Based on Attorney Nathanson's 2016 presentation to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, our new blog post provides creative ideas for mostly free online legal and scientific research.
Post-Conviction Discovery Lecture
On March 24, 2017, Attorney Nathanson spoke at the Advanced Post-Conviction Litigation Seminar of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He spoke regarding post-conviction discovery, including the government's obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland as well as strategies for litigation under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(c)(4).
Motion To Suppress Upheld by Appeals Court
Guilty Plea Vacated Due to Immigration Consequences
On January 5, 2017, Attorney Nathanson convinced a judge to vacate our client's guilty pleas to drug trafficking because his trial attorney failed to advise him that a plea to drug distribution would make him automatically deportable under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). Attention to immigration consequences is essential in defending a criminal case.
Freedom in Federal Court
On December 19, 2016, Attorney Nathanson and Attorney Shih secured the release of our client who had been serving a 15 year federal sentence for possession of a machine gun. Using the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the client’s sentence was reduced to time served with probation. They were able to convince the judge that, given the client's exemplary progress in prison and family support, he should be allowed to go directly home instead of a halfway house. Attorneys Nathanson and Shih helped the client create and practice what the judge called "one of the best allocutions I've ever heard."
Model Homicide Instructions
Cell Site Location Information
Criminal Law Update
Courts Should Use Reasonable Juvenile Standard
On March 21, Attorney Jellison submitted an amicus brief in a manslaughter case on behalf of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the ACLU arguing that juvenile brain science should lead courts to evaluate juveniles' conduct under a reasonable juvenile standard. Read the brief here.
Habeas Corpus Lecture
Harvard Law School Lecture
Right to Counsel During Interrogation
In Commonwealth v. Celester, Attorney Wood, working with a team from Ropes & Gray, convinced the SJC that his client, charged with murder, had received ineffective assistance of counsel when his original attorney instructed him to give a statement to police without having done any investigation. Read the opinion.
Expanding the Right to Counsel
In a first-degree murder case, Attorney Wood convinced the Supreme Judicial Court that criminal defendants should have the right to effective assistance of counsel when making a statement to police, even before they are charged. Read the opinion here.
Anonymous Tips Not Reliable
On January 5, 2016, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the arguments made by Attorney Wood and a team from Goodwin Proctor on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. It held in Commonwealth v. DePiero that anonymous tips are not inherently reliable and may not form the basis for a lawful stop, search or arrest, rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's contrary ruling in Navarette v. California.
Entitled to Defend Her Child
On December 7, 2015, Attorney Jellison convinced a trial judge to grant her client a new trial. The client had been convicted of hitting a family member who was trying to remove the client's child from the home. Regardless of whether the fault lay with the judge or the trial attorney, the jurors were never told that they could acquit the client because she was entitled to defend both her child and her home.
Insanity Instructions Changed
Based on arguments developed by Attorney Nathanson, the Supreme Judicial Court changed the required jury instructions for insanity cases. Jurors now must be told that a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity could be committed to a mental hospital for the rest of their lives, addressing juror fears that dangerous people will be released. Read the new decision here based on Attorney Nathanson's prior arguments.
Necessity Defense for Homeless People
Attorney Wood, working on behalf of MACDL, drafted an amicus brief with a team from Ropes & Gray, the ACLU and CPCS, in Commonwealth v. Magadini arguing that a homeless person was entitled to present a necessity defense when charged with trespassing on private property to seek shelter from dangerous winter conditions. The case will be argued before the SJC in December.
Medical Marijuana Brief
On October 19, Attorney Jellison assisted by Attorney Nathanson filed an amicus brief in Commonwealth v. Vargas, No. SJC-11895, arguing that people in Massachusetts have a constitutional right to obtain treatment with medical marijuana where the voters approved such treatment. People on probation should not be put in jail for exercising this right. Read the brief here.
DNA Testing 42 Years Later
On November 3, Justice Duffly of the SJC affirmed an order granting the defendant's motion for DNA testing of a stamp admitted into evidence at our client's trial 42 years ago. Attorney Wood and Attorney Jellison persuaded Justice Duffly that the Commonwealth's appeal was untimely and meritless. This is one of the first instances in which a defendant has successfully obtained testing of evidence under G.L. c. 278A since its passage in 2012.