Thursday, July 7, 2011

RICO Act and Criminal Racketeering Laws

Criminal Racketeering and RICO

Criminal racketeering is the act of making money in a legitimate business by a criminal organization. This kind of illegal activity is covered in the RICO laws (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization), and allows for the seizure of all of the assets belonging to the organization.

The objective of these kinds of laws is to eliminate any sources of income for criminal organizations to use to perpetuate criminal activity.

While the Federal RICO Act was enacted in 1970, state governments have since enacted their own sets of RICO laws which allow plaintiff's to bring civil suits against defendants for injuries or damages sustained in criminal violations against them. Similar to the criminal Victim's Compensation Act, however plaintiffs in the state mandated RICO cases are allowed judgments up to three times the actual amount of damages sustained. The state RICO laws further differ from their Federal counter-parts in the statute of limitations, the expanse of criminal activities included in the laws, easier established elements, and recovery of damages that are non-existent in the Federal version.

In order for a crime charged under the RICO Act to be proven, the government must show that there was in fact an established business; that the enterprise affected interstate commerce and trade; that the person accused was involved or had knowledge of the enterprise, either as an associate, employee, or other involved party; that the defendant was further involved in a pattern of activity that could fall under the RICO/Racketeering Laws; and that at least two acts of racketeering were participated in by the defendant, while involved in and participating with the enterprise in question.

The criteria and burden of proof in a RICO case is very high for the government, and adherence to the various statute of limitations and proper gathering of evidence are critical to establishing a solid defensive case. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help establish the facts surrounding any accusations, and prepare a defense in your favor.


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.



Saturday, June 25, 2011

Immigration Attorney in RI

Testimonial from an Immigration Client

We are typically very involved in the lives of our clients during the handling of their defense or family court matters. Friends and family are sometimes moved to share their recommendations...

“Mr. MacDonald is a man of his word. He did everything he said he would and in a timely manner. I am so happy we hired his services to help my friend stay in the United States. I highly recommend him to anyone who has criminal convictions that may result in deportation.”

 ~ John Q.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Immigration Charges Dismissed in Removal Matter

Immigration Attorney John MacDonald announces the dismissal of all charges in immigration matter against his client.


FACTS: Client in removal proceedings based upon a 2005 conviction for a Rhode Island domestic assault.

Client needed this plea vacated because he could not qualify for cancellation of removal.

RESULTS: On May 12, 2011, both the plea and conviction were vacated based upon defects in the plea colloquy.

On June 22, 2011, all criminal charges were dismissed by the City prosecutor at pre-trial and the client’s removal proceedings were terminated.

Client is now eligible to pursue citizenship.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, June 20, 2011

Juvenile Behavior and Peer-to-Peer Sexual Assault

When are Teens Crossing the Line With Sex?

With society and the media pushing sexuality around every corner, from advertisements to commercials and television programming, it can be difficult as a teenager and pre-teen to understand and recognize where normal flirtatious behavior ends and sexual assault begins.

A very good rule of thumb and the main message that must be conveyed to all teens is learning that “No!,” Means No, and that saying “No”, is the best way to avoid further confrontations of any kind.

If you are more concerned with losing a friend than you are with protecting yourself from unwanted sexual attention, then you're not getting the right message.

That being said, there are some clear cut delineations that determine what age-appropriate sexual behavior looks and feels like, and what the courts and law enforcement consider a sexual assault.

Age appropriate sexual behavior for juveniles 8 to 12 year olds consists of:

  • Occasional masturbation
  • Show me yours/I'll show you mine with peers
  • Kissing and flirting
  • Genital or reproduction conversations with peers
  • Dirty words or jokes with peer group*

Age appropriate sexual behavior for juveniles from ages 13 to 18 consists of:

  • Sexually explicit conversations with peers
  • Obscenities and jokes within the cultural norm
  • Sexual innuendo and flirting
  • Solitary masturbation
  • Kissing, hugging, holding hands
  • Foreplay with mutual informed consent and peer aged partner
  • Sexual intercourse plus full range of sexual activity*
These behaviors become a cause for concern when they become in any way aggressive, or are one-sided, with the other party expressing discomfort or disinterest. Additionally, behaviors in children of these age groups that involves pornography, compulsive sexual behaviors, invasion of personal body space of peers, groping or unwanted fondling, sexually aggressive or explicit language or taunts and insults, sexual contact or aggression with those outside peer group or younger children, and any kind of forced sexual behavior.

If your teenager or pre-teen exhibits any of these behaviors, you need to seek professional counseling at once. It may not be that they themselves have been the ones assaulting others, they themselves may also be a victim of sexual abuse in some form if they are acting out in this way.

*Source for sexual behavior information at http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/family/12/369/5


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, June 10, 2011

Federal Criminal Discovery Rules Changing

Discover Changes

In criminal defense matters, nothing is more important to the client’s case than the quality of the information you receive from the state. The current situation very often involves late or missing discovery and hinders adequate representation of clients charged criminally in the process. The following article discusses the proposed changes to the discovery law being contemplated on the Federal level and what that would mean for criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors in particular.

Federal Judiciary Divided Over Changing Criminal Discovery Rule

Federal judges are divided over the necessity to change the rules of criminal procedure to put a greater emphasis and burden on prosecutors to turn over favorable information to defense lawyers, a Federal Judicial Center report concluded.

The center, the research arm of the judiciary, surveyed all U.S. Attorney’s Offices, thousands of defense lawyers and federal and magistrate judges to assess the merits of a proposed amendment to Rule 16, which governs discovery in criminal cases.

The FJC said 43% of about 1,500 judges completed the online survey, which was conducted last year. Eighty-five of the 93 U.S. Attorney’s Offices participated in the review. More than 5,000 private criminal defense lawyers and federal public defenders provided their assessment.

The judiciary was evenly split on the need for amending the rule. But judges in districts with local rules or standing orders that require broader disclosure of information than what’s required in Rule 16 indicated greater support for a rule change than other judges in the judiciary. The Justice Department opposed a rule change. More than 90% of the defense lawyers who responded favored a change.
The two most frequent disclosure violations among prosecutors, judges reported, were the failure to provide favorable information on time and the scope of the disclosure to the defense.

Judges also reported they rarely hold an attorney in contempt and infrequently report a prosecutor’s conduct to the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, bar counsel or other disciplinary body.
The survey also said that more than 60% of judges said they did not have a case in the past five years in which a prosecutor or defense lawyer failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

In 2009, Judge Emmet Sullivan of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote to the Judicial Conference criminal rules committee asking the group of lawyers, judges and law professors to reassess, for a second time in recent years, an amendment to the rule.

Sullivan was the trial judge who oversaw the Justice Department’s botched prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Sullivan called the Stevens case one of the most shocking examples of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen during his time on the bench.

DOJ officials tout what they call a "comprehensive" approach to discovery reform in arguing against a rule change.

The department early last year issued new discovery guidance to all federal prosecutors. The memos, issued by then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, encouraged “broad and early” discovery.

Also, the department announced its intent to provide more training for prosecutors.
Copyright Mike Scarcella

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Defending Sexual Abuse Allegations

Why Boilerplate Criminal Defense Will Not Work in These Cases

Most criminal defense attorneys, and excellent ones at that, typically follow a standard set of guidelines when it comes to criminally defending clients. After being retained by the client, the attorney will request discovery from the state. Filing a Motion for Discovery grants them access to everything and anything the state has by way of evidence against their client.

An investigation by the attorney is conducted using private sources, interviewing witnesses, taking statements or other discovery related work in preparation for defending their client. Once the attorney has amassed the discovery, both from the state and their own investigations, some will read it at length, others will not, and depending upon the type of case they are representing, this practice is also common and acceptable.

During the next phase of traditional criminal defense preparation, there is a period of time where the attorney and client must wait for the trial to commence. The basic belief is that the longer the wait the better as witness memories tend to fade, cases grow weak, and new evidence may come to bear in light of a client's innocence. So this is again, a normal practice, and a situation where most criminal defense attorneys take some time just immediately prior to trial and prepare their case.

In the case of sexual abuse allegations however, the period between arrest and trial is one of the most dangerous for the client. Not only is there a potential for information to shift and change as in the traditional model of criminal defense, but there is a higher than normal risk that a child accuser can be coached into either adding or changing their claims, enhancing or supporting their initial allegations and/or lending further credibility to their story. Witnesses can still grow dim in their recollections with increased time between arrest and trial, however their testimony may be more important in proving the innocence of the client than in other types of criminal cases.

The differences between the emotional involvement of prosecutors, witnesses, alleged victims, law enforcement and social services in sexual abuse situations versus other kinds of criminal matters is substantial and definitely cause for concern. This is the main reason that hiring a criminal defense attorney who has significant experience in handling high profile cases and sexual assault matters is important as a defendant in one of these situations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.