Case Results » Violent Crimes

Our client is a software engineer who, for the past two years has been fighting four extremely serious cases. He had been in a dating relationship with a woman who suffered from serious documented mental illnesses. Her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder. This manifested itself anytime she felt or feared abandonment or rejection in relationships. Starting in February of 2022 she believed our client was "looking" at another woman in a restaurant at a hotel. After leaving the restaurant and going to their room the woman threw a cell phone at our client's back and started kicking and punching him. She called the police and claimed that she had been hit by our client and that he threw a glass at her. He was charged with domestic assault and battery, G.L. c. 265 section 13M and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, G.L. c. 265 section 15A. One month later the same woman claimed that after a night of drinking our client strangled her. He was charged with strangulation under G.L. c. 265 section 15D. Again, one month later the woman claimed that over the course of three days our client beat her, strangled her, attempted to murder her, G.L. c. 265 section 16, assaulted and beat her with a dangerous weapon and threatened to commit a crime against her, G.L. c. 275 section 2. It took over 1 and ½ years to obtain the woman's mental health records. Consistent with our investigation, the woman had done this to other men and family members anytime she faced rejection or abandonment. We retained a renowned expert who evaluated the information and provided a concrete opinion that this woman's behavior was consistent with her mental health diagnosis. Today, we succeeded in getting these four cases dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

In December of 2022 police were called for a report of a domestic assault and battery in progress. A concerned citizen witnessed our client grabbing a woman and supposedly hitting her and putting her in a chokehold while in his car. The victim got out of the car at a stop light and ran. The witness video recorded much of this incident. Our client, a local college student was charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent him. Today, we prevailed on the district attorney's office to agree to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed shortly. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a dentist with a large dental practice covering several cities and towns in Essex County. Over a year ago he was involved in an incident involving a vendor who misled him and stole thousands of dollars from him. Rather than trying to resolve the matter through the courts the client went to the vendor's home and place of employment and destroyed thousands of dollars worth of his personal and business property. He was charged with malicious destruction to property over $1,200 which is a felony in Massachusetts under G.L. c 266 section 127. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client is a nurse living in Boston. She has been living in the same home for nearly thirty years. Her speciality is trauma. That often requires her to work unexpectedly in the middle of the night. As a result, she purchased a parking space adjacent to her home at a significant price. The space is marked as private and a tow zone. Nevertheless, people often take the spot. Calling the tow company is often futile as it can take hours for them to appear. About a year ago someone parked in her space. She left an unflattering note on the vehicle. The owner saw her do this and became verbally abusive and refused to move her vehicle from our client's parking space. Consequently, our client marked the vehicle with expensive lip balm. Our client was summonsed for a clerk magistrate hearing seeking to charge her with vandalism of a motor vehicle, a felony under G.L. c. 266 section 126A. Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

In December last year, a woman who lived in an elegant apartment building heard noises in a common stairwell. While doing so she claimed that our client, his brother and another individual came up behind her, held her down and started to beat her. While doing so they threatened her about calling the police. They also made threats based on her race and racial language accompanied the assaults. Arrests were made charging our client and his brother with intimidation of a witness, G.L. c. 268 section 13B, threatening to commit a crime, G.L. c. 275 section 2, conspiracy, G.L. c. 274 section 7, assault and battery, G.L. c. 265 section 13A, assault and battery to intimidate a person because of her race or color, G.L. c. 265 section 39 and a criminal civil rights violation with injury, G.L. c. 265 section 37. Using digital technology our office was able to track our client's movement the day of the incident and demonstrate that he was more than 500 miles away at that time. The evidence convinced the district attorney's office to nolle prosse the case. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client is a well known physician in the greater Boston area. In March of this year he was at a friend's house celebrating a family milestone. He drank way too much, fell off of a stool and hit his head. He began to bleed profusely. The EMT's were called and the police responded with them. It quickly became apparent that our client needed medical attention. The police tried to escort him into the ambulance. He resisted and assaulted the officers. He was taken to the hospital, treated and summonsed for arraignment for assault and battery on a police officer under G.L. c. 265 section 13D. Today we negotiated pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 with the district attorney's office. There are no conditions attached. This case will be dismissed in 9 months. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

On January 20, 2021 officers in a city near Boston were flagged down by a man in apparent distress. The man told the officers that following an argument with an acquaintance he was robbed. The acquaintance, our client, allegedly forced the man to empty his pockets and give him all of his money. The man complied. The incident was witnessed by a woman identified as the victim's girlfriend. A description of the suspect and his vehicle information was provided to the police. Shortly thereafter our client was apprehended. He was found in possession of the items the victim claimed had been stolen from him. The defendant was charged with unarmed robbery, a felony under G.L. c. 265 section 19(b). Our office was immediately retained. Today, we were able to secure a dismissal of the charges. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client is a professional gambler. Just a few days ago he was playing poker in a local casino and winning. The pit boss approached him to inform him that the casino believed that he had been overpaid. He took exception to that and argued with the casino workers. The police were called to the table. They asked him to leave. He refused to do so until the dispute was settled. The police found this unacceptable. The man was placed under arrest and charged with disorderly person in violation of G.L. c. 272 section 53 and trespassing under G.L. c. 266 section 120. Both charges were dismissed on the day of arraignment. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client is the CEO of a New York based corporation that finances commercial construction projects. For the past eight months he has been working on a project in Boston. Several weeks ago he was in his penthouse apartment preparing for work. A former girlfriend arrived, uninvited and asked if the two could talk. The defendant reluctantly agreed. The woman quickly tried to get our client to reconsider their breakup. He refused, telling her that he had moved on. The two had been broken up for over a year. The women started to plead with him. He asked her to leave. The woman then began to scream and fled the apartment screaming to the doorman for help. The police were called. The woman claimed that our client attacked her with a knife in the hallway outside of his home. She also claimed that he hit her in the elevator and that he threatened to kill her if she ever came back. The man was charged with domestic assault and battery G.L. c. 265 section 13M, assault with a dangerous weapon G.L. c. 265 section 15B and threatening to commit a crime G.L. c. 272 section 2. Attorney Neyman was hired. Realizing the damage that would be caused should these charges become public we continued the arraignment. Our office was able to access security footage that proved the woman had fabricated her story. Our investigator was also able to obtain information showing that the woman had planned and staged this event. All charges were dismissed prior to arraignment.

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a business executive living in the city of Boston. In March of this year police were notified that the man struck a woman in the face. They responded to the call and interviewed the woman. She claimed that she and her boyfriend got into a verbal altercation. This became physical when he pushed her face causing her to strike her head on the car window in which they were sitting. The man then grabbed her jaw and spit on her. He was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Our office was hired immediately. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a non-citizen international student attending school in Boston. The alleged incident occurred in a suburb. On July 3, 2020 the defendant and his former girlfriend got into an argument that turned physical. According to the victim the defendant struck her with a beer bottle, pushed her and threw her into a dresser. He stormed out of the house in anger and keyed her car. There were two witnesses to this incident, both of whom are neighbors of the victim. The police were called and the defendant was arrested. He was charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 265 section 15A and malicious destruction to a motor vehicle, a crime under G.L. c. 266 section 28. Attorney Neyman was retained. Today, all charges were dismissed. Had the defendant been convicted of any of these offenses deportation would have been a likely consequence. 

Read More in Violent Crimes 

On July 11, 2020 police in a city south of Boston received a call for a domestic disturbance. The reporting party is the defendant's wife who told the police that her husband and son got into a physical altercation. When the officers arrived at the scene they were immediately met by the victim who was crying and visibly injured. He reported that his father, the defendant, had been verbally abusive to his mother. This resulted in the father and son arguing. The argument became physical. Witnesses observed the father beat his son with his fists and a cord. The police arrested the father and charged him with assault and battery in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 13A and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, a crime under G.L. c. 265 section 15A. Our office was retained to represent the defendant. Today, Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Read More in Violent Crimes

This past summer our client was charged with carrying a loaded firearm under G.L. c. 269 section 10(n), carrying a firearm under G.L. c. 269 section 10(a), distribution of class E drugs in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32D, possession of ammunition G.L. c. 269 section 10(h), possession of a class B drug G.L. c. 94C section 34 and OUI under G.L. c. 90 section 24. Among the allegations were that he, along with another were dealing drugs and shot at some houses in the course of their criminal activities. The man was found dangerous under G.L. c. 276 section 58A. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent him. We secured his release to home confinement and having to wear a GPS. Today, after lengthy negotiations with the district attorney's office and after a hearing the GPS has been removed and the conditions of release further modified to eliminate home confinement. Our client will have a curfew but will be permitted to work. 

Read More in Bail

The defendant is a physician living in the metro Boston area. On January 8, 2020 police in the town where he lives were dispatched to his residence where they were met by his wife, the victim. She reported that the defendant had been drinking excessively and that when he does he becomes physically abusive to her. On this occasion she alleged that our client was drinking and became verbally abusive. When she demanded that he leave the home he told her to call the police. She initially did not. Then, the defendant allegedly started to choke her by grabbing her by the throat and pinning her against the wall. She could not breathe. She further complained that our client next threw her to the ground, knelt on her and beat her. Police noticed and photographed redness to the woman's neck and her lip cut. The doctor was arrested and charged with strangulation under G.L. c. 265 section 15D and domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. Today, we were able to get all charges dismissed.

Read More in Strangulation

The defendant is on conditions of release for a pending gun possession charge under G.L. c. 269 section 10(a). He is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months if convicted. He has already prevailed on a prior gun possession charge. A few days ago our client was charged with disorderly person under G.L. c. 272 section 53 and vandalism in violation of G.L. c. 266 126A. The prosecution moved to revoke his bail and have him held under G.L. c. 276 section 58. If the prosecutor succeed with this our client would have to serve 60 days. Our office prevailed on this matter and the judge did not revoke our client's bail. 

Read More in Vandalism

On August 4, 2019 police in a Boston suburb were called to a home for a report of an assault on an elderly person. They were met by the victim, an 84 year old man who claimed that he and his son were arguing. His son pushed him to the ground causing bleeding and bruising. The defendant claimed that the victim was the initial aggressor. Based on the evidence and the statements of the parties the police arrested the son and charged him with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13M and assault and battery on a person over the age of 60, G.L. c 265 Section 13K. The latter crime is a felony in Massachusetts. Today, we were able to have all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a school teacher we represented several years ago. He was charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13M. We were able to get that case dismissed. However due to the fact that the man is a school teacher the dismissed record was appearing in criminal background searches. He contacted Attorney Neyman a few weeks ago to petition to seal the criminal history printout. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the case sealed under G.L. c. 276 Section 100. 

Read More in Sealing Criminal Records in Massachusetts

The defendant is a nurse at a well known prestigious Boston hospital. On May 19, 2019 in the early hours of the morning she was drunk and in an MBTA garage arguing with her boyfriend. Someone unrelated to the parties witnessed the incident and called the police. The witness stated that the defendant, our client, punched her boyfriend with her fists several times during the course of the argument. The police arrived and found her intoxicated and belligerent. Her boyfriend confirmed the report of the witness and the defendant was arrested and charged with violation G.L. c. 265 Section 13M. Attorney Stephen Neyman was immediately retained to defend these charges, domestic assault and battery. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a medical doctor living south of Boston. On November 25, 2018 members of a suburban police department were dispatched to the defendant's plush apartment building. There they were met by two tenants who told them that they had an expensive piece of furniture delivered to their home. They were not present for the delivery and the furniture was left in a hallway near their unit. The defendant owned an abutting unit. He apparently told the police that since the furniture was blocking access to his door. Consequently, in a fit of anger he destroyed the property. He was charged with violating G.L. c. 266 Section 127, malicious destruction to property over $1,200. He was afforded a clerk magistrate hearing. Today, our office prevailed on the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. The case was dismissed.

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

The defendant is a successful businessman living in the western part of the state. Several months ago he was involved in an incident involving a neighbor and the building management company that controls his former home. It is alleged that in a fit of rage the defendant vandalized the building at a value exceeding $12,000.00. It was further alleged that he vandalized two motor vehicles belonging to someone else living on the premises. The defendant was charged with 2 counts of vandalism under G.L. c. 266 Section 126A. This is a felony in Massachusetts. The victims have agreed to and signed an accord and satisfaction, which might motivate the prosecutor to reduce the charges to misdemeanors and permit a resolution prior to arraignment.

Read More in Vandalism

The defendant is a non-citizen working on her Master's degree at a local university. Several weeks ago she and a roommate had been arguing incessantly about aspects of their living situation. In reality, the "victim" wanted our client to vacate their apartment and continue to pay her share of the rent. Once it was understood that this would not happen the roommate accused our client of throwing a computer modem at her. Our client was charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon in violation of G.L. c. 265 Section 15B, a felony in Massachusetts. Attorney Neyman convinced the prosecutor to continue the arraignment and to recommend pretrial diversion under G.L. c. 276A. If the defendant is accepted into the diversion program the case will be dismissed prior to arraignment.

Read More in Assault With a Dangerous Weapon

On June 12, 2018 a young man and some friends were drinking on a beach outside of Boston. They became rowdy and drew the attention of some police officers on foot patrol at the beach. Once officers realized that the group was under aged and had been drinking all were arrested and placed in protective custody. Their parents were called to pick them up. One of the individuals became loud and verbally abusive to the police officers. This continued until the man's mother arrived at the station to pick him up. When the officers went to release him from the cell they observed that he had jammed the cell toilet with paper resulting in a clogging of the drainage system. The man was charged with violating G.L. c. 266 Section 126 vandalism. Attorney Neyman was hired to defend him. A summons for arraignment was continued until today. Attorney Neyman was able to get the man pre-arraignment diversion under G.L. c. 276A. He was not arraigned and will not have a pcf number or any entries in the criminal system.

Read More in Vandalism

On  February 2, 2018 around 10:00 p.m. Burlington, Massachusetts police received a call for a report of malicious destruction to property. The officers went to the scene and met with a homeowner who told them that someone had thrown a rock through their front home window. Upon hearing the glass shattering one of the occupants of the home got into his car and followed the car that had contained the person who threw the rock. He called the license plate into the police and the driver of the car was soon thereafter stopped. There were three occupants in the car all of whom were charged with malicious destruction to property over $250, a felony in Massachusetts under G.L. c. 266 Section 127. Our client confessed to the police that he was the person who had in fact thrown the rock. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the defendant pretrial diversion under G.L. c. 276A. After the defendant completes a period of probation the case will be dismissed. He will not be arraigned.

Read More in G.L. c. 266 Section 127

The defendant is an employee at a local utility company and public school teacher. The defendant and the victim have a child together. On March 7, 2017 the victim went into court to get her child support payments increased and extended. She claimed to have won the hearing. After leaving the courtroom she complained that the defendant followed her, screamed at her and threatened to kill her and her boyfriend. The victim had a witness with her. The case went to trial on charges of threatening to commit a crime, G.L. c. 275 Section 2. Both the victim and witness testified that their initial complaint is exactly what the defendant did. The defendant denied the allegations and testified himself. After trial a Not Guilty verdict was rendered.

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant owns several companies that sell medical implant devices to doctors and hospitals. In January of 2017 the defendant was in Boston with his wife. They were staying at a luxury hotel downtown. Shortly after midnight guests at the adjacent room called hotel security complaining of noise and a possible fight in the defendant's room. A hotel security office went to the room and contacted the defendant's wife who was crying and visibly shaken. In front of the defendant the wife told hotel security that her husband choked her, hit her and threw her on the bed. She repeated the statements to the responding police officers. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the defendant on charges of domestic assault and battery, G.L. c. 265 Section 13M and strangulation or suffocation, G.L. c. 265 Section 15D. Today, the strangulation count was dismissed and the domestic assault and battery was continued without a finding for six months after which that count will also be dismissed.

Read More in Violent Crimes

Just a few days ago the defendant resolved a felony assault and battery dangerous weapon case with a three day continuance without a finding (cwof), G.L. c. 265 Section 15A. The defendant is entering a Masters/PhD program at the end of the month. Fearing perspective employers or her graduate program would learn of the disposition the defendant asked our office to petition to seal her record under G.L. c. 276 Section 100C. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the record sealed.

Read More in Violent Crimes

On May 6, 2017 members of the Tewksbury, Massachusetts Police Department responded to a call for an armed assault. They encountered the victim bleeding from his head and face. His clothes were torn and his face bruised and swollen. The victim identified the defendant and another as his assailants. The victim was hospitalized with very serious injuries. A witness corroborated the victim's identification of the defendants and further added that a baseball bat and gun were used during the beating. Subsequently, arrests were made. The defendants were charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, G.L. c. 265 Section 15A and armed assault with intent to murder, G.L. c. 265 Section 18C. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the charges dismissed.

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant and his family live in a town near Plymouth on a very bucolic piece of property. Over time, the defendant and a neighbor were involved in disputes that became increasingly hostile. In late 2013 into 2014 the neighbor started accusing the defendant of damaging his property and threatening his family with violence. Several reports to the local police department were made. Ultimately some criminal charges and a 258E harassment protection order issued against our client. Then, the neighbor alleged that one day as the defendant was walking his Doberman he encountered his wife and threatened that he would release his dog to kill her.  A subsequent charge of intimidation of a witness pursuant to G.L. c. 268 Section 13B issued. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. Today, that charge was dismissed prior to trial.

Read More in Harassment Protection Orders

The prosecution alleged that on November 23, 2013 officers responded to the Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers, Massachusetts for a report of someone destroying property. Officers arrived to see a kiosk in the mall and other property destroyed. Witnesses identified a particular man as the person responsible for the damage. The officers located the man, a local businessman exiting the mall. He was positively identified by witnesses at the scene. The accused was interrogated by the police and he confessed to the crimes, specifically, malicious destruction to property over $250.00. This is a felony in Massachusetts. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get pretrial probation pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 87 for the client. In six months all charges will be dismissed.

Boston Municipal Court: Boston Police reported that on August 7, 2010 officers leaving the District 4 station observed a taxi pull up and continuously beep its horn trying to draw the officers' attention. As officers approached our client exited the rear sliding door and attempted to jump out of the van while it was moving. The police contacted the taxi cab driver who informed them that he picked up our client and his girlfriend downtown. He was assaulted by the defendant. His eyeglasses were broken and the credit card machine in the rear was damaged by our client. The prosecution brought charges of Malicious Destruction to Property Over $250 against our client. The charges are felonies. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get all charges dismissed.

Woburn District Court Docket Number: 09-0888. The prosecution alleged that on March 29, 2009 Stoneham, Massachusetts police officers were dispatched for a report of a disturbance involving two groups of men. The officers encountered the defendant whom they questioned after learning that he might have been involved in a fight over a drug deal gone bad earlier that evening. Through their conversation and through witness interviews they learned that the defendant had been jumped and robbed of drugs and money. He sought revenge and set out to destroy his attacker's car. In doing so however the defendant damaged the wrong vehicle. He was charged with Malicious Destruction to Property Over $250, a felony in Massachusetts. Even though the defendant has had several brushes with the law Attorney Neyman was able to get the case continued without a finding for one year. If our client remains free from criminal activity for that time period the case will be dismissed.

Brookline District Court # 09CM51.  The prosecution and complainant alleged that on February 27, 2009 a local college student was having dinner with a woman at a local restaurant.  A male friend of the woman arrived at the restaurant and sat down to have dinner with the two.  An argument ensued during which it was alleged that our client struck the other man.  The two men and woman left the restaurant where the dispute continued.  It was further alleged that during the altercation the defendant broke the door to the restaurant.  Earlier today our office succeeded in getting all charges against the defendant dismissed.  No complaint will issue. 

Boston Municipal Court # 98-3539. In 1998 the defendant was observed by a witness breaking glass windows on stores in downtown Boston. He then threatened passersby, destroyed dozens of potted plants and screamed obscenities at innocent civilians. The police were called. The defendant was arrested. During the booking process the client became violent and punched one of the police officers in the face with his fist. The defendant defaulted for over ten years. Today he surrendered himself and Attorney Neyman was able to get all charged dismissed.

Boston Municipal Court # 09-0599. The prosecution alleged that on February 22, 2009 Boston police officers were dispatched to a Back Bay apartment. When they arrived they found the victim screaming to them from her upstairs window. She threw them her apartment keys so that they could secure access to the building. They entered and found the defendant, drunk in the hallway outsider her door. The victim then reported that she and the defendant had been out drinking and went back to her home. An argument erupted during which the defendant assaulted the woman and destroyed her carpet, lamp, rug and a music device. Attorney Neyman convinced the district attorney and the judge to continue the case without a finding. Provided the defendant remain free of criminal legal troubles for the next year the case will be dismissed.

South Boston District Court # 09-0041. On January 11, 2009 Boston Police responded to a call for vandalism in progress. When they arrived on the scene they were met by a man who complained that when he got home he parked in a space in front of his home. The defendant, a neighbor then came out of his home with a hammer, smashed the windows to the victim's car and damaged the passenger door as well. The defendant told the police that he had just shoveled the snow and that the victim took his parking spot. Charges of malicious destruction to property followed. The case was continued without a finding for 60 days. Provided the defendant remains free from trouble for the next two months the charges will be dismissed.

East Boston District Court # 08-1220. In September 2008 Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting unarmed robbery charges against this client dismissed. Charges of assault and battery and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon remained open. Our office succeeded in convincing a clerk magistrate that the complaining witness actually initiated the incident and was in fact responsible for committing a crime of violence on our client. A complaint issued against that person. Today that case was dismissed pursuant to an accord and satisfaction. The case against our client is now closed.

Wrentham District Court # 08-2261.  According to a Millis police report, on August 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. cruisers were dispatched to a local parking lot on a report of an assault and battery.  The victim told police that he was driving west on Route 109 and noticed a vehicle being driven by the defendant tailgating him.  He sped up to create some distance between the cars at which time the defendant attempted to pass him.  The victim turned into a parking lot as did the defendant.  The two got out of their cars at which time the defendant punched him in the face and tried to knee him in the groin area.  The police reported that there were witnesses to this incident.  Attorney Neyman convinced the judge to continue the case without a finding.  If the defendant stays free of criminal problems for one year his case will be dismissed. 

East Boston Court Docket # 08-1220.  The prosecution alleged that on June 26, 2008 the defendant, a forty eight-year old woman, confronted the victim outside of the victim's home in East Boston, Massachusetts.  The defendant and another began punching the victim, knocking her to the ground kicking her while she was down.  The defendants then grabbed her purse and fled in a Toyota.  The victim was able to identify the car registration and the defendants.  The incident was filmed by another individual who had with him his video camera.  The victim received injuries and was treated at a local medical center.  On the pre-trial date Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the prosecution to dismiss the unarmed robbery charges.  The assault and batter charges in this case remain open.

Boston Municipal Court # 08-1481. The prosecution alleged that on February 15, 2008 at 2:20 a.m. Boston Police Officers responded to a radio call for a B&E in progress at 50 Congress Street. Upon arrival officers learned that the defendant was unlawfully inside the victim's Lincoln Navigator with an apparent to commit a felony. The gearshift had been broken as well. Officers confronted the defendant who attempted to flee and resist efforts to arrest him. It was further learned that the defendant had pushed the owner of the Lincoln while the police were en route. Our office succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Waltham District Court # 07-2402.  The prosecution claimed that on August 22, 2007 in the course of a stolen car investigation Weston Police drove by a home where it was believed that the owners were on vacation overseas.  The police approached the home and observed high school aged people having what appeared to be a party.  When the police were detected many of the people scattered through the woods.  Ultimately, the defendant, a Weston High School senior was located in the home, passed out and apparently under the influence of alcohol.  At the time, he was on probation for a prior drunk driving conviction.  Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution of the case whereby the defendant will not have a criminal record and all charges will be dismissed in August of this year.

Plymouth District Court # 07-4111.  On April 9, 2008, over a three day period Attorney Neyman tried a fourth offense drunk driving case in the Plymouth District Court.  The prosecution alleged that on December 15, 2007 Plymouth Police Officers responded to a 911 call stating that a car was driving at night on State Road with its lights off.  Responding officers made the same observation and the defendant was stopped.  When questioned the defendant was unable to respond to simple commands, did not know where he was going or where he had just been.  He failed three separate field sobriety tests and admitted to having consumed a considerable amount of alcohol.  The trial lasted three (3) days.  The jury returned on three (3) occasions to advise the Court that they were hopelessly deadlocked.  Each time, the judge requested that they resume their deliberations.  The defendant was convicted and sentenced.  Three (3) days later our office learned that a court officer made inappropriate comments to the jury about their deliberation process.  During the improper communication the jurors told the court officer that they were deadlocked at 3-3.  We immediately filed a motion to vacate the conviction.  Today, the prosecution agreed to our motion and the case will be retried in a few months. 

Framingham District Court # 08-0780.  The prosecution alleged that on February 23, 2008 at 1:07 a.m. Hopkinton police responded to two 911 calls report "a possible domestic in progress".  Upon arrival police were met by the alleged victim.  She reported that the defendant was upset about their children having written on the wall.  She claimed that as the argument escalated the defendant pulled off his belt, wrapped it around his hand and struck her with it in the face.  The defendant was charged and retained our office to defend the case.  We quickly obtained all discovery materials and scheduled a jury trial.  That day, all charges against the defendant were dismissed.

Brighton District Court # 08-0260.  The prosecution alleged that on February 7, 2008 a Massachusetts State Police officer was conducting queries on random license plates.  He conducted a query of the defendant's car and observed a female operating the vehicle.  The query revealed that the vehicle owner had a revoked driver's license due to an out of state drunk driving conviction.  The officer located the defendant, a Boston Public School teacher at her residence, interrogated her and learned that she had in fact been the operator of the vehicle he queried.  Charges for operating after suspension subsequently issued.  Today, Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the prosecution to dismiss all charges.

West Roxbury District Court.  The prosecution alleged that on April 20, 2008 at 12:25 a.m. Boston Police responded to a radio call of complaints that there was a loud argument in the area of Huntington Avenue and Shepherd Street.  Upon arrival the police observed a large crowd in front of 2 Shepard Street and a larger crowd inside the residence.  The majority of the crowd was consuming alcohol and most appeared to be under the age of twenty-one (21).  While attempting to gain control of the crowd the police observed the defendant, a college freshman attempting to flee from the rear of the residence while drinking alcohol.  When approached the defendant produced an out of state driver's license bearing the name of another.  The defendant was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol and providing a false name to police.  Our office succeeded in having the charges dismissed in their entirety prior to arraignment. 

Quincy District Court # 07-4879.  The defendant, a Quincy man was charged in August of 2007 with possession with intent to distribute a class "B" substance as a second and subsequent offense, conspiracy and school zone violation.  The nature of the charges mandates Superior Court jurisdiction and a minimum mandatory three (3) year sentence to state prison plus and additional two (2) year mandatory sentence for the school zone violation.  Prior to the day of trial Attorney Neyman succeeded in convincing the prosecution to keep the case in the district court and refrain from indicting the case.  Accordingly, that portion of the possession with intent charge alleging "second and subsequent offense" was dismissed.  Also prior to trial, Attorney Neyman investigated the matter and learned that the alleged violation was not within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school zone and the prosecution agreed to a dismissal of that count in the complaint as well.  On the day of trial our office succeeded in having the remaining charge dismissed.

Suffolk Superior Court # 06-10587.  In August of 2000, represented by another law office, the defendant was convicted of carjacking, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  He was sentenced to 5-6 years in state prison and received probation from and after that sentence for a period of four (4) years.  After release from prison the defendant failed to report to probation, failed to report his whereabouts, failed to pay his probation supervision fee, failed to perform community service, failed to report every two weeks and failed to participate in an inpatient drug treatment course, all in violation of his probation.  In fact, the defendant had moved to Florida and started a new life, completing schooling for massage therapy.  When he attempted to get licensed the Florida licensing authorities were alerted to the outstanding probation warrants in Massachusetts.  The defendant retained our office and, with the assistance of Attorney Neyman surrendered to the Massachusetts authorities.  Our office succeeded in getting the probation terminated, thereby ending the defendant's Massachusetts probation obligations and permitting him to lawfully return to Florida

Chelsea Court # 08-0263.  On January 31, 2008 Chelsea police responded to an anonymous call for a domestic violence disturbance at the defendant's home.  The officers knocked on the door and were met by the victim.  She was crying and her eyes were bloodshot.  She had a cut on her left cheek leading from her nose to the corner of her mouth.  There was wet blood on her chin and a cut underneath her chin.  The defendant made inculpatory statements to the police during the course of the investigation.  On the day of trial Attorney Neyman secured a dismissal of all charges against the defendant.

Ayer Court # 07-2375.  As early as May 2007 employees for the Town of Ayer began to notice that various items in the water treatment department had been missing.  The observations were reported to town officials and ultimately the police were called in to investigate the thefts.  Several town employees were interviewed and the investigation led to the defendant as being a prime suspect in the theft of various items.  Two key witnesses told the police that the defendant had admitted to them to taking some IT equipment for his personal use.  Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution of the case whereby the defendant will not have a criminal record and all charges will be dismissed in six (6) months.

Lynn Court # 07-3738. In June of 2007 Lynn Police and Massachusetts State Police were investigating a major heroin distribution ring centered in Lynn, Massachusetts. During the course of surveillance they observed the defendant, an aerospace engineer and his girlfriend drive to an area known for high incidents of narcotics offenses. The vehicle was operated in a manner consistent with counter surveillance techniques. The defendant finally stopped the car in front of a house suspected as a storage facility and distribution point for heroin. Two males approached the vehicle and were seen engaging in a narcotics transaction with the defendant. Specifically, police observed one of the men provide two bags of heroin to the defendant. Surveillance continued and when the defendant drove away from the house backup officers conducted a stop. In the defendant's control was a quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Attorney Neyman negotiated a disposition where the charge of knowingly being present where heroin is kept was dismissed and the possession of heroin will be dismissed in 9 months.

Lynn Court # 07-4083. On June 10, 2007 Lynn Police were involved in a heroin trafficking investigation targeting numerous large scale North Shore heroin dealers. In the course of their investigation they encountered the defendant, a Saugus business owner and his entrepreneur girlfriend, purportedly attempting to sell top of the line brand new stolen computer equipment. Police detectives located a Visa Credit Card receipt for the equipment bearing the name of a New Hampshire resident in the defendant's possession. Officers contacted the victim and learned that his credit card had in fact been stolen while he had been at a gym in New Hampshire. The victim further told police that unauthorized purchases in excess of $2,500.00 were charged to his account. Police investigators next went to the store where the illegal purchases were made and through a security videotape were able to make a positive identification of the defendant. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed on the day of trial.

Brockton Court # 05-8315.  The prosecution alleged that on December 8, 2005 they were dispatched to a Laundromat on Main Street in response to a 911 call.  The caller, an employee of the Laundromat, claimed that the defendant entered her store and asked her if she wanted to buy some "flave", a street name for crack cocaine.  When she refused he made lewd sexual remarks and left the store.  The woman called the police who immediately responded and found the man in his car outside the Laundromat in possession of fifteen bags of crack cocaine and four bags of marijuana.  The cocaine weight was 13.9 grams and the incident took place within 1,000 feet of a school zone.  A conviction would require a minimum mandatory 2 year sentence to the house of correction.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Lynn District Court # 07-7078.  The prosecution alleged that on November 18, 2007 they were dispatched to Emerson Place on a reported 911 call.  When they arrived at the scene they were met by a woman who was crying and shaking.  She claimed that she the defendant, a suburban Boston business owner, had been in a dating relationship and that in the course of an argument he smashed out the driver's window of her car.  She also claimed that he threw a rock at her and blocked her escape with a motor vehicle.  Our office succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Roxbury District Court # 06-6180.  Boston Police alleged that on December 9, 2006 they responded to a radio call to assist Northeastern University  police with a motor vehicle accident involving a possible drunk driver.  Upon arrival the police learned from witnesses that the driver had struck two cars.   The responding officers then located the defendant outside her vehicle, slumped and seated on apartment building stairs.  While attempting to ascertain the woman's physical condition the officers noted that she was unable to respond to questions, unable to stand and emanating a strong odor of alcohol.  The woman was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol.  On the day of trial Attorney Neyman convinced the judge to dismiss the charges.

West Roxbury Court # 07-2836.  The prosecution claimed that on September 12, 2007 police were called to Parker Street in Roxbury for shots fired.  Upon arrival the police observed a window that appeared to have bee shot out.  An investigation led Boston Police to the defendant, a local college student.  Witnesses told the police that the defendant had committed the act and law enforcement was directed to the weapon.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges continued without a finding.  If the defendant stays out of trouble for 1 year all charges will be dismissed and he will not have a criminal record.

Woburn District Court # 07-3083.  On October 8, 2007 around 10:50 p.m. a Massachusetts State Trooper was traveling Northbound on Route 93 in the Wilmington area at approximately 75 miles per hour.  The trooper observed two vehicles passing traffic in the right lanes at speeds estimated to exceed 90 miles per hour.  The operators of both vehicles were stopped and questioned.  One of the drivers admitted to drag racing.  The defendant had a prior criminal record.  The defendant was charged and at arraignment our office succeeded in persuading the prosecution and the judge to continue the matter without a finding.  The case will be dismissed in 6 months.

Lawrence District Court.  On October 27, 2007 the defendant, a Junior A hockey player selected for a Division I scholarship next year was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Route 93 Northbound in Andover, Massachusetts.  State Police responded to the scene.  Upon their arrival they noticed the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the inside of the defendant's vehicle.  Upon further investigation the officer located and seized a quantity of marijuana from the defendant's car.  At a clerk's hearing Attorney Neyman convinced the Clerk Magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint.  Had a complaint issued it is likely that the defendant would have lost his scholarship offer.

Lowell District Court # 07-5478.  On August 6, 2007 an accountant was charged with five counts of larceny over $250.00.  The prosecution alleged that over a three month period through an elaborate scheme the defendant stole funds from her employer in excess of $11,000.00.  Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution of the case wherein the defendant will not have a criminal record and all charges will be dismissed.

Boston Municipal Court # 07-6457.  On September 26, 2007, the Boston Police arrested a sophomore at Northeastern University and charged him with malicious destruction of property and being a disorderly person.  According to the police report, the defendant allegedly kicked and damaged a wreath displayed in honor of nine firefighters that perished in a fire.  Prior to arraignment, this office negotiated that the case be dismissed prior to arraignment on the successful completion of agreed conditions. 

West Roxbury District Court.  Boston police alleged that on October 17, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. they observed the defendant, a professional light heavyweight boxer, standing on the sidewalk near the Forest Hills MBTA station.  A motorcycle arrived at which time police officers observed the driver pull up to the defendant.  The two hugged during which time the officers saw an exchange take place.  The defendant handed money to the other individual in exchange for two plastic bags.  It was later learned that the bags contained crack cocaine.  According to the police officers, upon arrest the defendant admitted to purchasing the crack cocaine for a specified sum of money.  At the clerk's hearing Attorney Neyman convinced the police and the clerk magistrate to continue the matter without issuing charges.  No complaint will issue.

Quincy District Court # 07-1985.  State police alleged that on August 24, 2007 while operating an unmarked cruiser a trooper observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle stopped at a traffic light.  The driver was smoking from a small pipe consistent with pipes used to ingest marijuana.  The car was pulled over on Route 93 near Granite Avenue.  Upon contact the trooper detected the strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana.  He observed the front seat passenger with a quantity of marijuana in her possession and he located the pipe and found it to contain marijuana and marijuana residue.  Attorney Neyman appeared at the clerk's hearing and succeeded in having all charges dismissed with payment of court costs.  No complaint will issue. 

Roxbury District Court Clerk's Show Cause Hearing. The defendant was charged with distributing alcohol to a minor at 11 p.m. on September 7, 2007. According to the police report, Northeastern University Police stopped the defendant and his companion after they exited a package store located off campus. The report alleged that the defendant was carrying a 30-pack of beer and a package of Mike's Lemonade. A Campus Police Officer reported that the defendant was seen passing another 30-pack of beer to an underage student. The defendant denied the charges. Following a show cause hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate declined to issue a complaint and the case will be dismissed in one year provided the defendant stays out of trouble.

Lowell District Court # 07-2104. On January 1, 2007 Tyngsborough, Massachusetts police responded to a home invasion occurring shortly after midnight. According to police, earlier in the evening two groups of young men engaged in an altercation at a New Years Eve party. The fight concluded and the combatants went their separate ways. Later in the evening, one of the groups sought revenge on the other and after midnight headed to another house where the rival group had gathered. The assailants went to the house, forcibly entered and began beating the occupants. Witnesses stated that they observed the defendant striking another individual during one of the confrontations. Home invasion charges against our client were avoided and he was charged with two (2) counts of assault and battery. Attorney Neyman structured a resolution where all counts against his client will be dismissed in one year.

Dedham District Court # 07-1077.  On March 16, 2007 a local police officer responded to a dispatch reporting a motor vehicle crash where the driver left the scene.  The car struck and severed a telephone pole and the license plate of the car remained at the scene.  Local police traced the plate to the defendant who lived a few miles away.  The police accident reconstruction determined that the vehicle ran off the right shoulder, running down a traffic warning sign and striking the telephone pole.  It was further concluded that  the vehicle crossed into the oncoming travel lane for one hundred seventy two (172) feet after which the defendant drove to his home without stopping in violation of Massachusetts law.  Police contacted the man who admitted operating the vehicle.  Emanating from his person was the odor of an alcoholic beverage, he was unsteady on his feet and his eyes were blurry and bloodshot.  Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the leaving the scene charged dismissed.  The negligent operation charge was resolved by continuing the case without a finding for one year.   Provided the client commits no crimes in the next year this charge will be dismissed as well.

Salem District Court # 07-0674.  The complaining witness reported to Salem police that on March 3, 2007 she had a verbal argument with her husband that turned violent.  Specifically, the woman reported that the defendant struck her on both sides of her head with an open hand.  The impact was so hard that she became light headed and fell to the ground.  The defendant then climbed on top of her and placed both hands around her throat and began to choke her.  The defendant subsequently picked up a dust pan and struck the complainant multiple times on her legs and thighs stopping only when the dust pan broke.  The defendant then purportedly grabbed the woman by the head and held her head up against the wall.  The defendant hired our offices and Attorney Neyman quickly moved to get the case scheduled for trial on September 12, 2007.  That day our office convinced the court to dismiss the case.

Somerville District Court Docket Number 07-0354.  On August 8, 2007 a Medford man applied for and was granted a restraining order against a woman from Stoneham.  The man told the District Court judge that he and the woman had been involved in a relationship for over five (5) years and that on several occasions she would physically assault him, scratch him, bite him and had attempted to stab him with a knife.  The complainant further stated that after the relationship ended the woman stalked him incessantly.  One month the woman supposedly text messaged him nearly two thousand (2,000) times.  On September 4, 2007 Attorney Neyman was hired by the woman to challenge the restraining order.  He succeeded in having the order vacated on September 11, 2007.

West Roxbury District Court #07-0844. On March 11, 2007 Boston Police responded to Ridge Street in the Roslindale section of Boston where they were met by the co-defendant's mother. The woman claimed that she and her daughter had a physical altercation pertaining to the defendant, an alleged drug dealer. The woman showed the police a sandwich bag containing crack cocaine that she found hidden in a fan in the defendant's bedroom closet. Drug Control officers were then called to the house. They were able to seize more cocaine, marijuana and firearm ammunition. A total of more than thirty (30) grams of cocaine was seized from the defendant's bedroom. Im Massachusetts, this quantity of cocaine requires a mandatory minimum sentence of five (5) years on state prison with an additional two (2) years for being within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school zone. The defendant faced a minimum mandatory seven (7) year sentence. Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges against the defendant dismissed.

Lowell District Court Docket Number: 07-1879. After an 18 month investigation the defendant, a New York woman living in Massachusetts was charged with presenting a false insurance claim, attempting to commit a crime and false report of the theft of a motor vehicle. The prosecution alleged that in November of 2005 the defendant reported to the Lowell Police that her 1997 luxury vehicle had been stolen. The loss was reported to her insurance company as well. According to the prosecution the defendant stated that she had made no other claims in the previous three years and that she had no other vehicles registered to her or purchased in her name. The invesigation revealed that claims had been made in the recent past and that she owned three vehicles. Police were unable to find evidence of forced entry at the location where the car had been reported stolen despite the fact that the defendant claimed to have locked the vehicle and that only she had keys to the car. The car was ultimately located in Guilford, Connecticut. Forensic experts concluded that the car was not in fact stolen and charges were brought against the defendant. Attorney Neyman negotiated a resolution that will result in the dismissal of all charges in one year. The defendant will have no criminal record.

Brookline District Court Docket Number 06-0859. The police alleged that in November of 2006 they went to the defendant's apartment in Brookline, Massachuetts to serve an arrest warrant. Upon arrival they noticed marijuana in an ashtray and began a search of the apartment purportedly with the consent of the defendant. During the search police located a package containing seventeen (17) ounces of marijuana. The package was addressed to the defendant. All of this took place within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school zone mandating a minimum two (2) year sentence were the defendant to be convicted of this charge. Our office succeeded in having this charge dismissed.

Dedham District Court Docket Number 06-0664. The prosecution alleged that in August 2006 police were approached by a taxicab driver who claimed to have just been assaulted by the defendant. The cab driver stated that he picked the defendant up in downtown Boston and drove him to Cleveland Circle in Brookline. During the ride the defendant became agitated with the cab driver due to the route he was taking. The defendant reached through the partition, punched the cab driver and began kicking the cab door causing substantial damage. Police located the defendant and upon their approach he was observed throwing a package containing marijuana packaged in a manner consistent with the intent to distribute. On the day of trial Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charges dismissed.

West Roxbury District Court Docket Number 06-2738. On September 4, 2006 Boston Police responded to a dispatch for a breaking and entering in a basement apartment on Boylston Street in Boston. Upon arrival the police encountered the victim who had been stabbed twice in the right shoulder area. The victim told police that when he arrived home at his apartment he found the defendant hiding and holding a knife. The defendant then stabbed the victim two times and fled out of the apartment through the rear door. The police canvassed the neighborhood and located the defendant hiding and covered in blood. As the police restrained the defendant they located a set of handcuffs on the floor behind him. During a booking search the police found a key that fit the handcuffs. After filing several motions and appearing at numerous court appearances, on the date of trial Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all charges against the defendant dismissed.

Somerville District Court

On March 18, 2007 Somerville Police officers responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at 2:15 in the afternoon. Upon arrival the police were met by the victim and defendant and learned that after an argument the defendant began hitting, scratching and biting the victim. Evidence supporting the allegations was found on the victim. At the show cause hearing Attorney Neyman convinced the clerk magistrate to order all charges dismissed. As a result, no complaint issued against the defendant and the matter is terminated.

Roxbury District Court. On January 4, 2007, while at work the defendant's supervisor contacted security and complained that she had been struck by the defendant in a dispute involving other personnel at a Boston hospital. The Boston Police were contacted and the defendant was summonsed to the Roxbury District Court for a clerk's hearing to determine whether or not a criminal complaint should issue. The victim and the Boston Police appeared at the hearing and related details of the incident to a magistrate. Our office succeeded in persuading the magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint and all charges were dropped.

Concord District Court # 06-2042. On November 27, 2006 Maynard Police officers responded to the defendant's home for a report of a domestic dispute in progress. The defendant's wife invited the police into the house where they found broken dishes and items strewn about the home, all indicative of a violent event. The wife reported to the officers that the defendant grabbed her by the neck and shoulder and threw her around the home in a violent rage. The couple's fifteen year old daughter called the police. The defendant was arrested and charged with assault and battery. Our office succeeded in getting the charges dismissed.

Roxbury District Court # 06-2079. On April 29, 2006 Boston Police responded to call regarding an altercation in the Roxbury section of Boston. Upon arrival the police spoke with a woman who claimed that while walking down the street with her boyfriend the defendant grabbed her buttocks in an aggressive manner and made lewd comments. The woman's boyfriend and the defendant then got into the altercation that prompted the police to respond. The defendant was arrested and during the booking search the police located eight (8) vials of marijuana. The prosecution further alleged that the defendant admitted to possessing the marijuana with the intention to distribute that substance. Attorney Neyman convinced the judge to continue the case without a finding. Provided the defendant remains free of legal problems for the next year all charges will be dismissed.

Concord District Court # 06-2121. The prosecution alleged that on December 14, 2006 police responded to a 911 call regarding a dispute between a man and woman. When the police entered the premises the complainant told them that she and the defendant were having an argument during which the defendant threw her to the floor and struck her about the head. Attorney Neyman's office succeeded in getting all charges dismissed.

Cambridge District Court # 06-2218.  The prosecution alleged that on October 1, 2006 City of Cambridge police officers responded to the defendant's home.  They were met by the defendant's wife who complained that during an argument the defendant struck her about the chest and face.  Police officers further claimed to have seen redness to the wife's cheek and ear.  At the time of this incident the defendant and his wife had been married for about one year.  The defendant, an alien resident had concerns about his work and immigration status should he be convicted of the pending charges.  During the third court appearance we had all charges against the defendant dismissed. 

Chelsea District Court # 99-1693.  On October 10, 2006 Attorney Neyman convinced a judge sitting in the Chelsea District Court to vacate a 1999 conviction against a Connecticut laborer and to order a new trial.  A deportation order requiring the defendant's removal from the country was pending at the time.  Trial was scheduled for December 4, 2006.  That day, our office had all charges dismissed and the case has been closed.

Newton District Court # 06-0959.  The defendant, a local attorney was charged with domestic assault and battery in the Newton District Court.  On the day of the alleged incident, the defendant's wife made a 911 call to the police and claimed that during an argument the defendant became agitated and assaulted her.  The wife subsequently applied for and obtained a restraining order prohibiting the defendant from contacting the wife and to vacate the marital residence.  All events were alleged to have occurred on October 18, 2006.  On November 21, 2006 Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting all criminal charges dismissed and the restraining order vacated. 

Chelsea District Court # 99-1693.  In 1999 the defendant, a Haitian laborer, was convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  It was alleged that during the course of a racially motivated argument the defendant stabbed the victim causing seriously injuries.  Fearing an uncertain result after trial the defendant pleaded guilty to avoid jail time.  A few years later, the government obtained a deportation order requiring the defendant's removal from the United States, notwithstanding the fact that he was gainfully employed, married and the sole provider for his children ages 8, 10 and 14.  While that matter remained open on appeal, our office was contacted to vacate the plea in hopes of avoiding deportation.  After hearing the sentencing judge agreed to vacate the conviction and the matter was put on a trial scheduling track for resolution.

Boston Municipal Court # 06-2913.  The defendant, a 46 year old Pennsylvania man was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The alleged victim was his girlfriend.  The police reported that on May 1, 2006 they received a call from security personnel at a prominent Boston waterfront hotel.  Upon arrival they found the alleged victim who claimed that the defendant kicked her about the head and face several times with a shod foot and his fists.  The officers observed swelling and redness to the face corroborating the representations of the woman.  Trial was scheduled for October 4, 2006.  On that date all charges against the defendant were dismissed at the request of our office.

Boston Municipal Court # 05-5379.  The defendant was the assistant manager of a Boston clothing store.  The prosecution claimed that for an extensive period of time the defendant was falsifying time records for herself and other employees of the store, resulting in a theft estimated in excess of $8,000.00.  On October 28, 2005 a complaint issued charing the defendant with larceny of $250.00.  The crime carried a sentence of up to 2 years in the House of Correction or 5 years in State Prison.  On October 3, 2006 Attorney Neyman succeeded in getting the case dismissed.

West Roxbury District Court # 06-2986.  The Boston Police alleged that on the date of this incident they responded to a house party after receiving a report that a person with a gun was at this residence.  When the police arrived at the scene they observed a crowd of approximately 100 people inside the residence and another crowd exiting the party and gathering on the sidewalk.  Fights on the sidewalk erupted and one of the police officers alleged that the defendant refused to leave the area notwithstanding instructions to the contrary.  It was further alleged that when the police tried to arrest the defendant for disorderly conduct he resisted arrest.  All charges will be dismissed in 6 months provided that the defendant complete a 90 minute alcohol awareness program. 

Boston Municipal Court # 06-5782.The Boston Police alleged in a report that after receiving a 911 call they arrived at the defendant's home and observed the purported victim holding ice to her mouth and complaining that the defendant had struck her and dragged her into his bedroom.  The defendant was arrested and charges of assault and battery issued.  On the day of arraignment all charges against the defendant were dismissed.

Roxbury District Court # 06-2207. Police charged a Boston man with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana. It was alleged that on May 6, 2006 a police officer observed the defendant's car parked in an area known for high incidents of drug activity. The officer approached and observed the defendant and two passengers making furtive hand movements and attempting to hide something under the seat. As the officer approached to investigate the defendant started his motor vehicle and fled at a high rate of speed. While doing so the defendant's vehicle struck the officer causing physical injuries. The officer radioed for assistance and subsequently the defendant's vehicle was stopped. During a search marijuana was found on the defendant. Attorney Neyman succeeded in having all charges continued without a finding.

Roxbury District Court. On May 8, 2006 several college students were celebrating the culmination of their freshman year final exams by hosting a party in their dorm room. The party spread to the dormatory rooftop where police spotted the defendant consuming alcohol. The investigation further concluded that the students were in possession of stolen property and charges issued at the Roxbury District Court. All charges against the individual our office represented were dismissed by a clerk magistrate after hearing.

Roxbury Court Number:  05-1798.  On April 15, 2005 a local college student was charged in the Roxbury District Court with possession with the intent to distribute Class C and Class D substances and with doing so within 1000 feet of a school zone.  The charges carried a minimum mandatory two year period of incarceration.  The complaint stemmed from a four month investigation during which local police received numerous complaints that the defendant was selling marijuana and "psychedelic mushrooms".  On several occasions, police arrived at the defendant's dormatory room and smelled the odor of burnt marijuana.  Police learned from confidential sources that the defendant kept the marijuana and other substances in a gray lock box.  On April 15, 2005, armed with a search warrant, police searched the defendant's room and seized the lock box.  The lock box was forcibly opened and located inside were "psychedelic mushrooms", marijuana and other items consistent with drug distribution.  Our office filed and argued motions to suppress claiming that the search and seizure of the gray lock box was unlawful and in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.  A District Court judge agreed and on April 10, 2006 all charges were dismissed. 

East Boston Court # 05-0277.  On February 26, 2005 Boston Police responded to a call detailing an incident of domestic violence.  Upon arrival the police spoke with the victim who stated that the defendant had smashed her head off the interior window of his truck and attempted to throw her out of the vehicle while it was still moving.  The victim further told the police that the defendant had punched her in the mouth two times.  The police observed the woman to have swollen lips, and fresh red marks to the left side of her head and face.  The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and faced a prison charge of up to fifteen years.  Our office succeeded in getting all charged dismissed on the day of trial.

East Boston Court #05-0640.  In an undercover capacity Boston Police witnessed the defendant engaged in a drug transaction with a known female heroin user.  The police apprehended the woman and found a sizable quantity of heroin in her possession.  The woman admitted that she had just made the purchase from the defendant.  She provided law enforcement with his name and address.  The information she provided was corroborated by the undercover officers' observations.  In addition, in their report the police described the defendant as "known to officers, and sells heroin in the East Boston community".  The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with selling heroin in a school zone, a charge that mandates more than two years incarceration.  After trial the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

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.

Dorchester Docket Number 04-5488. The complaining witness alleged that on September 12, 2004 she met the defendant and another man at a nightclub in downtown Boston. The woman accompanied the two men to an apartment where she claimed to have been raped twice. Specifically, the woman complained to police and medical personnel that the defendant 'physically forced himself upon her and twice penetrated her vaginally with his penis'. After two court appearances we succeeded in having all charges dismissed.

Brighton District Court Docket Number 04-1240. The defendant, a graduate of Penn State University was with several friends attending the Penn State/Boston College football game. Authorities alleged that the defendant was unlawfully consuming alcohol in the stands, and when asked to leave the stadium became loud, agitated, refused to leave and resisted arrest. After two court appearances our office was successful in getting the government and judge to agree to dismiss the case.

Docket Number SUCR 2003-10808. A Charlestown man charged with armed robbery and armed home invasion was acquitted after a jury trial in Suffolk County.  The government presented civilian and police witnesses identifying the defendant as having entered the victim's home at 6:00 a.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003.  It was alleged that the defendant placed a knife to the throat of the victim and rummaged through his parents bedroom, fleeing with money taken from a pair of the victim's father's pants.  The defendant was facing a mandatory life sentence as a habitual offender.  Through cross-examination Mr. Neyman effectively attacked the accuracy and integrity of the identification and the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all counts.

Lawrence District Docket No. 03-7912. After an evidentiary hearing Mr. Neyman succeeded in convincing a judge to dismiss all charges against a local attorney charged with drunk driving, assaulting a police office and resisting arrest.  During the hearing Mr. Neyman was able to prove that the defendant was not drunk, had not operated the car, never struck the police officers and never resisted the arrest.  In a lengthy decision castigating the responsible police officers the District Court Judge held "regrettably, in this case all of the training, all of the policies and all of the professionalism failed.  The numerous violations of the defendant's statutory and constitutional rights by the …police on the evening in question…cannot be justified and in fact must be called into question.  They leave no effective alternative remedy but to dismiss the complaint in its entirety".

Newburyport District Docket No. 03-0849. Mr. Neyman was successful in obtaining an acquittal for an architect charged with second offense drunk driving.  The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant was swerving his car in and out of solid dividing lines and operating at an extremely high rate of speed on a downtown Amesbury street.  It was further alleged that the defendant needed to support himself by leaning on his own car, could not adequately perform simple field sobriety tests such as reciting the alphabet and walking heal to toe in a straight line.  At trial Mr. Neyman asked the officer to perform such tests. The officer used the witness stand box to support himself, shook nervously while demonstrating the field sobriety tests and himself failed to complete the heal to toe test. The jury deliberated less than one hour before returning a not guilty verdict.

Lawrence District Docket No. 03-4341. After a two day trial a CEO of a Boston based corporation was found not guilty of second offense drunk driving by an Essex County jury. State police officers stated that defendant crossed lines and weaved in and out of lane several times. Police testified that defendant had "stench of booze" on his breath and that the odor permeated the entire police barracks. Through receipts, the testimony of a bartender and defense expert toxicologist Dr. David Benjamin Mr. Neyman was able to affirmatively establish sobriety. Jury returned not guilty verdict in less than twenty minutes.