News

Attorney Post in the News

Several news outlets have written articles about Attorney Post’s work, along with ACLU technologist Paola Villareal, in identifying defendants who were convicted of drug offenses without the Commonwealth ever notifying them that the substances in their cases tested negative for drugs. Articles in the Boston Globe, CommonWealth Magazine, and MassLive.com detailed efforts to vindicate 64 individuals wrongly convicted of 91 drug offenses. We are pleased to report that, in the wake of these revelations, several additional District Attorney’s offices have reached out to indicate their interest in helping correct the 278 additional wrongful convictions outside of Suffolk County that Attorney Post helped identify.

Disturbing a School Abolished Retroactively

On October 29, 2019, Attorney Jellison convinced the Supreme Judicial Court to give retroactive effect to the legislature’s abolition of the offense of “disturbing a school,” including cases that were filed and pending at the time the legislature repealed the offense. Building on Attorney Jellison’s successful advocacy in Lazlo L. v. Commonwealth, the Court held in Commonwealth v. Ashe A. that allowing those cases to still be prosecuted would be “repugnant” to the legislature’s purpose of juvenile justice reform. This offense was a major driver of the school to prison pipeline. Society needs to stop criminalizing children for behaving like children.

Life Without Parole Sentence Reduced

On November 8, Attorney Nathanson convinced the Supreme Judicial Court to reduce his client’s sentence of first degree murder to second degree murder. He had been sentenced to life without parole, but Attorney Nathanson uncovered a series of childhood brain injuries impacting the client’s mental state. Because of this decision, the client will be eligible for parole.

Attorney Post in the Boston Globe on Sonja Farak / Hinton Scandal

Attorney Christopher Post was quoted in today's Boston Globe regarding the Hinton Drug Lab scandal. The Inspector General essentially ignored or underplayed the misconduct of Sonja Farak while she was at Hinton, but she appears to have been worse than Annie Dookhan.

“Attorney Christoper Post ... said the number of drugs she analyzed should have been a red flag for the inspector general...she analyzed more drugs than anyone in the history of the lab 'It’s hard to see how they couldn’t have spotted it.'”

Ten Year Reduction of "Habitual Offender" Sentence

Recently, Attorney Jellison successfully shortened a client's cumulative 30 year sentence by ten years, moving his first parole date up by five years. This client was convicted of two non-violent property-based crimes in the space of six months. Middlesex County tried those cases separately and sought “habitual offender” indictments in both cases. The second trial judge ran the client's mandatory maximum sentences consecutively, leading to a cumulative 30 year sentence. Without the habitual offender statute, guidelines would suggest no more than 6 years of incarceration. Three strikes laws are draconian, and should be examined and abandoned in Massachusetts. It is all too easy for black and brown people who have struggled with poverty and addiction over a lifetime to qualify for devastating and disproportionate sentences. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court provided all relief possible after reviewing the client's offense, age, and current medical condition.

Defendant Never Told of Negative Drug Testing

Atty. Christopher Post also won a new trial and then dismissal for a defendant who was never told that the “drugs” he was convicted of possessing tested negative at the Hinton lab. Police had stopped him, tackled him, and claimed they found crack cocaine. He was subsequently charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine in a school zone. He pleaded guilty quickly to avoid the mandatory minimum school zone charge. While he was serving his sentence, testing at Hinton proved the substance was not drugs, just as he had claimed, but no one ever told him and continued serving his sentence. After the Dookhan and Farak scandals, Atty. Post helped identify similarly situated individuals while at the C.P.C.S. Drug Lab Crisis Litigation Unit. It appears there may be more than 300 similarly situated defendants.

Drug Lab Fallout Continues

The Massachusetts drug lab scandal is by no means over. None of the prior cases decided by the SJC dealt with the fact that disgraced chemist Sonja Farak worked at the Boston-area Hinton drug lab before she was caught stealing drugs and faking results at the Amherst drug lab. Atty. Christopher Post recently won a new trial and dismissal of charges where he showed that Farak’s volume of testing at Hinton at times surpassed Annie Dookhan’s, who was only able to achieve such results through fraud. He also showed that Farak made statements that suggest drug use while she was at the Hinton lab.

A Win Against the Jailing of Children

On May 16, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted the arguments of Attorney Jellison in Commonwealth v. Lazlo L., ruling that continued prosecution of eleven year old children is repugnant to the purposes of the legislature in enacting criminal justice reforms limiting such prosecutions. The prosecution of children is not just cruel, it is empirically bad policy. The prosecution of children has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood of later criminal justice involvement. Further, children this young are precisely those people who are most likely to mature and change. Children should be treated as children.

Amicus Brief: Not Guilty of Accessory to Murder

On May 1, 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered a not guilty verdict for a defendant charged with accessory to murder. On behalf of MACDL and CPCS, Attorney Jellison authored an amicus brief in support of the defendant who was represented by Attorney Jin Ho King of MRDK Law. The witness refused give a phone number, which he had a right to do, and gave evasive answers. He was just scared and wanted to distance himself. The SJC adopted our argument that he didn't provide the killer with a defense or mislead police.

DNA Testing for People on Sex Offender Registry

Attorney Shih just filed a brief on behalf of the Boston Bar Association arguing that people required to register as sex offenders should be permitted to ask for DNA testing to prove their innocence. SORB registration is a significant restraint on liberty and gives them standing to request testing. Read the brief here.

Chris Post to receive MACDL President's Award

We are excited and proud to announce that Attorney Chris Post will be receiving the President’s Award from the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. MACDL will be recognizing Attorney Post along with nine other attorneys who were instrumental in the SJC’s recent decision to vacate thousands of drug convictions tainted by the misconduct of chemist Sonia Farak.

Juvenile Murder Defendants Deserve Individualized Sentencing

On October 22, Attorney Shih filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Boston Bar Association arguing that the automatic imposition of life with the possibility of parole on juveniles without an individualized sentencing hearing violates Art. 26 by precluding consideration of the distinctive characteristics of youth. Given the Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decisions in Lutskov and Perez II, as well as improved scientific understandings of juvenile brain development, “[i]t is a natural progression for this Court to find that art. 26 prohibits the non-discretionary imposition of life with parole for juvenile second-degree murder defendants.” Shih, who also authored the BBA’s brief in Lutskov, said, “We hope the Court will take this moment to recognize recent scientific and legal developments that have improved our understandings of the distinctive characteristics of youth and continue to expand the notion of justice accordingly, to provide the protections constitutionally necessary to ensure that these distinctions are appropriately incorporated into sentencing for juveniles.” Read the brief here.

Another Win Before Sex Offender Registry Board

In a recent administrative decision and after a hearing before the Sex Offender Registry Board, Associate Claire Ward convinced the SORB to reduce the classification of her client from a level 3 (highest risk level) to a level 1 (low risk), and as a result her client’s information, including sensitive personal details like their full name, date of birth, offense, home and work addresses, and photo, will not be disseminated on the internet. This is the second such win for Attorney Ward and her clients in the past three months.

Appellate Win in Eviction Case

In the appeal of an eviction case, Attorney Jellison helped develop issues and write a brief with a team of lawyers working through the Volunteer Lawyers Project. The Appellate Division of the District Court held that the district court judge abused his discretion when he failed to grant a continuance so that the elderly and disabled tenant could obtain counsel and present defenses. The tenant will now have the opportunity for a new hearing.

Sex Offender Registry Board Win

Recently, Attorney Claire Ward succeeded in reducing her elderly client's Sex Offender Registry Board level from Level 3 to Level 1 (the lowest level). Her client, aging and in poor health, had not offended in decades and poses no threat to anyone. Attorney Ward convinced the SORB that the public could be protected without subjecting her client to the barriers to living safely and without discrimination that are posed by public notification.

Consequences of a Conviction Lecture

Attorney Claire Ward is presenting on collateral consequences on Thursday, May 10, 2018 at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education. People charged with crime face so many penalties beyond probation and jail time but many people have no idea how a conviction can really impact their lives. A good attorney will help you anticipate and try to avoid some of these consequences.

Disappointing Decision on Pretextual Stops

We are disappointed in the SJC’s ruling today that pretextual traffic stops are permissible. The opinion expresses concern about the problem of racial profiling and “driving while black.” But in deciding the issues, it emphasizes the difficulties faced by judges asked to decide that a stop was pretextual. In contrast, the opinion gives short shrift to the real world difficulties faced by people who are subjected to pretextual stops. Pretextual stops lead to not just inconvenience, but embarrassment, missed appointments, lost pay, lost jobs, and even lost lives. A judge’s supposed difficulty in deciding whether a stop was pretextual should not outweigh the difficulties of the people of the Commonwealth.