Showing posts with label Criminal lawyer in RI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal lawyer in RI. Show all posts

Friday, December 7, 2012

Post Conviction Relief Case Result

Post Conviction Relief Results by John MacDonald


November, 2012:  Client was ordered removed based upon a 1997 possession of cocaine conviction.  


Client was denied the ability to apply for cancellation on this conviction due to a 1982 breaking and entering charge that constituted an aggravated felony.  Attorney MacDonald filed post-conviction relief in the 1997 matter. 

After a full hearing, the trial judge did not render a decision for over a year.

Not willing to wait, Attorney MacDonald filed post-conviction in the 1982 matter and successfully amended the sentence so that it no longer constituted an aggravated felony.

Client is now eligible to re-open the removal case and apply for cancellation.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Post Conviction Relief Case Result & Client Testimonial

Attorney John MacDonald - Post Conviction Relief Case Results


Post-Conviction:  October, 2012.

Client received a deferred sentence for a criminal solicitation charge in 2007.

At the time of the disposition, client did not have to register as a sex offender.  The law was subsequently changed requiring registration.  Client completed the deferred sentence but was required to wait an additional 10 years to expunge it. 

Attorney MacDonald filed post-conviction relief, vacated the deferred sentence and worked with the Attorney Generals’ office to dismiss the criminal charges. 

Case is now expunged.  

Here is a testimonial from my client’s wife:


Words cannot possibly express my appreciation for what you have done for my family.  We were truly blessed when we found you.  You gave us hope in a hopeless situation.  You helped us when no one else could.  You rescued us; quite literally, saved our lives.  And for that I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Forever Grateful!”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, October 19, 2012

First Degree Sexual Assault in RI Case Result

Sexual Assault Criminal Defense Results by John MacDonald


October 2012: 

Client charged with FIRST DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT by Warwick Police.

Complainant told police she never consented to sexual intercourse with client after a house party because she was passed out.

The attorney general’s office pursued an indictment based upon the complainant being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated and therefore could not consent.

After a 6-day jury trial and three days of deliberation, the jury voted NOT GUILTY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Organized Crime In Rhode Island

Organized Crime

Organized Crime is defined by law enforcement agencies as any continuous, conspiratorial enterprise that engages in illegal activities as a means of generating profits, often referred to as "Black Money".

While the term "organized crime" is often applied to organizations such as the Italian Mafia, individuals do not need to be members of any crime syndicate in order to be arrested and prosecuted for affiliation with such activity.

While Rhode Island is not considered to be a mecca for organized crime, it is still present and operating on various levels throughout the state. Some of the crimes considered to be typical and integral parts of organized crime in Rhode Island include:

Gambling Rings

Many forms of gambling are illegal in most states, however Rhode Island does permit lotteries, Race Tracks and casinos that must conduct themselves in accordance with state regulations. Illegal forms of gambling are still very common and thrive while hidden from public view. While there have been several statutes which have been passed in order to deter this problem, it has not eliminated it.

Prostitution Rings

Although legal in the state of Rhode island between 1980 and 2009, Prostitution has been outlawed once again, and has been an age-old issue in virtually every part of the world. Prostitution has been one of the most lucrative enterprises in nearly all forms of organized crime for as long as it has existed. Even street prostitution has a well-defined structure and anyone charged, or found to have been involved with the operation of that structure on any level may be considered to be a participant in organized crime.

Drug-Dealing

Another crime that has saturated virtually every country in which most recreational substances have been prohibited, drug dealing involves a massive, and intricately run system of checks and balances which are without question; considered organized crime. Like most other states, Rhode Island prosecutors apply every possible means at their disposal to punish offenders to the maximum extent of the law.

Loan-Sharking

Loan sharking is another timeless crime that takes place in virtually every state. Loan sharking involves the dispensing of loans to individuals who are unable to obtain a loan or credit legally, and agree to accept a sum of money with often unreasonable interest rates in addition to unreasonable modes of collection when payments are late or can not be paid in full. Loan-sharking is a business, and includes a pyramid shaped hierarchy that employs violence, thuggery, bribery, threats and even murder in order to maintain its operation.

Consequences

Many of these crimes are subcategories of racketeering and due to their affiliation with organized crime will result in lofty prison sentences and severe fines, in addition to the forfeiture of any profits made by the illegal activity for which an individual is being prosecuted.

If you have been accused of any of these crimes and face the prospect of prosecution, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at (401) 421-1440 now for more information and a free consultation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.


Friday, May 11, 2012

What is Post-Conviction Relief?

Post-Conviction Relief

The Post-conviction relief process is governed by various state and federal laws which essentially allow an eligible individual that has been convicted of a crime to have his or her sentence modified or even removed. This may include a new trial, or a change to the duration of a prison sentence, including elimination of sentence completely. Originally, the post-conviction relief process was intended as a partial replacement for habeas corpus, where a convicted individual's claims that his/her constitutional rights were violated are heard and answered.

Why it is important

One of many consequences that result from a criminal conviction is that of severe collateral damage to reputation, occupation, and damage to personal and social relationships. There is also a risk of being deported or even classified as a sex offender depending on the nature of the crime, and the residency status of the convict. In those times that an individual is found innocent of a crime after being convicted, he or she is eligible for Post-Conviction Relief.

Applying for Post-Conviction Relief

Entering into post-conviction relief involves submitting an application to the Superior Court where you will be able to present any legal arguments pertaining to your request. You will be solely responsible for bearing the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you are entitled to post conviction relief.The court will hear the testimony of any witnesses acting for or against you while also observing any documented evidence you submit.

The process of applying for Post-Conviction Relief is not by any means a simple one and requires the professional assistance of a qualified attorney. If you're applying for Post-Conviction Relief in the state of Rhode Island, please contact RI Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald now at (401) 421-1440 for a free consultation and more information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

EEOC Weighs in on the Use of Criminal Records for Employment Screening

Criminal records and Employment Screening



Updated EEOC Guidance on Criminal Records: Neither the Apocalypse nor the Total Solution

Posted by Vanessa Torres Hernandez , ACLU of Washington

Last week, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance on employers' use of criminal records to screen potential employees. On the day the guidance was published, we applauded the EEOC for helping to balance the civil rights of workers with the legitimate concerns of employers. Now that the dust has settled, some groups have complained that the EEOC guidance creates new law that will prevent employers from ensuring safety in the workplace. Are those criticisms well-founded? In a word: no.

The EEOC's guidance does not create new law. It explains and reaffirms what the law has required for at least two decades. It says, in a nutshell:

1. Employers cannot deny a job simply because a person has been arrested, because an arrest does not prove that a person engaged in any conduct. Instead, an employer must consider all of the facts and give a person the chance to explain before taking action based on an arrest.

2. Employers cannot automatically refuse to consider applications from people with criminal records. Instead, they can develop targeted screens that filter out applicants whose convictions prove they will not be good employees. In developing those screens, employers must take into account at least the nature of the conviction, the particular duties of the job, and the time that has passed since the conviction.

What does that mean, in practical terms? It means that employers can still do background checks, ask potential applicants about criminal history, and screen out applicants whose criminal histories make clear they pose a risk. It simply reminds employers they can't deny everyone who has a criminal record an opportunity to apply for every position.

Importantly, the EEOC explains how employers can structure their hiring to comply with the law. It recommends employers do their homework, and consider carefully the types of questions they ask on applications and the types of records they request. It recommends employers notify applicants who may be denied because of a criminal record and then give the applicant an opportunity to explain and submit additional information before the employer makes its decision. Employers who follow these recommendations are unlikely to violate federal law.

Yet, the EEOC's guidance, while important, does not present a comprehensive solution to the multiple barriers to employment facing people with criminal records. More than 65 million Americans have a criminal record, and over 90 percent of employers report doing background checks on some or all applicants. As the National Consumer Law Center recently highlighted, those background checks are frequently rife with errors. In addition, a growing number of federal, state and municipal employment licensing laws make it harder and harder for people with criminal records to enter a number of professions.

We should applaud the EEOC for its efforts to shine the spotlight on this issue and to enforce existing laws, but continue to fight to remove unfair barriers for people who have moved beyond their pasts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Deferred Sentence Expungements in RI Client Testimonial

Expungement Testimonial for John MacDonald


“I took a 5 year deferred sentence back in 2005. In 2010 I thought my record was expunged as I was previously told it would be after the 5 years only to find out the RI court system had changed its ruling and I was potentially facing, having a record for the following 15 years. I spent the next 2 years trying to get my record expunged to no avail.

It was only when I came into contact with John Macdonald that things started to get better. I hired John and it was about as easy a process as I could imagine. It took about 3 months in total as he had told me and I didn’t even end up having to make a court appearance. I received a telephone call one afternoon only to hear Mr. Macdonald tell me that my record had been expunged.

It was probably the best phone call I think I’ve ever received. The process was quick and easy and almost exactly the way he had stated it was going to be.

Thank you John Macdonald for getting my life back on track!”- Matthew H.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Sexual Assault Convictions

Sexual Assault Convictions

While nearly all crimes may result in a mark on your record, being convicted of a sexual offense may come with particularly grievous consequences which may remain for the rest of your life.
 
Sex crimes are among the most serious offenses and carry mandatory sentences in many states. Sex crimes may not always include rape, and or molestation, however serious consequences may result even from careless verbal or written communication, or physical contact.
 
The definition of sexual assault may vary from state to state, but the term covers a series of universal offenses, and generally includes any assault of a sexual nature, such as touching or groping another individual without consent.

Sadly, one of the most common forms of sexual assault is perpetrated against children in the form of child molestation. Other forms of sexual assault include rape, incest, obscene phone calls or even unwanted online chat messages.

The key to defining sexual assault is the absence of consent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.


Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Post-Conviction Relief Process

Post- Conviction Relief in Rhode Island

Post-conviction relief is a process by which an individual that has been convicted of a crime may request that their conviction or sentence be modified or removed. It may include a new trial, a decrease in sentence or prison term, and even release from prison.

Post-conviction relief proceedings were intended to act as a partial replacement for habeas corpus, in which a court of law reviews a convict's claims that his/her constitutional rights were violated. Often the convicted may refer to a law or court ruling which enables an appeal to a previous conviction which would normally be finalized in the appellate review process. The post-conviction relief process is governed by varying state and federal laws.

Occasionally, severe collateral consequences can occur from a conviction, or to being entered into a guilty or nolo plea, such as being deported or even classified as a sex offender. These kinds of consequences can be devastating for anyone, especially for those in the teaching, medical, and even legal professions.

The process of entering into post-conviction relief entails submitting an application to the Superior Court. It will also involve a hearing where the defendant may call witnesses to testify, and attempt to present any legal arguments made to the Court.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Expungement with Deferred Sentence in RI

More Expungement Results from John MacDonald

March 2012

Client received a deferred sentence 7 years ago.  He tried to expunge it but was told that that he must wait an additional ten years. 

Attorney MacDonald was retained to file post-conviction relief and vacate the plea.

A post conviction relief petition was filed and after hearing, plea is vacated, charge dismissed and the matter sealed from his criminal history. 

Client now has the clean criminal history he was promised when he agreed to the deferred sentence.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Domestic Violence Case Results

John MacDonald Case Results

January, 2012:

Client was convicted in the District Court of violating a no-contact order. 

This conviction constituted a crime of domestic violence for purposes of the client’s military career.

Client was subject to separation procedures from the armed services.

Attorney MacDonald was retained to file post-conviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.  This petition was granted in November of 2011 and the criminal case was formally dismissed and expunged in January of 2012. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

If you are charged with theft in Rhode Island

Theft in Rhode Island


Theft is a crime that can occur in different ways, however, it is most commonly defined as deceitfully or forcefully claiming ownership over property that you know does not legally belong to you.

Common stolen property includes items like currency, vehicles, art, jewelry, music, and pharmaceutical drugs.

Being arrested for theft is a serious crime and can include prison time and fines based upon the severity of the theft.

Once you are reported to the authorities as having been involved in a theft, a warrant for your arrest will be issued and you will be picked up by the authorities. This may include the police showing up at your home, and even your workplace.

It is important for anyone charged with theft to familiarize themselves with the laws in their state, and contact a criminal defense attorney immediately.


Sentences for theft in the State of Rhode Island depends upon the value of the amount stolen and whether or not the crime included violence toward another person. In some cases, even the location of the theft matters and will play a direct role in your charges. For example, if you commit theft on school property, a place of worship, or a government facility, it may increase a misdemeanor charge to a felony.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Domestic Assault Case Result

John MacDonald Criminal Case Results

January, 2012:

Client charged with domestic assault.

Dismissed by the City Solicitor at trial. 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Probation Violations in RI

Probation Violations

The criminal justice system incorporates a variety of practices in order to deal with a vast array of criminal offenses. One of these practices is known as probation, a sentence which acts as an alternative to long term confinement however, places the convict under court supervision.

During this period, the convicted individual must act in a manner approved by a special officer to whom the person must report regularly, commonly referred to as a probation officer.

What happens if you violate the terms of your probation?

Probation violation is a crime, and it occurs with even a mild infraction of the terms and conditions of your probation. The legal consequences of probation violation vary from case to case, and often depend upon the nature and severity of the violation, prior violations, and the original offense for which probation was initially sentenced.

The penalties for violating probation may include:  extended probation, heavy fines, and even prison time. Although in most cases the penalty will be appropriate for the nature of the offense. The laws regarding probation violation vary from state to state and include many of the same terms and conditions; which can not be ignored, refused, or broken, without consequence.
  
Common situations involving probation violations include:
  • Failing to report to your probation officer
  • Failing to appear in court
  • Failing to make court-ordered payments
  • Traveling to people or destinations for which you have been ordered to cease contact
  • Using drugs or alcohol against the orders of the court
  • Committing a crime while on probation
  • Warning or Request to Appear in Court
If you are facing probation violation charges, it is helpful to know what your rights are, and to seek adequate legal council to present your case on your behalf. You have the right to receive an official written notice explaining the charges against you. You are also entitled to attorney representation, including the chance to present evidence and/or  witnesses in support of your case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Deportations Punitive for Lawful Permanent Residents with Criminal Convictions?

Excellent piece on deportations involving permanent residents who have had a criminal conviction and the implications of Padilla v. Kentucky. 


Maddali on Recognizing the Punitive Nature of Deportations and the Need for Procedural Protections under Padilla v. Kentucky

Maddali, Anita - Northern Illinois University CoLAnita Ortiz Maddali (Northern Illinois University College of Law) has posted Padilla v. Kentucky: A New Chapter in Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Whether Deportation Constitutes Punishment for Lawful Permanent Residents? (American University Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In this Article, I argue that the deportation of lawful permanent residents on account of a criminal conviction is punitive, and therefore enhanced constitutional protections must be afforded to lawful permanent residents during removal proceedings. To support this argument I rely, in part, on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. The Padilla Court held that counsel must inform a client when a plea carries the risk of deportation. The Court’s analysis throughout the decision is groundbreaking in its recognition of the modern day realities of deportation - specifically the growing relationship between the immigration and criminal justice systems and the ways in which criminal convictions and deportation have become enmeshed over the years. The Court’s language provides support for the argument that deportation may not be a remedial exercise by the government to enforce immigration laws - as the Court has held for over a century - but may in fact constitute punishment. If deportation is recognized as punishment, then additional constitutional protections, like the right to counsel, must be afforded to lawful permanent residents who are in removal proceedings on account of criminal convictions.

This Article is novel in two respects. First, it offers a fresh look at the punitive nature of deportation, using the Padilla decision, and other case law, to bolster this argument. Second, this Article suggests that the analytical approach used by the Supreme Court in its juvenile delinquency jurisprudence, which extended greater constitutional protections to juveniles during the adjudicative stage of delinquency proceedings, could provide the framework for determining which protections should be afforded to lawful permanent residents who are in removal proceedings on account of a criminal conviction. Like deportation, juvenile delinquency proceedings have been labeled civil, but the Court has recognized that because a finding of delinquency could result in incarceration, the Due Process

Clause requires additional protections during these proceedings. Similarly, lawful permanent residents face the risk of being removed from their country of permanent residence—this results in separation from family and removal from a person’s home. As such, due process requires the need for additional protections.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Lawyer Jailed in Contempt After Taking Fifth

"Law Firm Says Judge Jailed Defense Attorney for Telling Client to Take the Fifth at His Arraignment"


by Martha Neil

A Michigan criminal defense lawyer spent about four hours in jail on Friday after being held in contempt for telling a client to assert his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination at his arraignment.

Attorney Scott Millard, 29, who works for Miel & Carr, was supposed to be jailed until Monday. However, he was released Friday after Ottawa County Circuit Judge Edward Post issued an emergency stay of Hudsonville District Court Judge Kenneth Post's contempt order, according to the Grand Rapids Press and the Holland Sentinel.

The articles don't explain whether the two judges are related to each other.

Post apparently had sought information about the 20-year-old client's drug use to determine appropriate bond conditions. However, Millard reportedly told him not to answer, because he might incriminate himself.
Read more HERE

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Providence Drug Crime Arrest Leads to Federal Conviction

The following news release by US Attorney for the District of RI Peter F. Neronha details the facts and ruling in a case involving a drug trafficking crime in Providence. 


U.S. Department of Justice
Peter F. Neronha
United States Attorney
District of Rhode Island
December 9, 2011

Armed Career Criminal Convicted on Federal Drug Trafficking & Firearms Charges; Faces up to Life in Federal Prison

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A Providence man previously convicted of numerous crimes of violence including drug trafficking crimes was convicted on Thursday by a federal jury in Providence of trafficking heroin and crack cocaine, being in possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Shelton Smalls, 42, faces up to life in federal prison when he is sentenced by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi on March 2, 2012.
Smalls’ conviction was announced by United States Attorney Peter F. Neronha and Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven M. Pare.
According to testimony presented to the jury during a two-day trial, on April 26, 2011, detectives assigned to the Providence Police Department Narcotics and Organized Crime Bureau were conducting surveillance in a restaurant parking lot where drug dealing was believed to be prevalent. Detectives watched as a person sitting in a parked vehicle exited his vehicle and got into Smalls’ vehicle moments after Smalls arrived. In a meeting that lasted less than 30 seconds, detectives say they witnessed what they believed to be a drug transaction when Smalls provided what appeared to be small packets in exchange for cash.
Immediately after the transaction was completed, the person exited Smalls’ vehicle while placing the purchased items into a pants pocket. He then walked directly into the restaurant and into a restroom followed by an undercover detective. He voluntarily retrieved packets of heroin and crack cocaine that he had just purchased from Smalls from his pocket and turned them over to the detective. While he was being taken into custody, the arresting detective notified detectives outside the restaurant who then approached and placed Smalls into custody. Smalls later admitted to police that he had additional drugs stored at his residence.
Smalls voluntarily accompanied police to his residence where he provided access to an apartment where his wife and children were located and then into an upstairs apartment he was also using. In the upstairs apartment detectives discovered a .357 revolver and a .22 caliber handgun in a laundry basket; and then located heroin, crack cocaine, $1,300 in cash and assorted drug trafficking supplies in a safe to which Smalls also provided access. Detectives had already seized $853 in cash from Small’s pockets.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gerard B. Sullivan and Leslie J. Kane.
The matter was investigated by the Providence Police Department with the assistance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

"Troy Davis and the History of Injustice in America"


Troy Davis and the History of Injustice in America

E.D. Kain
September 20, 2011


The history of justice in America is pocked with such deep institutional injustices that time and again we make a mockery of the word. From slavery to the War on Drugs, the powerful have trampled time and again on the weak.

Law and order masquerade as justice, and our prisons fill to the brim with young men, mostly black and Hispanic, mostly poor. Meanwhile, inner cities lie like sunken ruins across the wealthiest nation in the history of civilization, stomped upon by drug warriors and poverty and violence.

And though we accept the limitations of our government and of the good judgment of our leaders, we nevertheless believe in the infallibility of this system we call justice, but which is not justice, to hand down the most final sort of judgment a man could ever know.

Troy Davis, convicted over two decades ago of killing an off-duty cop, though much doubt has been cast upon his guilt and the methods which police and prosecutors used to secure his conviction, will be executed by the state of Georgia tomorrow. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has denied him clemency, and there are no other avenues left to save him.

In the end, I am not concerned so much with whether or not Davis is guilty or innocent. I am concerned with the uncertainty of his guilt. “I’m not for blood. I’m for justice,” said the mother of the slain police officer. But we extract one or the other, not both. In a case where the blood may be that of an innocent, how can we call it justice?

Death is tragic. The death of Mark MacPhail is a tragedy that will never be undone. Not by blood, not by prison bars, not by time, not by proof that Davis is guilty or proof that he is innocent. But if we have even a glimmer of doubt about his guilt, there will be no justice in his death. If we have even a hint of uncertainty over whether this man did the deeds he was accused of, but which most of his accusers have since recanted, we should stay his execution.

But the history of justice in America is scarred across by such tragedies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Do mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases work?

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences are imposed in drug crimes to attempt to convey the seriousness of the crimes to those involved, and to bring together the gaps in the sentences issued from state to state by Judges who were allowed to determine the sentence on a per case basis, up to the maximum penalty allowed. The question then, is are these mandatory guidelines actually working to deter criminal drug activity?

Supporters of mandatory sentencing laws state that they are definitely doing their job, yet those who work for defendant's rights state that these results are skewed and do not take pre-trial decisions into account. The argument being that when an accused is facing a heavier sentence than they deserve, prosecutors and defense attorneys work together to achieve a fairer outcome in the pre-trial stage, thus negating the mandatory minimum sentence entirely.

All sides agree however, that mandatory minimum sentencing laws have brought everyone to the same place in terms of state to state sentences for drug crimes. There are no longer lenient states and harsh states when it comes to drug crimes. Whether you commit the crime in Alaska or Florida, you're going to have the same sentence imposed.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, the Untold Story of ‘Conviction’

Ineffective Counsel - The Kenneth Waters Story


In 1983, after a five-day jury trial in Middlesex County Superior Court, Kenneth Waters was convicted of the first-degree murder and armed robbery of Katharina Brow. He was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. However, if Waters’ lawyer had done his job in the first place, he probably would have never been convicted.

‘Conviction’ is a powerful film about the undaunted dedication of Betty Anne Waters in proving her brother’s innocence. Hilary Swank plays the lead role of Betty Anne, a sister who literally dedicates her life to exonerating her brother Kenny from an unjust murder conviction. Despite being a single mother with two young boys, at her brother’s insistence, Betty Anne enrolls at CCRI and eventually completes her bachelor’s degree at Rhode Island College and law degree at Roger Williams University Law School. During law school, she learned about DNA testing and the work of the Innocence Project in exonerating individuals wrongfully convicted of crimes.

In November of 1998, Betty Anne wrote to the Innocence Project requesting assistance in her brother’s case. After locating the blood evidence still stored in the basement of the Middlesex Courthouse, Betty Anne secured the assistance of the Innocence Project to test the blood evidence which later determined that the DNA of the perpetrator did not match Waters. Kenny Waters was released from prison in 2001.

I first learned about Betty Anne Waters seven years ago when she was the guest speaker at the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ annual meeting. Betty Anne told this very powerful story about with such amazing grace and humility. I sat in wonder over her absolute dedication to her brother’s cause, a dedication that spanned over two decades. I also couldn’t help think about the mistakes made by Waters’ defense counsel that led to his conviction. Recently, Betty Anne was kind enough to sit down and relate to me some lessons of her brother’s case that that all defense attorneys should be aware of.

“My family and I visited all of the top lawyers in the area, including F. Lee Bailey, but they all wanted a huge sum of money, up to fifty thousand dollars, just to get started,” remarked Betty Anne. “In my family, no one had graduated college and we had no money. We wanted to raise the funds but Kenny did not want the family spending money on a lawyer for a crime he didn’t commit.”

Throughout his case, Waters was represented by an experienced court-appointed attorney. “He seemed to have a command of the courtroom and told us that he had tried many murder cases, so we trusted him” noted Betty Anne. However, in the 28 years that elapsed since her brother’s conviction, Betty Anne learned that this attorney never properly investigated this case and was completely ineffective in obtaining available evidence that proved his innocence.

Kenny Waters was not convicted based upon eye-witness identification, forensic evidence or a confession to police. Instead, he was convicted primarily as a result of the testimony of two ex-girlfriends, both of which testified that Waters admitted to them that he had killed Katharina Brow. Their testimony, along with Waters’ failure to prove his alibi defense, was enough to convict him of first-degree murder with extreme atrocity and sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was heard and denied in 1987.
While DNA testing eventually cleared Waters, if his defense counsel had done his job in the first place, he probably would have never been convicted.

During grand jury proceedings, officials from the Ayer Police testified that no usable latent prints were recovered from the crime scene. Yet no defense motions were ever filed to confirm this testimony. In fact, Massachusetts State Police had recovered several usable latent prints from the crime scene that were identified as belonging to the perpetrator. These prints were compared with the prints of several suspects, including Waters, and he was excluded as the source. The evidence that Waters was innocent of this crime was in existence in 1980. It did not require the development of DNA testing 18 years later.

“I asked the retired State Police BCI Detective why he never came forward with this evidence, knowing full well that it proved that Kenny did not commit this murder. He told me he never thought to since he heard that Kenny had admitted to the murder,” said Betty Anne. It took over two decades and a civil action subpoena to produce the box of latent prints and test results that were still stored in the detective’s personal storage unit. When recovered, they proved that the Massachusetts State Police had already excluded Waters as a source of the perpetrator’s prints long before he was ever charged. It also proved that members of the Ayer Police Department were well aware of these results prior to charging him. These shocking findings helped secure a civil judgment against the town of Ayer.

The bottom line is that Waters’ trial lawyer never demanded an independent inspection of the latent prints recovered from the crime scene. Instead, he simply took the word of a police officer testifying under oath at a grand jury that no usable latent prints existed. If Waters’ attorney had demanded to inspect and test the prints, he would have discovered that they were not only usable, they exonerated his client. The so-called admissions testified to by Waters’ ex-girlfriends were later discarded by the District Attorney’s office in the face of compelling DNA evidence. This decision could have taken place two decades earlier in light of the fingerprint evidence. Without question, a jury verdict of not-guilty would have been much more probable.

To those of us in the criminal defense bar, the lessons of Kenny Waters’ conviction cannot be clearer. We simply cannot accept at face value the claims of police, state experts or for that matter, state prosecutors. (Interestingly enough, the former district attorney who tried this case, now a Massachusetts judge, later testified at deposition that she was unaware of what a latent print was). We must, without exception, separately investigate and verify all available evidence. If Kenny Waters’ original trial lawyer had done so, he probably would not have spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

Copyright June 2011 @ John MacDonald, Esquire


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.