2019 Case Results
Below is a list of some of the favorable results we have achieved for our clients in 2019:
February 7, 2019
Chelsea District Court
MOTION TO REVISE AND REVOKE PRIOR SENTENCE: Our client, a non- citizen, came to our office after being referred to us by his immigration attorney. In 2015, he pled guilty to two charges and was sentenced to probation with conditions. As it turns out, his court- appointed attorney at that time did not properly investigate the impact that such sentence would have on our client's immigration status. Our client was now facing deportation as a result of that sentence. After he hired us, we filed a motion to vacate those guilty pleas and for new trial on a number of legal grounds. After the district attorney's office reviewed our motion, we reached an agreement with their office to revise the original sentence in a manner that would NOT effect our client's immigration status.
RESULT: The court allowed our agreed- upon motion to revise and revoke the original sentence. Our client is no longer in deportation proceedings in immigration court.
February 5, 2019
Lowell District Court
CHARGE: Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol. At trial, a Massachusetts State Trooper testified that our client nearly caused a 3- car crash on Route 495, drifting in and out of lanes multiple occasions. The trooper also testified that our client failed to pull over when signaled, and did not do so until a while after the Trooper was forced to activate his siren. He testified that once pulled over, our client was unable to locate his registration, sat there looking confused, with bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, and slurred speech. He said that our client was confused as to his route home, and admitted to drinking beers throughout the evening. The trooper testified that after being ordered to exit his car, our client was unable to stand still without losing his balance, and failed multiple field sobriety tests. He testified that our client appeared "drunk" and that when being transported to the station for booking, the cruiser was overtaken by the "overwhelming" smell of alcohol coming from the back seat where our client was sitting.
VERDICT: After a lengthy cross- examination, Attorney Urbelis picked apart the trooper's entire investigation, which he later emphasized in closing argument. After just twenty minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
January 30, 2019
Worcester Juvenile Court
APPLICATION FOR JUVENILE COMPLAINT: Police responded to a compliant of a house party with teenagers. Upon arrival, police found our seventeen year old client and four other girls at the house with empty beer bottles scattered about. When questioned, all four girls admitted to drinking the beers. The police applied for a juvenile complaint against our client on the charge of minor in possession of alcohol.
RESULT: After a clerk magistrate's hearing, we convinced the clerk to NOT issue a juvenile complaint against our client. There will be no record of this incident moving forward.
January 23, 2019
Dedham District Court
CHARGES: Kidnapping, Domestic Assault and Battery. The Commonwealth called five witnesses to testify against our client in this jury trial. Essentially, we did not contest the allegations, but raised (and were permitted to argue) the affirmative defense of necessity, over the prosecutor's objection. While an acquittal on both counts would have been ideal, our mail goal was to obtain an acquittal on the serious felony charge of kidnapping, which carried with it significant imprisonment.
JURY VERDICT: Not Guilty on Kidnapping, Guilty of misdemeanor domestic assault and battery.
January 9, 2019
Lawrence District Court
CHARGE: Domestic Assault and Battery
RESULT: Case dismissed.
January 3, 2019
Leominster District Court
PROBATION VIOLATION PROCEEDING: Our client was on probation for assault and battery. While on probation, he was charged with RAPE. This new offense triggered probation revocation proceedings. For this type of proceeding, the standard to find a violation is much less than the proof required in a criminal case. After a hearing, if the judge finds that it is more likely than not that the probationer committed the violation (in this case, the new offense of RAPE), then he is found to have violated the terms of probation and will be sentenced to jail.
RESULT: A lengthy evidentiary hearing was conducted, which included the testimony of our client's accuser. She described a forcible rape. On cross examination, Attorney Urbelis was able to establish her motive to lie; she and our client were going through a bitter custody battle of the son they shared in common. If our client went to jail, she would then get full custody. Our client also elected to take the stand and gave his side of the encounter; that it was consensual. After final arguments by Attorney Urbelis and the Assistant District Attorney, the judge found that our client did not violate his probation by committing rape. In other words, the accuser had been discredited.