Archives June 2024

An Hour with Isaac Wright Jr. Examining the Realities of the Justice System

Isaac Wright Jr., the lawyer whose life story inspired the hit TV series For Life, took us on an incredible behind-the-scenes journey and shared his extraordinary experience from wrongful conviction to practicing law. Hosted by Ron Alexander, Spokesman of The Legal Advocacy & Education Commission (The LAEC), this event provided valuable insights into the making of For Life and the challenges faced by those caught in the underbelly of the criminal justice system. Join us as we delve deeper into the realities of the justice system and explore the intricate mind and thought process of an exceptional man of justice.

Key Takeaways:

• Isaac Wright Jr.’s Remarkable Journey: Isaac’s life story, which spans from wrongful conviction to practicing law, is an awe-inspiring testament to his strength and unwavering resolve.
• Behind-the-Scenes Insights: The TV show For Life accurately portrays some realities of the justice system, emphasizing the importance of solid evidence and the impact of wrongful convictions on families.
• Exploring Corruption: The show effectively exposes the complexities of the prison system and the power dynamics that can lead to corruption among prison custody guards and inmates.
• Prosecutors and Justice: Isaac discusses complex issues of whether prosecutors seek justice or convictions and highlights the need for a more nuanced and adaptable approach to justice that considers individual circumstances and focuses on rehabilitation.

Isaac Wright Jr.: A Journey from Injustice to Advocacy

Isaac Wright Jr.’s life story is nothing short of extraordinary. Wrongfully convicted in 1991 on drug trafficking charges, he faced an uncertain future due to a series of misconducts by police and prosecutors. His journey from being wrongly incarcerated to becoming a legal advocate and practicing attorney is a testament to his resilience and determination.

The TV series For Life, starring Nicholas Pinnock and co-executive produced by American rapper 50 Cent, vividly portrays Isaac’s life through the character of Aaron Wallace. This show brings to light the complexities of the justice system and the personal toll of wrongful convictions on individuals and their families.

Behind-the-Scenes Realities of the Justice System

In one of the scenes discussed during our event, Aaron Wallace secures a retrial. Isaac provided a fascinating perspective on the scene’s accuracy, noting that while the emotions were authentic, the series producers dramatized certain story elements for entertainment. In reality, the judge overturned his conviction due to a police confession, which was a truly miraculous turn of events.

Isaac emphasized the importance of presenting solid evidence to convince a judge to overturn a significant conviction and sentence. He also highlighted the impact of wrongful convictions on families, underscoring the need to address the collateral damage caused by the absence of a loved one.

Navigating the Prison System

Another powerful scene depicted Aaron representing himself and his cellmate in a prison hearing, highlighting many realities prisoners face in the justice system. Isaac explained that while the producers and writers worked together to dramatize this scene, the concept of prisoners representing themselves in hearings for serious infractions accurately reflects the prison’s reality.

He shed light on the hierarchical structure of the prison system, where inmates, guards, and administrators coexist, often leading to complicated relationships. Isaac’s involvement as a prison paralegal, even assisting fellow inmates on death row, revealed the harsh realities of prison life that For Life aims to portray.

Highlighting Corruption Found in the Prisons

Isaac provided unique insights into a scene where Guard Captain Foster makes a deal with an inmate, Cassius Dawkins, played by 50 Cent. This scene effectively showcases how criminal elements can thrive within the prison system, and 50 Cent’s understanding of street dynamics added authenticity to his portrayal.

Isaac emphasized the power dynamics between the prison custody guards (Guard Captain Foster) and inmates and how these relationships can lead to corruption. For Life succeeds in exposing these complex realities within the criminal justice system.

The Harsh Realities of the Courtrooms 

In this heart-wrenching scene, Aaron’s prison transport gets rerouted, leading to his late arrival for a court appearance. He faces many obstacles, including unavailable witnesses and testimony changes, all orchestrated by the government to protect their interests.

Isaac highlighted the government’s obsession with winning cases, often at the expense of justice. He explained that court victories could lead to the erosion of fundamental rights for all citizens, as demonstrated in this scene. For Life effectively conveys the government’s relentless pursuit of conviction, even when faced with compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction.

Next, we allowed our audience to ask questions, resulting in a profound and enlightening conversation.

Unpacking Prosecutors’ Philosophies of Justice

Isaac Wright Jr. began by addressing whether prosecutors seek justice or convictions. He acknowledged that it is a complex issue, emphasizing that most prosecutors genuinely seek justice but may have different interpretations of what that means. Some view justice as securing the harshest punishment possible, while others prioritize securing convictions at any cost. This divergence in perspectives often leads to a skewed understanding of justice.

According to Wright, justice should be nuanced and adaptable while considering the individual’s circumstances, background, and future. The “one size fits all” approach to justice is inherently flawed, as it does not consider the complexities of each case. Isaac Wright Jr. stressed the importance of understanding that many nonviolent crimes stem from socioeconomic disparities and a lack of opportunities, and thus, justice should focus on rehabilitation and addressing root causes rather than punitive measures.

Isaac Wright Jr.’s Personal Realities of the Justice System

Isaac also shared his journey of being wrongfully convicted and representing himself in court. He described how, at the time, many defense attorneys were urging him to accept a twenty-year plea deal, even though he was innocent. The systemic corruption and manipulation within the criminal justice system left him feeling isolated and alone. Faced with a lengthy prison sentence, he chose to represent himself.

Isaac’s decision to represent himself was a desire to control his destiny and protect his innocence. While in prison, he discovered his passion for the law, which led him to become an attorney.

The Impact of Incarceration on Families

Throughout our event, Isaac highlighted the devastating impact of incarceration on families. He stressed that when a family member gets locked up, their entire family can also feel the consequences. The absence of a loved one and the family’s financial burdens can be overwhelming. He encouraged incarcerated individuals to minimize the impact on their families by staying connected and fulfilling their parental responsibilities to the best of their abilities.

Potential Realities of Restorative Justice and Prison Reform

Isaac Wright Jr. expressed the need for a paradigm shift away from punitive measures and toward a system that allows individuals to take accountability for their actions and make amends. He emphasized that the current prison system in the United States has become a lucrative industry, allowing industries to benefit from high incarceration rates. He proposed a model where inmates can earn an income while in prison, which ensures they have financial stability upon release.

Isaac advocated for prisoners to contribute positively to society during their sentences, whether through education, work, or other productive activities. This approach would reduce recidivism rates and allow individuals to repay their debts to society.

Supporting The LAEC and Advocating for Reform

Isaac Wright Jr. is excited about joining The LAEC as the Director of Advocacy. He highlighted our organization’s unique focus on educating the public about the realities of the justice system and its commitment to preventing felony convictions. Our marquee program, the First-Time Offender Program, aims to provide support and resources to those facing legal challenges. He encouraged the audience to support The LAEC’s mission and get personally involved in criminal justice reform efforts, emphasizing the importance of diversity in legal representation and the need for a more just and equitable system.

Shedding Light on the Justice System

Isaac Wright Jr.’s journey, as vividly portrayed in For Life, offers viewers a unique perspective on the criminal justice system. It exposes the corruption, flaws, and obsession with winning that can lead to wrongful convictions. Through our event, Isaac provided valuable insights into the accuracy of the series’ scenes, offering a glimpse into the harsh realities of prison life and the complexities of seeking justice.

For Life is a powerful platform for raising awareness about the challenges faced by those within the justice system, both behind bars and in the courtroom. Isaac’s journey from incarceration to advocacy is a testament to the power of resilience and the importance of fighting for justice, even when the odds seem insurmountable.

The show reminds us of how the power of storytelling can play in unveiling the realities of the justice system and its injustices within our society. For Life inspires viewers to question the status quo and advocate for a fair and equitable justice system. Isaac’s journey serves as a beacon of hope, showing that even in the darkest times, justice will ultimately prevail for those who seek it.

What Preventative Measures Are Available For First-Time Offenders

Imagine finding yourself or a loved one facing felony charges for the very first time. It is a scary situation, and the stress of uncertainty can feel overwhelming. But take heart, for there is always hope and a clear, unbroken path for you to turn your situation around. The LAEC specializes in criminal justice reform, and we understand the unique challenges many first-time offenders face. 

Our primary focus is to create a safer, more equitable society by helping to repair the broken path to justice through support and education. We are not here to judge somebody who has made a past mistake. We are here to help provide preventative measures for first-time offenders to reclaim their lives and move forward.

A Second Chance Opportunity For First-Time Offenders

First and foremost, let’s clarify what we mean by “first-time offenders.” This term refers to individuals charged and accused of a criminal offense without a prior conviction. For these individuals, there is often a glimmer of leniency when it comes to sentencing for nonviolent crimes, given their lack of criminal history. Occasionally, first-time offenders may even be eligible for alternative sentencing programs that can help them rebuild their lives. However, these programs have specific requirements that can vary by jurisdiction. 

To help you navigate this challenging situation, we have developed a comprehensive First-Time Offender Program tailored to assist you or your loved one have a second chance in life. In this article, The LAEC will delve into the program’s details, address frequently asked questions, and offer guidance on preventative measures that can significantly impact your future.

The First-Time Offender Program as a Preventative Measure Option

Our First-Time Offender Program provides you or your loved ones the best achievable chance at a fresh start. It consists of three essential components:

The Safety Assessment: Evaluating Your Community Risk

When it comes to legal matters, especially for first-time offenders, it is vital to understand your community risk. The Safety Assessment, the first component of our program, includes a written evaluation of your circumstances. This assessment, performed by our team of professionals, takes a comprehensive look at your background and current situation to determine if you or your loved one poses any threat to our society. This Safety Assessment provides the clarity and transparency needed to make informed decisions.

The Five-Year Plan: Charting Your Path to Redemption

The Five-Year Plan is the blueprint for maintaining your rights as free citizens. It outlines the goals and aspirations that you or your loved one would like to achieve. This plan should align with what is in your Safety Assessment. This step is critical because it allows the presiding judge to examine your goals and objectives alongside the evidence to substantiate the direction of your Five-Year Plan. It is a crucial step in demonstrating your commitment to change.

The Life Coaching: Guiding and Holding Ourselves Accountable

Our First-Time Offender Program is about guidance and accountability. Ensuring you or your loved one stays on track to meet the short and long-term goals outlined in your Five-Year Plan, we offer mentorship with certified life coaches and reentry experts. They will evaluate your plan and follow up with you continuously to keep track of your progress.

We can not emphasize enough how crucial ongoing support is in your or your loved ones’ journey. Life coaches can provide the guidance and encouragement needed to make real progress.

Frequently Asked Questions For First-Time Offenders

Here are some of the most pressing questions that many first-time offenders often have:

How can being a first-time offender affect my case?

In many state courts, when someone is a first-time offender, there is typically a possibility of reducing a more lenient sentence or finding an alternative to persecution. This leniency is due to the individual’s initial encounter with the legal system and the enrollee’s lack of a prior criminal record.

The Federal First Offenders Act can also offer hope to first-time offenders. Those who qualify may complete a probation period to have their charges dismissed.

We once witnessed a first-time offender in federal court complete the probation period successfully and turn their life around. It is a second chance that can make a difference in someone’s life.

How will my Constitutional rights be affected by a conviction?

Fortunately, the impact on Constitutional rights varies by state. For example, in California, which is relatively progressive in this area, convicted felons retain many of their Constitutional rights. As of November 2020, convicted felons and those on parole gained the right to vote. That same year, California passed a bill allowing individuals with prior convictions to serve on juries.

However, one Constitutional right significantly affected by a conviction is the right to bear arms. Individuals with prior felony convictions cannot own or possess a gun. Some misdemeanors result in a 10-year prohibition against firearm ownership, while others can lead to a lifetime ban. Losing the right to bear arms can be a profound consequence of a conviction.

How will my conviction affect my employment or future opportunities?

The repercussions of a conviction on employment and future opportunities can vary greatly depending on their career. First-time offenders must familiarize themselves with their employer’s arrest and conviction policies. If you hold a professional license, such as a nursing or teaching license, be aware that your association’s policies can also differ.

The good news is that some major companies, including Amazon, American Airlines, McDonald’s, Microsoft, and Starbucks, are open to hiring convicted felons. It is a testament to these companies’ belief in second chances.

We have witnessed many individuals with previous convictions turn their lives around and secure employment with reputable companies many times before. It is proof that determination and effort can lead to a brighter future.

What are some accessible and free resources available to California residents?

California residents have access to several programs aimed at helping ex-offenders rebuild their lives:

We have seen the transformative power of these programs in many lives. They provide valuable opportunities to learn and grow.

What are the eligibility requirements to join The LAEC’s First-Time Offender Program?

To be eligible for our program, you or your loved one must meet the following criteria:

• Have no prior misdemeanors or felony convictions.
• Be willing to enroll in the entire program, including the Safety Assessment, the Five-Year Plan, and the Life Coaching Program.

Meeting these criteria is the first step towards a new beginning. It is a chance to prove that you are committed to positive change.

Preventive Measures For First-Time Offenders

Facing legal consequences for the first time is a challenging experience, but it does not have to define the rest of your life or your loved ones’ lives. You and your family deserve a second chance to make amends, grow, and move forward. The LAEC is here to help you create a new chapter marked by success and personal growth.

Taking Your First Step Towards Building Your New Future:

We invite you to apply for our First-Time Offender Program. During a confidential consultation, we will discuss your case in detail, answer any questions you may have, and determine if our program is appropriate for your needs. Remember, this initial conversation is entirely risk-free.

Taking your first step toward change can be the most challenging, but it is also the most rewarding. Your journey to a brighter future begins with a single decision.

Your Shining Beacon of Hope

We want you to know that you are not alone in this journey. As a nonprofit organization dedicated to criminal justice reform, we are committed to offering support, resources, and a second chance to first-time offenders. The preventative measures The LAEC has outlined here can help first-time offenders navigate this challenging chapter in their lives.

The road to redemption may be long, but it is not impossible. With the proper guidance, support, and commitment to change, we can help you build a brighter future. Your second chance starts now.

Contextualizing Critical Criminal Justice Reform Statistics

The criminal justice system, as we know it, extends far beyond the confines of courtrooms and correctional facilities. It is a pervasive force that molds our society’s values, principles, and, regrettably, injustices. 

At The Legal Advocacy & Education Commission (The LAEC), our mission is to create a safer, more equitable society by helping to repair the broken path to justice through support and education. Comprised of dedicated individuals who work tirelessly to enact change in a system that affects millions daily, our urgency of reform is more necessary than before.

Throughout this enlightening article, we will explore the intricate world of criminal justice reform statistics to uncover 12 shocking facts — revelations that will astonish, ignite, and inspire you to stand with us. As you immerse yourself in these eye-opening statistics, we invite you to join our collective journey toward a more accountable, compassionate, and equitable criminal justice landscape.

1. The United States Incarceration Rate

Many criminal justice reform statistics reveal that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We hold approximately 2 million individuals behind bars located in 98 federal prisons, 1,566 state prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,323 juvenile correctional facilities, 80 Indian country jails, and 181 immigration detention facilities, as well as holding people in civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, military prisons, and prisons in U.S. territories. 

The U.S. currently outpaces countries with much larger populations. To put this staggering figure into perspective, we incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation, at an alarming rate of 565 per 100,000 residents. 

Social Impacts on Incarcerated Individuals

Our shockingly high incarceration rate has significant social consequences for various communities. Family systems broke apart for extended periods, missing important life milestones. Our children grow up with their parents behind bars, facing numerous emotional and economic challenges. Marginalized communities bear the brunt of this mass incarceration, leading to an endless cycle of disenfranchisement, instability, and poverty.

2. Statistics on Racial Disparity in Incarceration

One of the most concerning aspects of our criminal justice system is the glaring racial disparities in incarceration. According to criminal justice reform statistics, the overrepresentation of Black and Latine individuals in prisons and jails is unsettling. 

In particular, Black Americans are five times more likely to be incarcerated than their White American peers. For Latine Americans, the rate is 1.3 times more likely to be incarcerated than White Americans. While the United States boasts a diverse and multicultural society, these disparities demonstrate a systemic bias that has persisted for decades.

Examining Root Causes

Understanding the root causes of racial disparities in incarceration requires a comprehensive examination of our criminal justice system. It is not merely a matter of differences in the crime rates. It is a complex interplay of socioeconomic factors, biased policing practices, and systemic discrimination.

One critical element is the socioeconomic disparities that persist in the United States. Communities of color often face limited access to high-quality education, healthcare, and economic advancements. These disparities can lead to higher involvement in criminal activities due to a lack of alternative options for success.

3. The High Cost of Incarceration and Its Economic Impacts

Criminal justice reform statistics paint a sobering picture of the financial burden of the U.S. criminal justice system. The cost of incarceration is not merely a line item in government budgets. It represents a worrisome and ever-increasing expense that ordinary taxpayers shoulder.

The price of maintaining the U.S. prison system is astronomical. Recent data reveals that we spend $182 billion annually on correctional facilities, staff salaries, inmates’ healthcare programs, and related expenses. On average, it costs over $106,000 to keep a single inmate behind bars in California annually, far exceeding the fees of attending a full year at an in-state law school (Stanford Law School costs about $73,713, not including late-night beer and ramen noodles).

Economic Impacts on Incarcerated Individuals

The financial implications of high incarceration rates extend beyond the direct costs of operating our prisons and jails. Communities with elevated incarceration rates often suffer economic consequences. When a significant portion of our population is in the prison system, it can lead to decreased employee levels in our workforce, reduced consumer spending, and a steep decline in local property values.

Furthermore, the burden of funding the criminal justice system falls heavily on taxpayers. The allocation of substantial funds to incarceration leaves less money available for investments in our education, mental health services, addiction treatment, and other preventive measures that can alleviate the need for imprisonment in the first place.

4. Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences have been one of the most controversial aspects of our criminal justice system. Our policies mandate that individuals convicted of certain offenses receive fixed, predetermined sentences, often without the possibility of parole or early release. While proponents argue that mandatory minimums deter crime and ensure consistency in sentencing, critics contend that they have contributed to diverse, underlying problems within the system.

Mandatory minimum sentences gained prominence during the “War on Drugs” era in the 1980s and 1990s. Legislators at the time believed that imposing strict punishments would deter drug-related offenses and protect communities. However, criminal justice reform statistics reveal these policies have had unintended consequences.

Immediate Impact on Prison Populations

Mandatory minimums have contributed to the overcrowding of prisons and jails. Criminal justice reform statistics demonstrate that a substantial portion of the incarcerated population consists of individuals serving sentences of ten or more years. 

A Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) task force published a report stating that almost two-thirds (63%) of state prisoners last year served sentences of ten or more years, up from 46% and 56% in 2005 and 2019, respectively. The U.S. incarcerated population (80%) serving these long sentences reside in state prisons.

Overcrowding the prison system strains our existing resources and makes it extremely difficult for us to provide rehabilitation and support services to these prison inmates.

5. For-Profit Prisons and Controversies Surrounding Them

Private, for-profit prisons account for just about 8% (96,370 inmates back in 2021) of our total incarcerated population in the United States. For-profit or private prisons are correctional facilities operated by private companies or contractors rather than governmental agencies. These companies are often motivated by profit, leading to concerns about its impact on the criminal justice system. While proponents argue that they reduce costs, criminal justice reform statistics suggest otherwise.

Controversies Surrounding For-Profit Prisons

The operation of for-profit prisons has generated considerable debate, and multiple criminal justice reform statistics and case studies reveal several contentious issues:

Money-Making Machine

Critics argue that the profit motive inherent in for-profit prisons can create perverse incentives. These institutions may prioritize filling out beds with a constant inflow of inmates to maximize revenue, potentially leading to concerns about overcrowding and the quality of care for inmates.

Treatment of Inmates

Reports of inadequate healthcare, subpar living conditions, and allegations of mistreatment in for-profit prisons have raised serious concerns. Critics argue that cost-cutting measures can compromise the well-being and safety of inmates.

Lack of Transparency

The for-profit prison system is often less transparent than our government-run facilities. Public oversight can be limited, making it challenging to assess conditions, monitor rehabilitation efforts, or hold institutions accountable for any potential abuses and liabilities that may occur.

6. Pretrial Detention and Its Ineffectiveness

We often find ourselves in pretrial detention, unable to afford bail. Criminal justice reform data indicate that this system disproportionately affects low-income defendants, leading to overcrowded jails. People in marginalized communities are more likely to be assigned cash bail than their counterparts in affluent neighborhoods. Bail amounts for Black and Latino men are approximately 35% and 19% higher than those designated for their white colleagues for similar crimes committed, respectively.

Ineffectiveness of the Cash Bail System

The cash bail system is a significant factor in pretrial detention. Under our organization, individuals must pay a specified amount of fines to secure their release before trial. Those who can not afford bail remain behind bars. Critics argue that our practice criminalizes poverty and undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

7. Criminal Justice Reform Statistics on Overcriminalization

Overcriminalization is a growing issue in the United States, resulting in an estimated 70 – 100 million Americans – roughly 1 in 3 people – who have an incarceration, conviction, or arrest on their criminal record. Criminal justice reform data and reporting show that an increasing number of minor offenses can result in criminal charges, leading to the unnecessary involvement of the criminal justice system in our lives.

There are over 4,450 crimes scattered throughout our federal criminal code, along with an unspecified number of federal regulatory criminal provisions. No one in the United States knows the exact number of existing federal regulations in the national criminal codes. Our addiction to criminalization backlogs the judiciary, overflowing the prison systems.

Expanding the Definition of Crimes

One of the critical aspects of overcriminalization is broadening our definition of crimes. Many actions once considered civil matters or regulatory violations are now classified as severe criminal offenses. Our broadening of the criminal code has contributed to a significant increase in criminal laws on the books.

8. Three-Strikes Laws and Their Harsher Penalties

The U.S. three-strikes laws gained prominence in the 1990s as part of the “tough-on-crime” era. Our initial intention behind these laws was to prevent repeat offenders and enhance public safety by imposing harsh penalties on those who continued to commit crimes. 

These laws impose mandatory sentences of life imprisonment for individuals convicted of a third felony, often irrespective of the severity of the third offense. While proponents argue that three-strikes laws are necessary to deter repeat offenders, critics contend our three-strikes laws have led to additional problems within the system.

Harsher Penalties for Minor Offenses

One of the most significant criticisms of three-strikes laws is that they can result in overly harsh penalties for relatively minor offenses. Various criminal justice reform statistics reveal several cases where offenders received life sentences for non-violent infractions, such as shoplifting, food theft, or drug possession. 

An infamous case in the three-strike laws was a Californian man who received up to 25 years sentence for stealing a pair of socks worth $2.50 from an out-of-business Mervyns store. This type of instance has raised concerns about proportionality and fairness in sentencing.

9. Juvenile Justice System and Its Flaws

Our juvenile justice system, meant to rehabilitate young offenders, often falls short of this lofty goal. Criminal justice reform case studies indicate that juveniles often receive harsher penalties, such as lengthy sentences in adult facilities, that can have long-lasting, devastating consequences for their futures, impeding their ability to reintegrate into society and become productive adults. 

Justice System’s Flaws Facing Juveniles

Racial disparities can also persist within the juvenile justice system, similar to the racial overrepresentation experienced in the adult criminal justice system. Young people of color are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system, facing arrest, detention, and harsher sentences at much higher rates than their white peers. Addressing these disparities is essential for achieving a more equitable system.

10. Collateral Consequences and Their Impact

Criminal convictions often result in collateral consequences, extending far beyond prison sentences. Criminal justice reform statistics reveal that formerly incarcerated individuals face difficulties finding employment and housing, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and recidivism.

Limiting Advancement For Opportunities

Employment Barriers

One of the most significant collateral consequences is the barrier to employment that individuals with criminal records often face. Criminal justice reform statistics show that 9 out of 10 employers conduct background checks, and a criminal record can lead to rejection from job opportunities. This scenario can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and increase the risk of recidivism.

Housing Challenges

Individuals with criminal records may encounter difficulties securing safe and stable housing. Many landlords conduct background checks, and a criminal history can result in denied applications or eviction, even for minor offenses.

Financial Consequences

Collateral consequences can also have financial implications. Individuals may be ineligible for government-backed assistance, including student loans and public housing. This example can limit their ability to pursue education and find affordable housing.

In addition, researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice found that over 7 million formerly incarcerated Americans have seen their subsequent earnings reduced by an average of 52%. In total, Americans with previous criminal convictions experience lost wages of over $372 billion every year.

Loss of Civil Rights

Some collateral consequences result in the loss of certain civil rights. For example, individuals with felony convictions may lose their right to vote or own firearms in some jurisdictions.

11. Rehabilitation vs. Punishment Debate

The debate between rehabilitation and punishment is at the heart of criminal justice reform. Research and criminal justice reform statistics and facts consistently show that rehabilitation-focused approaches are more effective in reducing recidivism.

The Philosophical Showdown

The Case For Rehabilitation

Many proponents of rehabilitation argue that the primary goal of the criminal justice system should be to reform offenders and address the root causes of criminal behavior. This approach views criminal conduct as a consequence of various factors, such as social, economic, and psychological circumstances.

Rehabilitation aims to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. To address the underlying issues of criminal behavior, rehabilitation advocates argue individuals can become law-abiding and productive members of society.

The Case For Punishment

On the other hand, punitive measure proponents assert that the criminal justice system should prioritize deterrence and retribution. This perspective sees punishment as a means of discouraging potential offenders through the threat of severe consequences and as a way to exact discipline for wrongdoing.

Punitive measures often include incarceration and lengthy prison sentences with the belief that removing offenders from society will protect the public and send a clear message to others.

12. Grassroots Movements in Criminal Justice Reform

The power of grassroots movements serves as a reminder of what our communities can achieve collectively. Ordinary people are advocating for criminal justice reform, and their efforts are bearing fruit. Criminal justice reform statistics demonstrate that policy changes and initiatives at the state and federal levels are making a difference.

Impact and Achievements

Many states and jurisdictions have enacted sentencing reforms, reducing mandatory minimums for non-violent offenses and focusing on alternatives to incarceration. For example, Missouri (HB 1355) and Ohio (SB 66) have focused on reducing criminal justice spending and reinvesting those savings into community solutions to help combat unlawful activities.

Illinois became the first state to implement cash bail reform measures to reduce the practice of detaining individuals solely because they could not afford bail entirely.

Numerous U.S. cities, counties, and states have adopted “ban the box” policies, which remove questions about criminal history from job applications to give formerly incarcerated individuals a fair chance at employment.

We encourage you to get involved, stay informed, and support these reform efforts. Working together can bring about meaningful change in the criminal justice system.

Join Us in Our Fight for Criminal Justice Reform

These criminal justice reform statistics and realities reveal a system poised and ready for transformation. Understanding these shocking facts is the first step toward change. We invite you to learn more about our nonprofit and other organization’s work in criminal justice reform and join us in the fight for a more just, equitable, and compassionate system that benefits us all. Together, we can make a difference.

On February 1, 2018, Massachusetts banned bump stocks and trigger cranks. It was not the first state to outlaw these firearm attachments. Today, 12 of the 50 states have made it illegal to purchase, sell, or possess a bump stock and a national ban is currently being challenged in court. For people who own or are interested in owning a firearm, understanding the change in the law is important.

What is a bump stock?

A bump stock is a device attached to the part of a rifle held against the shoulder (i.e., the stock) that allows the gun to slide back and forth quickly when it is fired. The effect of the “bumping” stock is that the rifle fires at a faster rate than usual. It allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire at almost the same rate as a machinegun.

If you are searching for the legal definition of a bump stock, General Laws Chapter 140, Section 121 provides it. A bump stock is “any device for a weapon that increases the rate of fire achievable with such weapon by using energy from the recoil of such weapon to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.”

What is a trigger crank?

A trigger crank serves a purpose very similar to that of a bump stock. It is also a firearm attachment used to make a rifle fire at a faster rate than it ordinarily would. Specifically, a trigger crank is a lever on a gun that when turned in a circular motion causes the trigger of the rifle to be pulled rapidly.

Like bump stock, trigger crank also has a legal definition in Chapter 140, Section 121 of the Massachusetts General Laws. A trigger crank is “any device to be attached to a weapon that repeatedly activates the trigger of the weapon through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion.”

Importantly, a rifle with a trigger crank included as part of the original design of the rifle does not qualify. In other words, a rifle only has a trigger crank for legal purposes when it is attached to a rifle by a person who is not the designer or manufacturer. Buying, selling, or possessing a rifle with a trigger crank added by the designer or manufacturer does not count as possessing an unlawful trigger crank.

Why did Massachusetts outlaw bump stocks and trigger cranks?

The Massachusetts legislature enacted the bump stock and trigger crank ban in response to a 2017 Las Vegas shootingwhich killed 58 people and wounded hundreds. The gunman responsible used a bump stock during the attack.

In 2018, former President Donald Trump directed the Attorney General to ban all devices “that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” Under the direction of the Attorney General, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (also known as ATF) took action and implemented a rule reclassifying firearms with bump stocks as machineguns. The rule is currently being challenged in court. Opponents are not arguing that the rule violates the Second Amendment but instead that it goes beyond ATF’s authority. They say that a firearm with a bump stock is not a machinegun and since ATF can only regulate machineguns, ATF had no authority to act the way that it did.

The outcome of the legal battle over the ATF rule will help determine if bump stocks become illegal not only in Massachusetts but across the whole US.

What is the punishment in Massachusetts for violating the ban?

The law has been changed so that any person in Massachusetts who sells, buys, or possesses a bump stock or trigger ban could be charged with unlawful possession of a machine gun and punished severely. The penalty is a minimum of 18 months jailtime up to imprisonment for life.

Although it is always illegal in Massachusetts now to buy, sell, or possess a bump stock or trigger crank, it is still possible to obtain a license to possess or carry a machinegun in the state. However, the circumstances are extremely limited. The only people who can lawfully obtain this type of license are:

• Police firearms instructors
• Bona fide firearms collectors

A person who qualifies as a federal curios and relics collector qualifies as a bona fide collector. A curio and relics firearm is a firearm that meets any of these descriptions:

• A firearm that was manufactured at least 50 years ago and is not a replica
• A firearm that has been certified by a museum curator as a curio and relic
• A firearm that derives a significant portion of its monetary value from the fact that it is “novel, rare, bizarre, or because of [its] association with some historical figure, period, or event”

Why is it important that I know this information?

All firearm owners need to be aware of the laws and regulations on firearms ownership. This is especially true in Massachusetts, a state where there are many limits on gun use and ownership. If you are a Massachusetts gun owner and have any doubt that you might not be complying with the law, you should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands Massachusetts firearms law.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE ARE CHARGED WITH A FIREARMS CRIME, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles:

Testifying in court is a nerve-racking experience for many people. It often leads to the breakdown of professional relationships. Personal ones can also be affected. This includes family relationships, especially when family is on opposing sides.
Fortunately, Massachusetts law has protections in place to minimize the risk that the criminal justice system will cause lasting family divisions. One of the most important of these protections is called parental privilege.

What is parental privilege?

In Massachusetts, a parent is not allowed to testify against their minor child and a minor child is not allowed to testify against their parent when the victim of a crime is not a family member and not a person who resides in the family’s home. This is called parental privilege and it is defined in General Laws Chapter 233, Section 20. It is also explained in Section 504(c) of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence.

Additionally, even in cases in which the victim is a family member or a person who resides in the family’s home, a parent is also not allowed under parental privilege to testify to any communications with the minor child regarding the child’s legal rights.

Who counts as a parent or minor child?

Parental privilege is all about parents and minor children. While these terms might seem obvious, they have specific legal definitions. In law, it is important to keep track of legal definitions because sometimes words are given definitions by lawmakers that do not necessarily match the expectations of ordinary people. When a word in a statute has a legal definition, that definition always controls over the word’s ordinary meaning.

For example, there is room to debate outside of the context of law that a minor child is a child under the age of 21. However, for the purposes of parental privilege, a minor child is under 18 years old. This means an 18-year-old maytestify against their parent and a parent is permitted to testify against their 18-year-old child when the victim of a crime is not a family member and not a person residing in the family’s house.

Similarly, some people might think a parent is limited to a biological or adoptive parent. Others might add a stepparent to this list. However, the legal definition of parent for the purposes of parental privilege is even broader. Parent includes a biological parent, an adoptive parent, and a stepparent, but it also includes a legal guardian or any person acting in loco parentis. In loco parentis is a Latin expression translating to “in the place of a parent.” A person who acts in loco parentis is a person who acts as a temporary guardian or caretaker of a child, taking on some of the responsibilities of a parent. For example, the US Supreme Court said in one case that during the school day, a teacher or school administrator could be acting in loco parentis.

When does parental privilege not apply?

Because the legal definition of parental privilege is narrow, there are several situations when parental privilege does not apply. Two examples include:

• Civil Lawsuits. A minor child is allowed to testify under all circumstances against their parent in a civil case. This includes divorce and custody cases. The parental privilege does not apply in this situation.
• In Defense of Child. A minor child who is accused of a crime is allowed to call their parent as a witness in their defense. If the parent is called and is not going to testify against the minor child, the parent cannot refuse to testify unless some other privilege applies for the parent. For example, this could include the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Why does parental privilege exist?

Courts and lawmakers have long thought about the logic behind parental privilege. For the most part, the consensus is that parental privilege is a kind of compromise. Its purpose is to balance two competing ideas:

• Idea 1: Parental Rights: A parent has primary responsibility over the care and upbringing of their child. Parents should be allowed to use a limited amount of physical force to discipline their children without being legally punished. Family harmony is important and communities should try to promote it.
• Idea 2: Protecting Children: Communities need to protect children from being punished excessively by their parents. The government must prioritize protecting children from physical abuse over family privacy.

Parental privilege tries to take both ideas and combine them into one legal rule. The rule reflects the compromise by allowing parents to testify against minor children (and vice versa) but only under limited circumstances relating to domestic violence.

What are some other evidentiary privileges?

Parental privilege is a type of evidentiary privilege. An evidentiary privilege is a privilege that allows certain types of people to lawfully refuse to provide evidence to a court. Evidentiary privileges also prevent protected evidence that is not testimony from being used in a legal proceeding such as a criminal trial.

Parental privilege is not the only kind of evidentiary privilege. Several others exist. Some of the more commonly applied ones include:

• Attorney-Client Privilege. This privilege protects confidential communications between a client and their attorney from being disclosed.
• Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the prosecution cannot call criminal defendants to the stand to testify against themselves. Other people also cannot be forced to testify to information that could lead to their prosecution for a crime.
• Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege. Psychotherapist-patient privilege protects confidential information provided by a patient to a psychotherapist related to the patient’s mental and emotional health.
• Marital Privilege. This privilege allows a spouse to choose not to testify. It also prevents another person from testifying about confidential communications between spouses during marriage.

Like parental privilege, the purpose of each of these other privileges is to balance privacy with the need to do justice. The appropriate balance is a question communities decide on their own through their elected representatives.

How can parental privilege help a criminal defendant?

Parental privilege can assist both parents and minor children charged with crimes. For any person to be convicted of a crime, the charge against them must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a very high burden of proof. If the Commonwealth cannot meet it, the defendant must be acquitted.

If parental privilege did not exist, a parent or minor child’s testimony could be enough to lead to a conviction. As a result, when the privilege applies, parents and minor children do not have to provide their testimony. There is less evidence to convict and the prosecutor is challenged with finding other evidence to meet their burden. Cases are often resolved favorably for criminal defendants before trial when prosecutors expect or know that parental privilege applies. There are methods experienced criminal defense lawyers use to bring to the attention of prosecutors the applicability of the privilege.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE ARE CHARGED WITH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CRIME OR HAVE A MINOR CHILD FACING A CRIMINAL CHARGE, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles:

In order to convict a person of a crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed all the elements or parts of the offense. For example, a person cannot be convicted of operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI), unless the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt the three elements of (1.) operation, (2.) public way, and (3.) under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

It’s the Commonwealth’s burden to prove all the elements of the crime regardless of the crime. The elements of crimes vary depending on the crime, but there is one element that all crimes share in common. This element is identification. Anytime a person is accused of a crime, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime. In other words, it wasn’t someone else.

Although this might seem obvious, many Massachusetts cases have addressed the problem of mistaken identification. Police use a variety of procedures to have witnesses to crimes identify the perpetrator. When there is a flaw with how that identification procedure was conducted, this increases the chance that the identification was unfair. When the procedure is unfair, this makes it hard if not impossible for juries or judges to determine if the person was actually the person who committed the crime.

The best way to explain the law on identifications is to use an example. A good example is a case decided last year by the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The name of the case is Commonwealth v. Ploude.

What happened in Commonwealth v. Ploude?

In Ploude, a man named Frank was inside a bakery in Fall River when he saw a person he did not know break into his work truck. The truck was parked right outside the bakery. Frank confronted the man who responded that he thought it was his friend’s car and that he had just taken a “bunch of pills” and was “whacked out.”

A bystander observed the interaction between Frank and the man and offered to call the police. Frank said yes and the man responded by threatening to stab him with a box cutter. To avoid escalating the situation, Frank let the man go.

Police arrived and Frank gave a physical description of the man, including his tattoos. They observed that the man had left behind a bag with various items in it, including a cell phone. Police obtained a search warrant and extracted the contents of the phone. They were able to identify the perpetrator from this information and called Frank to try and identify him from a photographic array. This array consisted of eight photos. One was of the suspect and the other seven were fillers of men resembling the suspect physically. The officer leading the array was “blind” or did not have any familiarity with the case.

When Frank was shown the photo he exclaimed that the one of the suspect was the person inside his car. Based on this, the defendant Kevin Ploude was arrested and charged. Later, his lawyer tried to challenge the identification by Frank as unlawful but was unsuccessful. Ploude’s attorney appealed the decision for him.

Why did Ploude’s attorney believe the identification was unlawful?

Ploude’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress on the basis that the way police conducted Frank’s identification was unlawful. Ploude’s main argument was that the identification was too “suggestive” and posed too high a risk that the identification was mistaken. Because of this, Ploude’s constitutional rights were violated.

Specifically, Ploude’s lawyer pointed two errors by police:

• The officer told Frank before the identification that a suspect had been identified based on the cell phone left behind at the scene
• The defendant was the only person with neck tattoos in the photo array

How did the Court rule?

The Appeals Court agreed with Ploude and overturned the decision of the lower court.

It began by explaining the standard of law used to determine if an identification procedure is unlawful: The defendant must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence, considering the totality of the circumstances, that the identification is so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification that its admission would deprive the defendant of his right to due process.”

This legalese essentially means that if an identification is too suggestive, it poses a risk that it could be mistaken and a mistaken identification would not be fair to the accused. For example, an identification would most likely be too suggestive if the perpetrator of the crime was a male and in a photo array a police officer showed the witness photos of six females and only one male (who was in fact the perpetrator).

Here is what the Court had to say on each error Ploude pointed out:

• Mentioning the Phone. This did NOT make the photo array overly suggestive. The officer should not have mentioned it, but it did not have any real impact.
• The tattoos. Photo arrays should not distinguish one suspect from all the other based on some physical characteristic. But if this happens, there are two situations when it is okay. The first is if it is clear that the witness did not select the photo on the basis of the physical characteristic. The other is if the original description of the suspect by the witness never mentioned the physical feature. Neither of the exceptions applied here because Frank’s description of the perpetrator included that he had tattoos and he never confirmed that he picked Ploude’s photo based on some other feature beside the tattoos.

Therefore, since Ploude was the only person with neck tattoos in the array and that was overly suggestive, the identification was illegal. No evidence about the identification taking place could come into evidence at trial.

Why is this case important?

Preparation is everything when it comes to successfully defending a client from criminal accusations. It is important that people who are charged with crimes hire a diligent attorney who is aware of important case law and has the legal skills to challenge evidence that was obtained by police in an unlawful manner.

The Ploude case is important because it holds police to a high standard when it comes to the way they conduct identifications. An overly suggestive identification of a suspect by a witness to a crime is unconstitutional in Massachusetts. Since out-of-court identifications are often pieces of evidence relied upon by prosecutors at trial, getting an identification excluded from evidence is an important strategy in demonstrating that there is not enough evidence to convict the accused. Keeping illegally obtained evidence out at trial is so important that it could be the difference between a guilt or not guilty verdict.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY IDENTIFIED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF A CRIME, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles:

Massachusetts is a state that takes sex crimes very seriously. Sex offenses include crimes like rape, possession of child porn*graphy, and sexual assault of a minor. Another offense that falls under the category of sex crimes is secretly photographing or videotaping a person who is partially or fully nude. Since most of us have cell phones and social media, it is important to understand what types of photos and videos are permitted and which are illegal.

What does it mean to secretly photograph or videotape a nude or partially nude person?

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272, Section 105(b), Paragraph 1 gives us a definition of this crime of secretly photographing or videotaping a nude or partially nude person. There are five elements, or requirements, for a person to be found guilty of the offense. They are:

• Willfully photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveilling another person
• Doing so without the other person’s knowledge or consent
• Intending to do so secretly or in a hidden manner
• The other person was naked or partially naked
• The other person had a reasonable expectation of privacy

No person can be punished for committing this crime unless the government proves each of the five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. An effective criminal defense attorney will show to the judge and jury that the evidence does not satisfy one or more of the requirements.

What does it mean to electronically surveil someone?

The first requirement of the crime is that the accused must have willfully photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled another person. To photograph or videotape another person is self-explanatory, but what does it mean to “electronically surveil” them?

Sometimes laws provide definitions of the words they used. In Subsection (a) of the law that defines the crime we are discussing, “electronically surveil” is defined. It means to “view, obtain or record a person’s visual image by the use or aid of a camera, cellular or other wireless communication device, computer, television or other electronic device.”

What does it mean to photograph or record willfully?

To commit a crime usually requires that you have a certain mens rea or state of mind. That state of mind is often, but not always, intent. To do something “willfully” is another way of saying to do something intentionally. This means that for this crime, the photography, video-recording, or electronic surveillance must have not been accidental.

The third requirement of the crime also requires a certain state of mind. Again, that state of mind is intent. To be found guilty, the accused must have intended that the photography, recording, or video surveillance be secret or hidden.

What does it mean to be nude or partially nude?

While it may seem obvious, partially nude has a legal definition. Again, Subsection (a) has it. To be “partially nude” means “the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.”

Lawyers always ensure that when a word is defined by a law the ordinary (dictionary) meaning of the word is not used instead. This protects people accused of crimes from being punished for actions that were not illegal.

The law does not say what it means to be fully nude so that is left to the common sense of the jury or a judge to determine.

What is a reasonable expectation of privacy?

The final requirement of the crime is that the person who was photographed, recorded, or electronically surveilled had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

A reasonable expectation of privacy has two requirements:

• The person actually expected privacy
• The person’s expectation was reasonable

To “actually” expect privacy means to subjectively expect it. For example, a person changing clothes in the privacy of their own home with the blinds closed would likely expect that they are in private. They would expect that no one outside their home is watching them. To “actually” expect privacy means to think to yourself “I’m in private.”

Whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable is not determined by any one person but by society as a whole. Sometimes a person’s expectation of privacy is not reasonable. For example, a person who walks down the main street of a town completely naked could not reasonably expect privacy. It would be unreasonable to think no one else was looking. On the other hand, society would likely say that it is reasonable to expect privacy when a person takes a shower in their own home with the blinds drawn.

Whether privacy was actually expected and whether it is reasonable is usually a question of fact. This means that it is up to a judge or jury to decide using their common sense.

Are there other ways to illegally photograph or videotape someone?

Yes, there are two other different crimes that involve illegally photographing or videotaping a person that are not the sameas the crime we discuss here. They both involve illegally photographing or videotaping a person who is clothed:

• Photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveilling an adult’s intimate parts when they are clothed
• Photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveilling a minor’s intimate parts when they are clothed

Photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveilling an adult’s intimate parts is punished under General Laws Chapter 272, Section 105(b), Paragraph 2. Doing the same to a child is punished under Paragraph 3.

The statute gives a definition of “sexual or other intimate parts”. They are “human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.”

What is the punishment for secretly photographing or recording a nude or naked person?

The law says that a person who is found guilty can be punished with a sentence of:

• Up to 2 ½ years in the House of Correction
• A fine of up to $5,000
• Up to 2 ½ years in the House of Correction AND a fine of up to $5,000

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE ARE CHARGED WITH A SEX CRIME, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles:

Massachusetts’ highest court the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a major new decision on Wednesday that will impact 27,000 people who either entered a plea for or were convicted of operating under the influence (OUI). This ruling makes it significantly easier for people who plead out or were convicted on the basis of a breath test conducted between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019 to be successful on a motion for a new trial or a motion to withdraw their guilty plea.

What is the SJC’s ruling?

The SJC held that because of misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing (a division of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory), the constitutional rights of about 27,000 people who plead guilty to an OUI offense or were convicted after trial have been violated. Because of this, anyone who was convicted due to breath test results from a breath test machine called Alcotest 9510 between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019 is entitled to “a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct.”

What does a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct mean? It has to do with the standard used to decide whether or not a motion for a new trial or to withdraw a guilty plea should be allowed. A person isn’t allowed to challenge their conviction on this basis unless the government misconduct is so egregious that it makes a guilty plea involuntary. This is proven when these two facts are true:

• First, egregious government conduct happened before the defendant plead guilty
• Second, the misconduct influenced the defendant to plead guilty

So, because defendants are entitled to “a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct” if they were convicted at any point between the above dates due to breath test results from the Alcotest 9510, they do not have to prove the first fact. They will only need to establish that the misconduct influenced their decision to plead guilty.

What does it mean to be “influenced” to plead guilty?

The best way to explain what the Court means by “influenced their decision to plead guilty” is to explain the case that was up for review before the SJC. In this case, a woman named Lindsay admitted to “sufficient facts” that she was guilty of a second offense operating OUI-liquor occurring in November 2013.

Lindsay decided to plea out because there was evidence that she took a breath test and blew 0.23%. This is well above the legal limit of .08%. Her attorney advised her that she would not be able to win her case and that a plea was the wisest option. She followed his advice and was convicted. The SJC found that this was enough to establish the second fact that she was influenced and that she should be allowed to withdraw her guilty plea.

What was the misconduct?

The misconduct that led to this decision came from an investigation in 2019 discovering that the breathalyzer machines used in Massachusetts were not being calibrated properly. The Office of Alcohol Testing tried to cover this fact up and was not truthful about the rate at which these machines fail. Because of this, the test results were flawed. There was much litigation surrounding this scandal. For a while, it led to most district attorneys in Massachusetts to stop using breathalyzer test results all together in criminal cases.

What should I do if the ruling applies to me?

If you were convicted or admitted to sufficient facts for a conviction of OUI between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019based on breath test results, you may consider if retrying the case is in your best interest.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE ARE CHARGED WITH AN OUI OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ONE WRONGFULLY, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles:

Thanks to the Constitution, people have privacy rights that protect them from searches by police that are unreasonable. For example, in order for police to search your home they are almost always going to be required to have first obtained a search warrant. The basic idea is that a search is unreasonable if police do not have enough reasons to believe you have committed a crime (or are committing one) before they invade your privacy.

There is a huge amount of case law on what makes a search unreasonable and because of this many different issues have come up. One issue worth discussing is called collective police knowledge. Collective police knowledge is a legal doctrine that helps determine when the suspicions of one police officer carry over to other police officers investigating a crime at the same time.

The idea is pretty abstract, but a recent case decided by the highest court in Massachusetts helps illustrate it. The case also announced a new legal rule that will impact the rights of everyone stopped by the police.

What happened in the case?

In Commonwealth v. Privette, an undercover police officer was working a late-night shift in Boston when he received a dispatch that an armed robbery had just occurred at a gas station in Dorchester. The dispatcher described the suspect as a “Black male, late twenties, five foot seven, blue hoodie, blue jeans, on foot” running toward a pharmacy. There was no mention of the suspect having facial hair but additional dispatch information described him as having some. Less than 10 minutes after the dispatch, the officer spotted a person he believed matched the description.

The suspect, David Privette, complied with the officer’s command to show his hands. He was pat-frisked and over $400 in cash was found in his wallet, although no weapon was discovered. Another officer arrived soon after and conducted a pat-frisk on Privette’s red backpack. He felt a hard object, opened it, and found a gun.

After the victim positively identified Privette as the perpetrator, he was arrested and indicted on five firearms offenses.

How did Privette defend the case?

After obtaining a defense attorney, Privette’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress. A motion to suppress is a method of challenging evidence believed to have been obtained by police unlawfully. Specifically, his lawyer argued that stopping Privette and the two pat-frisks were unlawful. The basis was that there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to conduct these investigative activities.

What is reasonable suspicion?

Police cannot stop a person unless they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. As many courts have said, reasonable suspicion “must be based on specific and articulable facts, and reasonable inferences therefrom, in light of the officer’s experience.” In plain English: Police cannot stop a person unless their suspicion is reasonable based on the facts of the situation.

The specific fact issue in Privette was whether the first officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Privette based on the information he knew at that time. To determine this, the court had to apply the collective police knowledge doctrine.

How does collective police knowledge work?

The collective police knowledge doctrine gives police officers an exception to the amount of knowledge they need to conduct a search or make an arrest. Put another way, police do not need to have firsthand knowledge. They can rely on the information collectively gathered by their police officer colleagues.

In Massachusetts, there are two types of collective police knowledge:

• Vertical collective knowledge: one police officer directs another to conduct a stop, frisk, search, or arrest. For example, there is vertical collective knowledge when Sergeant X instructs Patrol Officer Y to frisk a suspect.
• Horizontal collective knowledge: the information “the police have” consists of the information each of the individual officers have. For example, there is horizontal collective knowledge if Officer X, Officer Y, and Officer Z all have information that together is enough for reasonable suspicion, even if the information any of the individual officers have alone would not be enough.

This case focused on horizontal collective knowledge. The legal issue was whether horizontal collective knowledge was too broad. In other words, as the law was then-defined was it not giving people enough privacy protections?

How did the Court decide the case?

The Court first settled the legal issue. It determined that horizontal collective knowledge needed to be narrowed as a legal doctrine. The Court ruled that certain new requirements needed to be met for horizonal collective knowledge to apply. These include:

• The officers need to be involved in a joint investigation
• The officers must be pursuing “a mutual purpose and objective”
• The officers must be in close and continuous communication with each other about that shared objective

Importantly, the officer must be aware of at least some of the “critical facts” and must be in communication with other officers who have this knowledge.

Applying this rule to fact issue of the Privette case, the Court concluded that the knowledge of the second officer could carry over to the first. There was a joint investigation and the second officer continuously updated his colleagues about his observations while he was looking for the suspect.

From everything the first officer knew himself and through the second, the Court held that there was reasonable suspicion. The searches were lawful. The motion to suppress should have been denied. That’s what the lower court did so the decision was upheld.

Why is Privette important?

Privette is not an easy case to understand, but it is certainly an important one.

Although the defendant lost, Privette is important because it increases privacy rights. The legal rule of the case requires more out of police when they want to rely on collective knowledge as justification for a stop and frisk. The new standard means police need to communicate better and more clearly with each other when they want to take action. This helps protect the privacy rights of all of us.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY SEARCHED BY POLICE, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles:

The Second Amendment gives people the constitutional right to keep and use firearms. But the right isn’t unlimited. There has been much debate in politics on what restrictions states and local communities should be able to place on gun ownership. The courts have looked at the question from a legal point-of-view. Courts regularly release new case decisions interpreting the law. They answer what restrictions on gun ownership are lawful and what rights gunowners have to keep and use firearms.

Massachusetts’ highest court released one such case back in April called Commonwealth v. Guardado. Guardado is a very important case for Massachusetts gun owners charged with the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm. It creates a new defense that will help ensure that law-abiding gun owners are not punished for crimes they didn’t commit.

What does it mean to unlawfully possess a firearm in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts has strict laws regulating firearms ownership. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269, Section 10 is the key one. This lengthy statute punishes some of the most commonly charged firearms crimes in the state. It includes:

• Unlawfully carrying a firearm
• Unlawfully possessing a firearm
• Illegally possessing ammunition
• Failing to surrender a revoked or suspended license to carry or firearms identification card
• Failing to surrender a firearm after revocation or suspension of a license to carry or firearms identification card

So unlawful possession is just one crime under the law. Before the Guardado case, in order to prove a person guilty of this crime the government needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that the accused:

• Possessed a firearm
• Knew it was a firearm
• Did not have a valid firearms identification card or have a valid substitute

These three requirements or elements of the crime were changed as a result of this case. Thanks to Guardado, the government now has to prove a fourth element: the defendant did NOT have a valid firearms license.

Because the government has to prove an additional element, people charged with unlawful firearms possession now have a defense that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not have a valid firearms license.

What was Guardado about?

In Guardado, Carlos Guardado was indicted by a grand jury on charges that included unlawful possession of a firearm. He was convicted and his lawyer appealed.

Carlos’ argument on appeal was that the jury was not instructed by the judge correctly. At a criminal trial, after the lawyers for both sides call witnesses, present evidence, and give their closing statements, the judge instructs the jury on the law they are to use to decide the case. The ordinary people that make up a jury are not expected to know the law before they serve on the jury. Through jury instructions, the judge tells them what the law is and how they are to decide the case. Juries are factfinders, which mean their job is to decide what happened. Based on what happened, they apply the facts to the law and reach a verdict. A verdict is the final decision of the case: guilty or not guilty.

Carlos’ argument was that the judge did not correctly tell the jurors that the Commonwealth needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a firearms license at the time of his arrest. This was an error.

Why did the Court determine that Carlos was right?

The Court determined that Carlos was correct. It based its decision off of a recent US Supreme Court case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the country’s highest court ruled that the Second Amendment“protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public.” The key phrase is “in public.” Overbroad laws that prohibit carrying a firearm outside of the home are unconstitutional.

Because of this, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that the government needed to prove absence of a license to comply with the Bruen decision. When it comes to constitutional rights in the US constitution, the US Supreme Court has the final say. Even Massachusetts’ highest court must follow these decisions.

As a result, Carlos was granted a new trial.

How does the Commonwealth prove no license?

The Guardado decision also discusses how the Commonwealth proves the new element. Remember that no person can be convicted of a crime unless the government proves each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case says that the government should be very careful presenting evidence of no license. One way they could do it is by a signed written statement from an appropriate state official that after a “diligent search,” no record of a valid firearms license could be found at the time the offense was committed. That state official might also be called to testify. However, it is important that any testifying state official must have adequate knowledge on how firearms records are kept. Simply submitting an affidavit or sworn statement of the recordkeeper would likely not be enough.

Why is Guardado important?

Massachusetts courts are still adjusting to the Guardado opinion, so much is still uncertain. However, what is know is that the burden of proving no license has shifted. Before the case, possession of a license was an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant had to submit proof of a license and the Commonwealth only then would be required to rebut it. Now the Commonwealth must submit evidence as it makes its case at trial that the accused did not have a valid license.

The most effective criminal defense attorney holds the Commonwealth to its burden. A person cannot lose their freedom unless the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH A GUN CRIME, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.

Related Articles: