662 F.3d 18 (2011) (distribution of cocaine)
Exclusion of the defendant’s friends and family likely violated his right to a public trial. The defendant was entitled to a new hearing where he could prove this because he was denied an attorney at the prior hearing.
80 Mass.App.Ct. 43 (2011) (second degree murder)
Exclusion of the defendant’s friends and family during jury selection violated the defendant’s right to a public trial.
456 Mass. 94 (2010) (extortion)
Our amicus (friend of the court) brief helped persuade the Supreme Judicial Court that the exclusion of spectators during jury selection violated the right to a public trial. This is a landmark case on the right to a public trial in Massachusetts.
75 Mass.App.Ct. 1112 (2009) (distribution of cocaine)
Admission of a “drug certificate” violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.
74 Mass.App.Ct. 16 (2009) (contempt)
The trial judge could not hold the defendant in contempt because she did not personally see him make threatening gestures in the courtroom.
Norfolk Superior Court (2008) (first degree murder)
The motion for a new trial was allowed because the prosecutor's closing argument gave unsworn testimony that went to a critical issue in the case, improperly vouched for a key Commonwealth witness, and improperly argued that a witness feared testifying against the defendant.
445 Mass. 446 (2005) (violation of probation)
Our amicus brief helped persuade the Supreme Judicial Court that the judge had no power to extend the defendant’s probation because it had already expired.
543 U.S. 462 (2005) (possession of a firearm)
The United States Supreme Court ruled that once a trial judge has ruled that the defendant is not guilty, even before the case goes to the jury, the trial judge cannot reconsider the not guilty finding. That violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
443 Mass. 649 (2005) (manslaughter)
Jurors should hear evidence of the “victim’s” past history of violence because it could prove that the deceased was the aggressor and the defendant acted in self-defense. This was a radical change in the Massachusetts law of self-defense.
17 Mass. L. Rep. 308 (2004) (extortion)
A protestor’s extremely strident statements on a picket line were protected by the First Amendment and the indictment must be dismissed.
438 Mass. 444 (2003) (armed robbery)
Limitation on cross-examination of witness regarding whether his identification of was tainted violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.
55 Mass. App. Ct. 691 (2002) (rape of a child)
The prosecution used a psychologist as an expert on the characteristics of sexually abused children. The testimony unfairly bolstered the complainant's credibility by improperly telling the jury that the defendant fit the "profile" of a likely child abuser. The conviction was reversed and the Commonwealth dropped the charges.
218 F. Supp. 2d 26 (2002) (masked armed robbery)
The prosecutor’s outrageous conduct in closing argument, calling himself a choirboy and saying the defendant did not get the presumption of innocence, infected the trial with unfairness.
53 Mass.App.Ct. 685 (2002) (armed robbery)
The defendant was entitled to display his tattoos to the jury to show that he had been misidentified. Because the judge refused to allow this, he was entitled to a new trial.
52 Mass.App.Ct. 25 (2001) (attempted murder, solicitation of felony)
The defendant was recorded recruiting undercover informants to kill someone. The evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant of attempted murder.
49 Mass. App. Ct. 827 (2000) (armed robbery)
The jury should have been told that the prosecutor’s failure to call crucial witnesses could be held against the Commonwealth.
50 Mass. App. Ct. 312 (2000) (armed home invasion).
Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request that the jury be told that consent was a defense to home invasion.