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.