Jellison & Nathanson, LLP is delighted to welcome Shayla J. Mombeleur to the firm as our lead trial associate. Attorney Mombeleur joins J&N with three years of mainly white collar federal and state trial defense experience at Todd & Weld and five-years of experience as a public defender with the Committee for Public Counsel Services.
Attorney Mombeleur's hiring marks a new chapter for J&N, which has been a go-to firm for post-conviction litigation and university disciplinary proceedings for adults and adolescents for the past decade under its previous name, Wood & Nathanson, LLP. Attorney Mombeleur will help to grow the trial practice arm of the firm with the backing of some of the best appellate lawyers in the Commonwealth for record preservation issues and pleading support. Attorney Mombeleur will also bring her experience as a trial attorney and creativity to support our general post-conviction litigation practice.
J&N is also excited and proud that we can include Attorney Mombeleur in our ranks because of her fierce advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion, her proven leadership in the Massachusetts Bar Association, and her deep commitment to addressing the broken criminal legal system which disparately affects those who are poor and of other minority identities.
Watch this space for more information and Attorney Mombeleur’s bio coming soon!
Attorney Jellison was recently named as one of the 40 Best LGBTQ+ Lawyers Under 40 by the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association. This recognition is given to attorneys “under the age of 40 who have distinguished themselves in their field and have demonstrated a profound commitment to LGBTQ+ equality.” Attorney Jellison was the author of the arguments that established sexual orientation as a protected class under the Massachusetts constitution and banned discriminatory peremptory strikes on the basis of sexual orientation. Beyond the courtroom, Attorney Jellison is Co-Chair of the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association, is its liaison to the Superior Court, and was the co-chair of its Committee for Transgender Inclusion from 2014-2020. She is also a member of the SJC Standing Committee on Lawyer Wellbeing's Subcommittee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Small and Medium Size Firms.
We could not be prouder to have her co-lead our firm.
On March 19, 2025, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers presented Attorney Ramos with the Hines Burnham Award. The award is given in recognition of exceptional service, skill and innovation in the defense of the accused by an attorney practicing for ten years or less. Melissa has recently either been lead or second chair in cases that resulted in the overturning of a second-degree murder conviction, a jury verdict of manslaughter where the defendant was charged with first-degree murder, and the entering of a not guilty finding on appeal of a conviction for a restraining order violation. She also recently helped two clients convicted of extremely serious offenses successfully petition for parole. The Hines-Burnham Award is named for two trailblazing African-American women criminal defense lawyers who advanced the profession and excelled for their clients. Attorney Ramos is the continuation of that proud tradition.
Attorney Alpert recently submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of the Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services urging that a child’s first minor misdemeanor offense must always be dismissed. The legislature had clearly required this, creating this legislation based on data showing that any involvement with the criminal system increases a child’s chances of offending later on. But here, the government had charged a more serious offense, not just a minor misdemeanor. After a trial, the jury found that the child committed only a minor misdemeanor but the government still sought to have the child sentenced. The SJC agreed with the child and adopted the position advocated by Attorney Alpert and other amici: the minor misdemeanor must be dismissed after trial.
On November 21, 2024, Attorney Manlapaz presented a lecture to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on litigating Brady violations (suppressed exculpatory evidence) . He suggested strategies for both identifying and compelling the disclosure of exculpatory evidence where the prosecution has failed in its duty to disclose such evidence.
Attorney Fullerton along with MACDL Board Member Eduardo Masferrer recently helped convince the Supreme Judicial Court to reject the Commonwealth’s attempt to disqualify a prominent defense attorney from her client’s case. In Commonwealth v. Monteiro, the Commonwealth had alleged that the attorney had an unwaivable conflict of interest even though the attorney had followed the rules precisely. She disclosed the conflict to the client, obtained a written waiver of the conflict, and provided a copy to the Court. The attorney-client relationship is the foundation of zealous defense. We are gratified that the Court recognized the correctness of Attorney Fullerton’s arguments and refused to interfere in the attorney’s proper representation of her client.
On April 27, 2023, Attorney Ramos spoke at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education’s 2023 Criminal Law Conference. Her topic was no small task: summarize the year in criminal law in one hour and fifteen minutes. She and her co-presenter Attorney Nicholas Morris got attendees up to speed on topics as varied as cell site location information and juror misconduct. Attorney Ramos’s broad and up to date knowledge of criminal law is a true asset to the firm and our clients.
Attorneys Jellison and Alpert are zealous defenders of children ensnared in the criminal justice system. They are widely recognized as leading experts on protecting the constitutional rights of young people in Massachusetts courts. For example, Attorney Jellison convinced the SJC to dismiss all cases in Massachusetts against children under 12 that were already filed when the Legislature raised the age of the jurisdiction for the juvenile court. And Attorney Alpert convinced the Appeals Court that the widely-used juvenile probation condition “comply with DYS” violated separation of powers. Click below to read more about their track record of successfully defending children.
On April 11, 2022 Attorney Caroline Alpert convinced the Supreme Judicial Court to ban the prosecutorial practice of manipulating continuances past a juvenile’s eighteenth birthday for the sole purpose of obtaining more punishment. If a juvenile is sentenced while seventeen or younger, Massachusetts statutes prohibit punishing (“rehabilitating”) them beyond their eighteenth birthday. If sentenced after their eighteenth birthday, they can be committed to DYS until nineteen. Some Massachusetts prosecutors were moving to continue sentencing past the juvenile’s eighteenth birthday in order obtain longer commitments. The SJC prohibited this kind of manipulation, requiring prosecutors to prove by clear and convincing evidence at an evidentiary hearing that continued commitment is “necessary for the rehabilitation of the juvenile.” Read the opinion here.
On August 16, 2021, Attorney Nathanson along with Attorney Jellison convinced the Supreme Judicial Court to issue a landmark ruling banning discrimination against LGBTQ and Black jurors in jury selection. Attorney Nathanson and Attorney Jellison convinced the SJC to go beyond its Goodridge gay marriage decision and rule that LGBTQ persons are part of a constitutionally protected class. Further, the SJC reversed our clients’ convictions because the trial judge failed to protect Black jurors from discrimination. The judge repeatedly ruled that there were enough Black jurors on the jury, so the prosecutor was not discriminating in striking other Black jurors. But in heavily minority communities like Boston, this is an open invitation to discrimination by allowing just enough Black jurors onto the jury and excluding all others, even if they are qualified. In a strong concurrence, SJC Justice Lowy argued that prosecutors should always have to explain their juror strikes if a defendant objects. A powerful and persuasive amicus brief was filed by GLAD, Black and Pink MA, and the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Racial Justice.
Recently, Attorney Jellison successfully defended a juvenile in disciplinary proceedings initiated by an amateur athletic organization. The juvenile was not involved in any misconduct, and Attorney Jellison's careful investigation revealed ample exculpatory evidence and the misunderstanding that resulted in accusation of her client. Because of this careful work, Attorney Jellison was able to end the proceedings without the need for a stressful evidentiary hearing for her young client.
On February 24, 2021, Attorney Alpert convinced the Appeals Court to vacate her client’s probation violation in Commonwealth v. Quigley Q. for failing to “comply with DYS requirements and conditions of liberty.” This condition of the juvenile’s probation violated art. 30 (separation of powers). Probation is a judiciary power and it may not be delegated to the executive branch (here, DYS). Instead of specifying terms of probation, the condition left the juvenile subject to the whims of DYS. Further, when a juvenile (or an adult) is in jeopardy of losing their liberty, they are entitled to know exactly what actions will cause the loss of liberty. These concerns equally apply to pre-trial conditions of bail. Although unpublished, this is a significant win because this unconstitutional condition of probation is commonly imposed in juvenile courts across Massachusetts.
On September 9, 2020, Attorney Jellison appeared in the first day of SJC Zoom arguments asking the Court to affirm a juvenile court's order granting her client credit for the time he spent in pretrial detention against the confined portion of his DYS commitment. Attorney Jellison's client spent 6 months in pretrial detention. Adults receive credit for the time they spend in correctional facilities pretrial against custodial sentences. For juveniles, however, this time is dead time. DYS does not use all of its rehabilitative tools in pretrial detention, and the time is not deducted from post-adjudication confinement. Confinement in a jail-like setting is profoundly damaging to youths' well-being. And pretrial detention burdens the exercise of important pre-trial and trial rights. Further, the youth most likely to be held pretrial and suffer these harms are the Commonwealth's most vulnerable: Black, Hispanic and/or Latino, and multi-system youth. Hopefully the SJC will see the policy against pretrial detention credit as unfair and take steps to provide credit to youth.
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.
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.
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 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.'”
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.
Attorney Jellison was recently elected the Massachusetts LBTQ Bar Association Board of Directors. Attorney Jellison is also the co-chair of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Committee for Transgender Inclusion .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Attorney Jellison recently filed an amicus brief in the case of Michelle Carter, a juvenile convicted of manslaughter for texts sent to her boyfriend. The brief argues that juvenile conduct should be judged by a “reasonable juvenile” standard, not a “reasonable adult” standard. Read the brief here.
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.
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.
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.