| APPEALS "The hallmark of a great trial lawyer is the perseverance to never give up!" Gerry Spence. |
 |
| APPEALS "The hallmark of a great trial lawyer is the perseverance to never give up!" Gerry Spence. |
|
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Shawn Medeiros Bristol County Docket No. 97-P-414 ARGUMENT: I. THE STOP OF THE DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT BASED ON A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED, WAS BEING COMMITTED OR WAS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED. II. THE COURT DID NOT ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY WITH THE DEFENDANT TO ENSURE THAT HIS WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY. Decision: 45 Mass.App.Ct. 240 (1998). Judgment reversed; finding set aside; judgment for Defendant. |
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Alberto Alves Norfolk County Docket No. 98-P-1008 ARGUMENT: I. THE COURT DID NOT ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY WITH THE DEFENDANT TO ENSURE THAT HIS WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY. II. THE DEFENDANT WAS IMPROPERLY CONVICTED OF BOTH DISTRIBUTION AND POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AS TO THE SAME DRUGS. III. THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. IV. THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT AS THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY. Decision: 46 Mass.App.Ct. 1104, 705 N.E.2d 1179 (Table), Mass.App.Ct., Dec 21, 1998. Convictions reversed, case remanded to the District Court for a new trial. |
|
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Christopher Howington Middlesex County Docket No. NO. 99-P-1894 ARGUMENT: I. THE TRIAL JUDGE UNLAWFULLY PUNISHED THE DEFENDANT FOR A CRIME OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED, WHERE THE JUDGE’S STRONGLY WORDED SENTENCING COMMENTS UNAMBIGUOUSLY INDICATED THAT HE FOUND THE DEFENDANT HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL AND STILL HAD A PROBLEM WITH DRINKING. II. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE.
|
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Gary S. DaCosta Bristol County Docket No. 99-P-240 ARGUMENT: I. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF POSSESSION FIREARM, NOT FOR HOME OR WORK WITH NO LICENSE AND POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITHOUT FIREARM I.D. CARD. II. THE DEFENDANT WAS IMPROPERLY CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF FIREARM WITHOUT FIREARM I.D. CARD. Decision: 735 N.E.2d 1278 (Table), 50 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 2000. Unpublished Disposition. Judgments reversed. Verdicts set aside. Judgments for the Defendant. |
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Carrieann M. Schmieder Barnstable County Docket No. 01-P-978 ARGUMENT: I. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT. II. THE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT’S EXPERT TO INTRUDE ON THE JURY’S FACT FINDING FUNCTION. Decision: 58 Mass.App.Ct. 300 (2003). Convictions Reversed. Judgment for the Defendant. |
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Robert M. Xifaras Bristol County Docket No. 02-P-524 ARGUMENT: I. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED ATTORNEY XIFARAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE
EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT RELATIVE TO GUILT OR PUNISHMENT AND IMPOSED SUMMARY
CONTEMPT SANCTIONS.
II. THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT ATTORNEY XIFARAS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT
AMOUNTED TO A DISRUPTION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING SUMMARY PUNISHMENT
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE COURTROOM.
Decision: Summary Contempt Dismissed. Appeal Withdrawn. I filed a brief on behalf of Attorney Xifaras. The Bristol County District Attorney's office responded and in their brief, they agreed with my arguments. The Attorney General's Office contacted the Court and the Court dismissed the Summary Contempt against Attorney Xifaras. |
