with OUI Liquor, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Person Under 21 in Possession of Alcohol, Speeding, Registration Not in Possession and Open Container of Alcohol. Just prior to being clocked for speeding, another driver stopped to inform the officer that our client was driving erratically and had almost struck two pedestrians in the roadway.

The arresting officer testified on Direct Examination that our client was speeding, took off into an apartment complex cul de sac, was eventually stopped and failed Field Sobriety Tests causing him to arrest her. He claimed that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, that she smelled of alcoholic beverage and that she failed Field Sobriety Tests (FST), namely the Alphabet Test, the 9 Step Walk & Turn and the One-Legged Stand.

He claimed that she had no registration in possession, struggled to produce her license, started all FSTs too early, that she recited the alphabet in a manner that was slow and deliberate, that she missed touching her heel to toe on several steps, that she missed the number 15 while counting during the One Legged Stand and that she showed signs of instability throughout the process. He also testified that a  half empty, 1.75liter bottle of Strawberry Vodka was found in her possession.

On Cross-Examination, Attorney Casale was able to elicit that our client was not wearing shoes and that much of her instability was actually simply her finding pavement free of stones or pebbles, that she never staggered or swayed throughout the interactions, that she never slurred her speech, that she actually passed the Alphabet Test, that she was able to keep her foot raised longer than the requisite 30 count on the One-Legged Stand, and that although she started each test before being told to do so, that the arresting officer had told her that the test only started when her told her to begin, so this starting early was not part of the testing criteria. The officer also admitted on cross-examination that the bottle of vodka was actually found in the trunk, in a closed backpack owned by someone other than our client. Evidence of the witness was kept out of evidence by Attorney Casale because the officer had failed to secure the witnesses identification and as such was inadmissible hearsay.

At the close of evidence our client was found Not Guilty on the OUI Liquor and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The Possession of Alcohol by a Person Under 21 was Dismissed, she was found Not Responsible for Registration Not in Possession. She was found responsible for the two civil infractions of Open Container and Speeding. These are not Criminal Charges but civil violations.

Read more (45 lines)Show less

OUI/DUI Case Summaries - Law Firm Gregory Casale Attorneys Worcester, Massachusetts