↓
Home Menu ↓
Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
  • Home
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • OUI Defense
      • OUI Penalties
      • Breath Test Failures & Refusals
        • OUI BURDEN OF PROOF
        • DRUNK DRIVING EVIDENCE
        • OUI FAQ’s
        • OUI Drugs
    • ASSAULT
    • Assault and Battery
    • Bad Check Offenses
    • Bench Warrants
    • Motor Vehicle Offenses
    • Juvenile Crime
    • Internet Crime
    • Forgery
    • Drug Charges
    • Disorderly Conduct
    • Concealed Weapons Defense
    • Operating After License Suspended
    • Weapons Charges
    • Violent Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Resisting Arrest
    • Probation Violation
  • Criminal Law Blog
  • Testimonials
  • Past Results
  • Contact

Worcester, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

Law Office of Michael Brothers

Worcester, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

Author Archives: LawOrder

Post navigation

← Older posts

FALSE STATEMENTS AND REFUSAL TO COOPERATE IS NOT ASSISTANCE REQUIRED FOR CHARGE OF ACCESSORY AFTER FACT

Posted on August 11, 2020 by LawOrder

In Commonwealth v. Rivera the Supreme Judicial Court stated that “the defendant’s false statements to the police and refusal to cooperate … did not constitute the ‘aid’ or ‘assistance’ required to find him guilty as an accessory after the fact to … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

VERACITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT UNCERTAIN WHEN ALLEGED CONTROLLED BUY OCCURS IN MULTI-UNIT BUILDING

Posted on March 5, 2020 by LawOrder

Commonwealth v. Ponte  invlolves an affidavit in support of application for search warrant, and the veracity of confidential informant (CI) referred to in the application.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress. … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

SJC ENCOURAGES JUDGES TO ALLOW LAWYERS TO QUESTION POTENTIAL JURORS ABOUT BIAS TOWARD NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING DEFENDANTS

Posted on January 29, 2020 by LawOrder

Before a criminal jury trial, the lawyers for the defense and the prosecution are allowed to ask questions of potential jurors to determine whether they have any particular bias that would prohibit them from being fair and impartial in a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO MAKE ARREST DEFEATS CLAIM THAT ARREST WAS IN RETALIATION FOR SPEECH PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT

Posted on July 2, 2019 by LawOrder

In Nieves v. Bartlett, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in the context of a civil suit pursuant to Civil Rights Statute 42 U.S.C.§1983, that “probable cause to make an arrest defeats a claim that the arrest was in retaliation for speech … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

SJC RULES THAT PROSECUTION WITNESS MAY SIT AT PROSECUTION’S TABLE DURING TRIAL

Posted on May 28, 2019 by LawOrder

In Commonwealth v. Javier (2019), the defendant was tried and convicted of first degree murder, the SJC ruled that the judge did not abuse her discretion in permitting a crucial prosecution witness to sit at the prosecution‟s table throughout the trial. The facts are … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

SJC RULES THAT DOCTRINE THAT VACATES CONVICTION AFTER DEATH NO LONGER APPLIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

Posted on April 8, 2019 by LawOrder

In Commonwealth v. Hernandez the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) decided it will no longer follow  “the common-law doctrine of abatement ab initio, whereby, as was the case here, a criminal conviction is vacated and the indictment is dismissed after the defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES SUPPRESSION OF CONTENTS OF CELL PHONE WHERE DELAY IN OBTAINING WARRANT NOT UNREASONABLE

Posted on November 23, 2018 by LawOrder

In Commonwealth v. Arthur, the Court of Appeals reversed the suppression of the contents of cell phones seized by the police, because the trial  judge erroneously ruled that “the police unreasonably delayed obtaining a warrant to search the contents of” … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

SJC REVERSES TRIAL COURT’S ORDER TO DISCLOSE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT AT PRETRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING

Posted on September 16, 2018 by LawOrder

In Commonwealth v. D.M., the SJC reversed the single justice’s denial of the Commonwealth’s petition for relief from an interlocutory order of the Juvenile Court, requiring the Commonwealth to reveal the identity of an informant. The facts are as follows. “Acting on … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

SUPREME COURT RULES GOVERNMENT MUST OBTAIN WARRANT TO RETRIEVE CELL PHONE TOWER INFORMATION

Posted on July 23, 2018 by LawOrder

In Carpenter v. United States (2018),  the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, the government must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause in order to procure from a telecommunication company the historical cell-site location information (CSLI) … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

SJC SAYS PRETEXTUAL STOP O.K. IF THERE IS ALSO VALID LEGAL JUSTIFICATION

Posted on June 9, 2018 by LawOrder

In Commonwealth v. Buckley (February 14, 20180, the SJC affirmed the lower courts denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress, and “declined to disturb the general rule” set forth in Commonwealth v. Santana(1955), “that a traffic stop constitutes a ‘reasonable’ ‘seizure’ for … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

Post navigation

← Older posts

Worcester, Bristol, Plymouth, Suffolk, Norfolk Counties. Towns: Milford, Uxbridge, Marlborough, Wrentham, Taunton, Attleboro, Blackstone, Boston, Brockton, Dedham, Dudley, Framingham, Hopedale, Franklin, Natick, Wareham, Worcester.

Copyright © 2014 Law Office of Michael J. Brothers. Please read disclaimer below before using this site. Site designed by Social Law Library.
Site photos from www.canstockphoto.com.

This web page may be considered "advertising" under Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:07. The information presented on this page does not constitute legal advice, which can only be rendered after a full consideration of the facts in your case; nor establishes an attorney-client relationship, which can only be done after you and an attorney meet and agree on the terms of that relationship. Likewise, electronic mail to Attorney Michael J. Brothers through this site cannot be guaranteed to be confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Moreover, links to information on this site are for your convenience only and are not an endorsement or recommendation of those sites by Attorney Michael J. Brothers. Attorney Michael J. Brothers does not take any responsibility for information at these linked sites, nor makes any representation or warranty with respect to these sites or the information contained therein.
↑