Case Results 2005

Salem District Court # 04-4351.  A Salem woman charged with trafficking a class A substance retained Attorney Stephen Neyman to defend her.  The police obtained information that the defendant, a paralegal, was receiving packages containing large quantities of narcotics at her place of employment.  Armed with a search warrant the police entered the office and seized a package addressed to the defendant.  The package contained controlled substances.  A few days later, again pursuant to a search warrant, police entered the office and located another package.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in having the trafficking charges dismissed and the case was disposed of by continuing the case without a finding to so much of the complaint as charged possession.  All charges will be formally dropped if the defendant remains free from all criminal legal problems for the next 18 months.

Hingham District Court # 02-0583.  The defendant was charged with possessing with the intent to distribute 25 pounds of marijuana.  Police contended that on the date of the arrest they had information from a confidential informant that a large quantity of marijuana would be transported from Saugus, Massachusetts to the Plymouth, Massachusetts area.  The police conducted surveillance and witnessed the defendant driving up to the house of the co-defendant at which time the co-defendant placed a large bag into the trunk area.  Surveillance followed the vehicle from the North Shore through Boston and on towards the South Shore where the defendant was stopped.  The police conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and located 25 pounds of marijuana.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the case dismissed.

Middlesex Superior Court # 2004-0323.  After a two week trial a Middlesex County jury acquitted the defendant of murder.  The government theorized that the defendant deliberately shot and killed the victim, a female, while engaging in a road rage related incident.  The defense contended that the shooting was precipitated by the victim who witnesses said appeared to be trying to run the defendant's car off of the highway.  The defense presented three expert witnesses to support its theory of the case.  An accident reconstructionist concluded that the victim was the aggressor on the highway and that she was overtaking the defendant's vehicle at the time of impact between the two vehicles.  This theory was corroborated by eyewitnesses located by the defense.  A firearms expert testified that the shot that was fired by the defendant was an impossible shot to make intentionally and that the impact of the collision likely caused the weapon to discharge.  A toxicologist testified that the victim's actions that evening were consistent with an abuse of crystal meth, a drug that witnesses identified as being used by the victim with frequency in the months leading up to the shooting.  The jury returned a verdict of involuntary manslaughter.

Suffolk Superior Court # 03-10244.  After nearly two weeks of trial and deliberations a Suffolk County jury deadlocked in the trial of a Boston man charged with first degree murder.  The government contended that the victim was a drug dealer with whom the defendant had frequent dealings.  It was further alleged that the defendant, along with others, conspired to rob the victim of either drugs or money by luring him out of his home on the pretext of buying some cocaine from him.  The defense succeeded in exposing the inadequacies of the police investigation.  Additionally, the defense elicited evidence that the police had compromised the crime scene and destroyed valuable and potentially exculpatory evidence.  The case will be retried on November 28, 2005.

Malden District Court # 04-2200.  The government alleged that the defendant was standing near a 7-11 convenience store when police observed him making a sale of narcotics to persons in a parked car.  The police stopped the purchasers who identified the defendant as the person having just sold them the drugs.  The defendant was arrested and charged with distribution of marijuana, a class D substance.  The charges carried a possible 2 year sentence to the house of correction.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charged dismissed on the day of trial.

Armed with a search warrant, Boston police entered the defendant's apartment, conducted their search and found him in possession of 8 bags of marijuana and a large sum of cash.  The defendant was ultimately charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in a school zone.  If convicted the defendant faced a mandatory two year sentence requiring incarceration.  Our office succeeded in getting all charges against this individual dismissed.

Ayer District Court # 2004-1989.  The government alleged that the defendant, a Harvard woman, flipped her husband's pick-up truck on Route 495 and fled the scene.  Police detectives investigating the matter determined that the defendant had been drinking whiskey when she lost control of the vehicle, struck a utility pole and caused the truck to flip over.  Shortly after discovering the vehicle the police located the defendant's husband who stated that the defendant had been out and that he had not seen her for several hours.  The police later found the defendant and noted fresh cuts and bruises on her face and body.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in having the charges dismissed prior to trial.

Suffolk Superior Court.  A Boston woman subpoenaed by the government to testify at a murder trial admitted to defense investigators to having lied before the grand jury investigating the case in the summer of 2002.  Faced with a possible life sentence for the crime Attorney Neyman asserted the woman's Fifth Amendment privilege.  The trial judge initially denied the request and the matter was litigated in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  Despite their order that the witness testify, Attorney Neyman convinced the trial judge to reconsider his ruling and allow her to assert the privilege.  Reconsideration was allowed and the witness exercised her constitutional rights. As a result, the witness was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony at trial.

Framingham District Court 04-2534. After a routine motor vehicle stop the defendant was charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and using a counterfeit Florida drivers license. The prosecution contended that Florida officials confirmed that the license number sequence was invalid and that the document was in fact counterfeit. Massachusetts General Laws defines the crime as a felony, punishable by five years in state prison. During the second court appearance Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charges against the defendant dismissed.