Case Results 2020

On October 16, 2019 members of a suburban Boston police department received a 911 call for a domestic assault in progress. The police arrived to find the victim in need of medical attention. She stated that she caught her boyfriend cheating on her. The two argued. The argument became physical and the boyfriend smashed her head against a wall. The victim further reported that the defendant trashed her home. Officers made observations supportive of the woman's complaints. The defendant was arrested later that evening and charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 265 section 15A and domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. After more than a year of pretrial motions, discovery battles and investigation we were able to get all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

On October 8, 2020 members of a Cape Cod police department were called for a report of a drunken man out of control. Officers observed the man unsteady on his feet and incoherent. The police put him into custody for his own protection and the for the protection of the general public. In the process of doing so the man became highly agitated and belligerent. While at the station a female officer walked by the man's cell. He proceeded to remove his clothes and show the officer his naked buttocks. The man then proceeded to put his finger in his anus while screaming obscenities at the officer. He was charged with disorderly person, violative of G.L. c. 272 section 53 and open and gross lewdness under G.L. c. 272 section 16. Attorney Neyman was able to get the assistant district attorney to agree to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed outright in a few months.

Read More in Pretrial Probation

Our client is a firefighter. Over a year ago he was in a relationship with a woman that ended. Afterwards, the woman lost her job. She believed that the defendant, our client had something to do with this. He did not. Nevertheless, the woman went to exact revenge against him. She took out a restraining order claiming that our client had raped her over a year ago, G.L. c. 265 section 22, that he had been stalking her and that he had been harassing her. Attorney Neyman was hired to vacate the 209A restraining order. A hearing was scheduled. Attorney Neyman was able to demonstrate to the judge that the allegations were fabricated and stale. He further convinced the judge that the woman's actions were retaliatory. The restraining order was immediately vacated. 

Read More in Rape

The defendant is a college graduate with several graduate degrees. He works in the high tech industry. On July 7, 2020 a woman living in his neighborhood was walking her dog. Her attention was drawn to an open window. She was able to see a man standing, naked from his neck to his knees masturbating. She went to the police to report the incident. Officers conducted a search of their files and recognized that a similar complaint was made about this same person two years earlier. The officers contacted the man and asked him to go to the police station for an interview. He did. During the interview he admitted to having committed this act. He was charged with open and gross lewdness, a felony under G.L. c. 272 section 16. He hired our office. Over the objection of the district attorney's office we were able to get this case continued without a finding. Should the man remain free of criminal legal problems for one year all charges will be dismissed. 

Read More in Sex 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 defendants are freshmen in a local college. Several months ago they were at a restaurant dining and drinking alcohol. Police officers assigned to an alcohol task force entered the restaurant. They quickly observed the group with drinks in front of them and appearing to be underaged. The officers asked for driver's licenses. All defendants provided valid driver's licenses and all were under the age of 21. The officers exercised appropriate restraint, took all relevant information and summonsed the individuals for a clerk magistrate hearing. Our office was hired to represent three of these men. Each was charged with violating G.L. c. 138 section 34, minor in possession of alcohol. At the hearing we prevailed on the clerk not to issue the complaint. All matters will be dismissed in a few months. 

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

The defendant is charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. At his arraignment he was ordered not to return to his home and to stay away and not contact his family. Later that day the defendant retained Attorney Stephen Neyman  to represent him. That afternoon we went into court and succeeded in getting the conditions vacated. Our client is back at home with his family. 

Read More in Bail

Our client is retired career military and career law enforcement. His entire career was spent outside of Massachusetts. In June of 2020 his partner of several years called for a wellness check after having some concerns about his mental health. A commitment under G.L. c. 123 section 12 was ordered. During the course of treatment mandatory reporters learned that the man possessed several firearms. A police investigation corroborated the report. The officers went to our client's home and located a handgun in his car, other firearms and ammunition. The man was charged with violating G.L. c. 269 section 10(h), leaving a firearm unattended, possession of a firearm without an FID card, G.L. c. 269 section 10(h) and possession of ammunition under G.L. c. 269 section 10(h). Attorney Neyman was able to convince the prosecutor that the man's military service and law enforcement career warranted pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed within a year. 

Read More in Gun Charges

On August 27, 2020 police in a suburban town were dispatched to a Chinese restaurant for a report of a bar fight. The owner of the restaurant, several employees and a few patrons provided similar accounts of the incident. In sum, our client and another patron got into an argument. Neither knew the other. The argument escalated into a physical altercation. The incident was caught on a security video. Both individuals were charged with assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13A. Attorney Neyman contacted the other individual's lawyer. Both agreed to invoke their valid respective 5th Amendment rights. The judge permitted each to do so at the pretrial hearing. Consequently, the district attorney's office agreed that they could not proceed without the testimony of the defendants. The judge allowed our motions to dismiss. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client is a high school student who was charged with operating to endanger pursuant to G.L. c. 90 section 24. On June 29, 2020 police in an affluent suburb were called to an accident scene. An accident reconstruction team determined that the driver was speeding, driving erratically and not paying attention to the conditions of the roadway. He struck a mailbox and his car careened into a tree on the opposite side of the street from the mailbox. Lack of attention, negligence and operating in an endangering manner were determined and a summons for a clerk magistrate hearing issued. Our office succeeded in getting the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. 

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes

The defendant is a senior in college who was in Massachusetts visiting in September of 2020. Police in a Boston suburb, while on routine patrol observed a car travelling 50 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Officers ran the vehicle registration and learned that it has been revoked for not being inspected or insured. The officers confronted the driver who was alone. He made clear that he was insured and that he had an inspection appointment scheduled for a day later that week. Nevertheless he was told that he could not drive the car at that time. The police then called for a tow of the vehicle. Pursuant to a motor vehicle inventory search they located a bag of mushrooms, a class C drug in Massachusetts. The defendant was then arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a class C drug under G.L. c. 94C section 34, operating with a revoked or suspended registration pursuant to G.L. c. 90 section 23 and operating uninsured in violation of G.L. c. 90 section 34J. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes

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

Our client is a successful local entrepreneur who has opened many well established and attended businesses. On July 16, 2020 he was parked in a car with a friend. The location of where the vehicle was parked raised the suspicion of local patrol officers. They walked up to the car and observed the occupants, one of them our client, inhaling what they believed to be cartridges of nitrous oxide. After making this determination our client and the other individual were arrested. Our client was charged with inhaling a toxic substance in violation of G.L. c. 270 section 18. Attorney Neyman was hired and quickly negotiated pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. All charges will be dismissed shortly. Our client will have no criminal record. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Our client is a pharmacist. On January 15, 2020 he and the driver of another vehicle got into a verbal altercation over this person taking our client's parking space. Infuriated, our client returned to the location where the victim parked and slashed her car tires. Unbeknownst to him, security cameras in the area captured the entire incident. Our client left the area and was summonsed to court for malicious destruction to property under $1,200, a violation of G.L. c. 266 section 127. He never received the summons and a warrant issued. Yesterday, he was pulled over for a moving violation and the officer alerted him to the outstanding warrant. Our client called our office to represent him. We went into court to remove the default. While doing so we prevailed on the assistant district attorney to agree to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. The case will be dismissed once our client makes restitution in the amount of $250. 

Read More in Pretrial Probation

In July of 2018 our client and another individual were in a car driving into a highly trafficked narcotics neighborhood. The vehicle made several suspicious maneuvers that caught the attention of local drug enforcement officers who were conducting surveillance of a particular home. This car eventually parked in front of that home. One of the individuals exits the car and enters the property under investigation. Our client, the driver remains in the vehicle. Several minutes later the police see the other man exit the house with a box in his hands. Our client then gets out of the car and opens the trunk. He places the box in the well where the spare tire should be. The officers witness the entire incident and decide to follow the car. It stops to get gas at which time the officers confront our client. They ask for his permission to open the trunk. He agrees to do so. The officers ask him to open where the spare should be. They see the box and ask the defendant what is in it. He tells them that it is cocaine. In fact it is 21.5 grams of cocaine sufficient for a charge of trafficking under G.L. c. 94C section 32E and a mandatory 2 year state prison sentence. The passenger was also charged. He took a deal in the district court for one year in the house of correction. With our advice, our client chose to fight the case. He was indicted to the Superior Court however we were able to negotiate a plea to a lesser charge, possession with intent under G.L. c. 94C section 31. Moreover, the assistant district attorney agreed to probation only for our client. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

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

In April of 2020 police in an Eastern Massachusetts city responded to a call for a larceny. They met with the victim, a local truck driver who routinely delivers cigarettes to convenience stores. While  inside a store making a delivery the driver's truck padlocks were broken and cases of cigarettes were stolen from the inside of the truck. An eyewitness working across the street informed the police of his observations. Additionally, a security video from the store was obtained. It captured the entire incident. The suspects escaped into a vehicle registered to our client. The detectives investigating this incident tried to contact the car owner, our client. They were unable to do so however they did contact her children who identified the car as hers. They also told the police that our client never permitted anyone to drive the vehicle. Based on this information our client was charged with larceny over $1,200 a felony under G.L. c. 266 section 30 and conspiracy G.L. c. 274 section 7. Today we prevailed on a motion to dismiss. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

Our client recently graduated from high school. He is a freshman in college. In March of this year, without his parents permission the man took his parents car for a ride. He does not have a driver's license. The man picked up his girlfriend and the two went for a ride. While on the ride our client lost control of his vehicle and damages personal property of a city resident as well as a utility pole. He was given a citation for unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in violation of G.L. c. 90 section 10 and operating to endanger under G.L. c. 90 section 24. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to represent the man. Today, after a clerk magistrate hearing, no charges were issued. 

Read More in Operating to Endanger

Our client is facing charges of drug possession under G.L. c. 94C section 34. She missed a court date and a warrant was issued for her arrest. She contacted our office to represent her on the case and to have the default removed and the warrant vacated. Today, we went into court, made the judge aware of our intentions to defend the case and successfully had the warrant recalled. 

Read More in Default Removal

On November 24, 2019, our client who lives in another state was visiting friends in Massachusetts and attending a hockey game. The group went to a bar. The defendant became intoxicated and inappropriately touched a cocktail waitress. She immediately complained and our client was confronted by security. The establishment checked with security footage and quickly learned that the incident had been recorded. The police were called and our client was charged with indecent assault and battery in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 13H. He hired our office. We were able to get the case continued without a finding for six months. There will be no sex offender registry consequences and the case will be officiall dismissed. 

Read More in Sex Crimes

The defendant is charged in the Superior Court with possession with intent to distribute drugs, second and subsequent offense under G.L. c. 94C section 32 C. He faces mandatory state prison time if convicted. A few days ago he was rearrested for another drug related offense and his bail was revoked. Our office was hired to represent the man on a new case and the bail revocation was overturned. The defendant is back at home and working. 

Read More in Bail 

Our client is an international graduate student in Massachusetts on a student visa. On April 30, 2020 Boston Police Officers responded to a radio call for a man trespassing in the boiler room of an apartment building. The caller met the officers and told them that the man was banging on doors and making unintelligible statements. The caller further indicated that hte man threatened him with a knife. The officers located the man in the building. Consistent with the caller's statements, the man continued with his irrational behavior. The officers handcuffed him and located a significant amount of cocaine and marijuana in his possession along with a knife. The man was charged with trafficking cocaine G.L. c. 92C section 32E, trespass G.L. c. 266 section 120, assault by means of a dangerous weapon G.L. c. 265 section 15B and possession with intent to distribute a class D drug under G.L. c. 94C section 32C. The man was immediately taken to a mental health facility. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to defend the man that day. The mental health hospitalization disclosed that the defendant had a mental break due to excessive cocaine intoxication. Attorney Neyman was able to demonstrate this to the prosecutor and the trafficking charge was reduced to possession with intent class B and kept in the district court. Further discussions with the prosecution coupled with a presentation of the defendant's academic accomplishments persuaded the assistant district attorney to agree to pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87. The defendant must complete a probationary period free from criminal legal problems and engage in mental health treatments and the case will be dismissed. 

Read More in Trafficking Cocaine

The defendant is a firefighter in an Eastern Massachusetts city. In March of 2020 a woman entered the police department in that city to report an assault allegedly committed by our client. She claimed that after a night out with friends she returned home to find her live-in boyfriend, our client, packing and indicating his intentions to move out and to terminate the relationship. When she confronted him he became enraged and began to strangle her. He then punched her and left the home. The man was apprehended a few hours later and charged with strangulation in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 15D and domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Neyman was retained. We were able to get the strangulation charged dismissed through a motion to dismiss and pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 on the domestic assault and battery allegation. The defendant will have no criminal record. 

Read More in Strangulation 

On April 3, 2020 our client was charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13M. Police were called by a neighbor who reported a disturbance in the home adjacent to hers. When the police arrived the victim, our client's fiance, reported that he had been physically abusive towards her. Specifically, the woman complained that after an argument centering on the defendant's infidelity, she was slapped, shoved and kicked. Our client denied all allegations. After being held for a probation violation Attorney Neyman was retained. He quickly moved for trial and today all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client managed accounts at a Boston financial institution. Security personnel at this business learned that our client uncovered what they believed to be a theft scheme involving our client. The internal investigation revealed that our client would take discarded equipment from the institution and sell it on the second market. They alleged that the scheme deprived the company of tens of thousands and that our client received a financial benefit of a similar amount from his actions. Charges of larceny over $1,200 under G.L. c. 266 section 30 issued against our client. That is a felony in Massachusetts. We successfully moved to continue the arraignment on several occasions. By doing so we were able to establish that our client did not in fact commit a crime. The prosecutor agreed to a dismissal of the charges prior to arraignment upon a reasonable amount of restitution. 

Read More in Larceny 

On February 15, 2020 police in a Boston suburb were dispatched to a grocery store parking lot for a call of a female in distress. The officers met with the caller and her daughter who witnessed the incident. In some fashion both reported that during an argument the defendant, while driving, struck and broke his rearview mirror and used it to hit his wife. The man was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 15A. Attorney Stephen Neyman was retained to represent the defendant. Our investigation quickly established that witness reports were inaccurate and that the police version of the incident was inconsistent with the actual event. Witnesses, represented by counsel elected to properly invoke their privileges and the case was dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes 

The defendant is charged with two counts of open and gross lewdness under G.L. c. 272 Section 16. This is a felony in Massachusetts an a conviction for both of these would result in the defendant having to register as a sex offender. He was charged with these crimes in July and initially represented by another lawyer. He was ordered to 24 hour home confinement. This condition prevented him from working. He hired Attorney Stephen Neyman a few weeks later. The first thing our office did was schedule a hearing to modify the conditions of release. We convinced the judge, over the objection of the assistant district attorney, to vacate that condition and to permit our client to return to work. 

Read More in Bail

The defendant is facing multiple OUI cases in Massachusetts. He was placed on pretrial conditions that required SCRAM testing. The times of the required test interfered with his work hours and it was necessary to file a motion to modify the conditions of release. Our office did just that and the judge agreed to amend the SCRAM testing requirements to avoid any interruption in the defendant's work schedule. 

Read More in OUI 

The defendant is charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. He was placed on conditions of release that included submitting to the SCRAM device test several times per day. A few weeks ago the SCRAM registered a positive result after one of the tests and the assistant district attorney requested that the defendant's bail be revoked and that he serve 90 days pending trial under the bail revocation portion of the bail statute. The judge denied that request and agreed to a hearing on the modification of the conditions of release. After a hearing the judge removed the SCRAM requirement. The defendant will no longer have to submit to alcohol screens while waiting for his case to be resolved. 

Read More in Bail

The defendant is a hedge fund manager with a summer home in Massachusetts. Several months ago the man and his wife were at this home. They had a verbal altercation that turned physical. This incident was observed by numerous people. One of these people called the local police who responded in minutes. The responding officer quickly located our client who was with his wife and not far from the scene of the incident. The wife told the police what happened. The defendant admitted to most of what was alleged. He was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired almost immediately. Today, the wife invoked her marital privilege and all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Assault and Battery

Our client is a sales executive at a local computer software company. Several months ago he was caught in video surveillance footage stealing from a local retail store. Using security videos the police were able to see the make and model of the car the individual entered. The videos showed the car exit the parking lot and enter a gas station adjacent to the store. Officers obtained credit card receipts from the gas station and were able to match the car with the receipt. The credit card used to purchase the gas was in our client's name. Registry of Motor Vehicle documents were sought and our client's license photo matched the person seen stealing from the store. Our client was summonsed to court and charged with shoplifting under G.L. c. 266 section 30A. Our office was able to get all charges dismissed upon making a restitution payment. 

Read More in Theft Crimes 

On July 2, 2020 police responded to a call for a motor vehicle accident. They arrived to find our client obviously impaired by alcohol and outside of the car. The driver too was impaired. After putting the driver through field sobriety tests it was determined that he would be arrested for OUI. Since our client was unable to drive officers decided to impound the vehicle. While conducting an inventory search the police discovered ammunition in the car. Both defendants were charged with possession of ammunition under G.L. c. 269 section 10(h). Attorney Neyman was hired and successfully moved to continue the arraignment. We then filed a motion to dismiss the charges prior to arraignment. The prosecutor opposed the motion. After a hearing the judge ruled in our client's favor. All charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Guns and Weapons Charges

On April 10, 2020 police in a suburban Boston city responded to a 911 hangup call and suspicion of domestic abuse. They arrived to find the defendant with a woman later identified as the victim. The woman was crying. She complained that after receiving a call from a former boyfriend our client became enraged, slapped her in the face and punched her in the lip. The police observed injuries consistent with the woman's complaints. Our client was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to defend the man. Today all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a laborer working in the Merrimack Valley. In June of this year police in a Massachusetts industrial city received a call for gunshots being fired in a specific location. Officers responded to that scene. The located bullet holes in several homes. Shortly thereafter they received a call from a car crash. Other officers responded to that location and found our client behind the wheel of the car. There was a passenger in the front of the car as well. There was also a firearm in the vehicle along with ammunition. The gun was loaded. Ballistics later confirmed that the gunshots came from this weapon. Officers searching the car located Our client was charged with possession of a firearm under G.L. c. 269 section 10(a), possession of a loaded firearm under G.L. c. 269 section 10(n), possession of ammunition under G.L. c. 10(h), possession with the intent to distribute class E drugs, a crime under G.L. c. 94C section 32D and possession of class B drugs in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 34. The defendant hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. We were quickly able to establish that our client was not responsible for any of those charges. Today, all of those charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Gun Charges 

The defendant holds a doctorate in several disciplines from top ten universities. He is engaged in medical research and is currently working towards eradicating fatal diseases worldwide. Several months ago our client was involved in an altercation with a taxicab driver. The driver claimed that during the course of the conflict our client spit on him. The police responded, obtained our client's name and issued a summons for him to attend a clerk magistrate hearing where he was charged with assault and battery in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 13A. He hired Attorney Neyman to represent him. The hearing was conducted and the victim appeared. We were able to demonstrate to the presiding magistrate that our client was not the individual who assaulted the victim. No probable cause was found and no complaint issued. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

On September 30, 2019 police from a suburban Boston city received a 911 call from a woman who claimed that a man tried to run her over with his truck. The man's estranged wife was with the caller. She too was identified as a victim in this matter. The police met with both the caller and wife and learned that the defendant and his wife had a history of domestic incidents. This time the woman alleged that our client had been upset with her over a collateral pending court case and that his actions were retaliatory and meant to intimidate her from attending court proceedings. The man was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 15B. Attorney Neyman was hired. After obtaining all necessary discovery we scheduled the case for trial. The 911 recording was deemed inadmissible and we were able to get the case dismissed. 

Read More in Domestic Assault and Battery

Our client is a licensed healthcare professional working throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. On June 26, 2020 the relative of one of his clients contacted her local police department to report that the man had shown her his genitals and asked for oral sex. She claimed to have been alarmed and rejected the advances. According to the woman our client persisted. He sent photos of himself exposed as well as videos of himself masturbating. He was charged with indecent exposure under G.L. c. 272 section 53 and distribution of obscene material, a violation of G.L. c. 272 section 29. The former charge is a misdemeanor and the latter is a felony. Attorney Neyman was hired immediately. Our office quickly learned of material indicating that our client did not engage in the activities reported by the victim. We requested a continuance of the arraignment. The request was allowed. Subsequently, Attorney Neyman communicated with the assigned assistant district attorney. That person was provided with exculpatory evidence. After reviewing the the evidence the district attorney's office agreed that the charges should not have issued. The matter was dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Sex Crimes 

In May of 2019 police responded to a call for a domestic disturbance in a Boston suburb. They arrived to find a man with scratches on his face and neck and red marks all over his body. He told the police that he caught his wife cheating on him and that when he confronted her with this information she became violent. The man had a video recording of the assault. He was the one who made the 911 call as well. Notwithstanding the woman's representations the 911 call coupled with the video footage convinced the police to arrest the woman and charge her with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. Attorney Neyman was immediately retained. The information our office had convinced us to recommend that our client file a cross complaint. She did so under G.L. c. 218 section 35A and after a clerk magistrate hearing the cross complaint application was allowed and domestic assault and battery charges against the complainant issued. We ultimately scheduled the case for trial. Today, both our client and the "victim" used their 5th Amendment and marital privileges and the complaint was dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Last fall the defendant was driving in an affluent Boston suburb. A police officer in that town was conducting a random license plate query. The defendant was driving a car that belonged to someone else. The vehicle was uninsured and unregistered. The woman was issued a citation and ultimately summonsed to court on counts of Operating with a Suspended Registration under G.L. c. 90 section 23 and operating uninsured under G.L. c. 90 section 34J. She defaulted and was arrested and eventually retained our office to represent her. The default was removed and we prevailed upon the district attorney's office to agree to a dismissal prior to arraignment. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes

In the fall of 2019 the defendant was operating on a highway in the southeastern part of Massachusetts. The traffic was heavy due to an accident and witnesses suggested that he was in a rush, weaving from lane to lane at an unsafe speed. While doing so the defendant side swiped another vehicle, causing damage. He left the scene. The victim called the police. A state trooper was nearby. He met with our client and the victim and issued a citation for our client charging him with leaving the scene of an accident after property damage, G.L. c. 90 section 24. Attorney Neyman was retained to represent the man. Today, all charges were dismissed. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Leaving the Scene 

The defendant is charged with possession of a firearm under G.L. c. 269 section 10(a) and carrying a loaded firearm under G.L. c. 269 section 10(n). There is a mandatory eighteen months on the first count with mandatory from and after time on the second count. It is further alleged that the defendant and his passenger shot at houses for reasons not yet articulated. There were several other charges of a less severe nature filed against this person. The prosecution moved for detention under the dangerousness provisions of the Massachusetts statute, G.L. c. 276 section 58A. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent him. After a contentious hearing the judge agreed to release our client. 

Read More in Bail

The defendant was charged with malicious destruction of property under G.L. c. 266 section 127. Attorney Neyman was able to get the client pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 however the district attorney's office pressed the issue of restitution and a hearing was scheduled. Due to court closings for the past several months the case was routinely continued. Today our office was able to demonstrate that our client owed no money. The court agreed and the order of restitution was vacated. The case was dismissed and our client owes nothing. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Malicious Destruction of Property

Several months ago the defendant was charged with various crimes and a harassment prevention order was placed on him. Among his conditions of release was GPS monitoring, exclusion zones, stay away from complaining witness and more. The defendant was accused of violating those conditions and his bail was revoked. He then retained our office to represent him. We succeeded in getting him released from jail. Subsequently, he was again accused of violating his conditions of release. A judge revoked him and the man was again ordered back to jail. We investigated the allegations of his violation and were able to learn that he had not in fact violated his conditions. The judge who revoked him agreed to hear our motion to reconsider. Today, our client was released with the same conditions previously ordered. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Bail

The defendant and the complaining witness were in a dating relationship for several years. A few months ago the two broke up. The defendant owned the home the two lived in and asked the woman to leave. She refused and was ultimately legally forced to do so. She later went to the police and claimed that the defendant had been engaging in illegal sexual acts. He was charged with allegedly committing those acts under G.L. c. 272 section 29C. Continuing her vindictive pattern the woman went to another court and applied for a restraining order under G.L. c. 209A. The defendant hired Attorney Neyman to represent him on that matter as well. Today, the parties had the hearing. Attorney Neyman was able to convince the judge not to issue the order. The matter is dismissed. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Sex Crimes

Towards the end of last year the defendant was charged violating a harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. He was released on personal recognizance with conditions that he stay away from the victim, her place of employment, her home and some of the cities and towns where she spent a significant amount of time. After a few months the defendant was accused of violating the conditions of release and his bail was revoked under G.L. c. 276 section 58B for ninety (90) days. He then hired our office to represent him. We moved the Court for a reinstatement of bail and the judge granted our request thereby releasing our client under his original conditions. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Harassment Prevention Orders

The defendant is facing cocaine trafficking charges in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32E. The mandatory minimum sentence is 8 years in state prison. The defendant was granted bail at his arraignment with conditions that he report to probation regularly and attend all court appearances. Several weeks ago the defendant went into default for failing to honor these conditions. The probation department and the assistant district attorney moved the judge to revoke the bail. A warrant issued for the defendant. He did not appear (call) the court on the date he was supposed to and he was defaulted. He immediately called us for help. Before any arrest was made our office was able to get the warrant recalled and have the default removed. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Default Warrant Removal

The defendant was charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. He hired our office to represent him. The bail commissioner set a modest bail however in an abundance of caution issued a stay away and no contact order. We contacted the complaining witness and obtained her affidavit indicating that she wanted the defendant back in her life, that she did not want a no contact order and that she did not want a stay away order. The district attorney's office objected to our motion. The judge allowed our motion and the defendant and complaining witness now have contact and are living together. 

Read More in Assault and Battery

The defendant is charged with rape under G.L. c. 265 section 22. He has been on bail for over a year waiting to have the case go to trial. A few days ago he was arrested and charged with the same crime as well as kidnapping under G.L. c. 265 section 26. Alarmed by the new allegations the district attorney's office moved to revoke bail on the original case and move for dangerousness under the Massachusetts bail statute, G.L. c. 276 section 58A. The judge agreed to a finding of dangerousness however denied the prosecutor's request to have the defendant held. He was released with conditions. 

Read More in Bail

The defendant is a well known physician. He was treating a patient who claimed that he inappropriately touched her buttocks and breast. As a result he was charged with indecent assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13H. These charges were brought notwithstanding the fact that our client has a protocol that he regularly follows where no examination is conducted without the presence of a nurse, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant. He followed the protocol on this occasion as well. The complaining witness insisted that the incident occurred on a particular day. We were able to obtain all security footage showing the visitors to the office throughout the day. This person was not one of them. We eventually prevailed upon the district attorney's office to agree to a dismissal of all charges. 

This resolution of this case came telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Sex Crimes

The defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute a class B substance, cocaine in violation of G.L. c. 94C section 32A. The man had a prior conviction and was facing state prison time. The case stemmed from a police investigation that was several months long. According to reports, the defendant was observed engaging in conversations with known drug users. Officers saw him passing objects to these people and receiving something in return. Believing this to be drugs the officers used a confidential informant to attempt to purchase from our client. The officers watched as this individual engaged in a transaction with the defendant. The officers met up with the informant and obtained the cocaine that he purportedly purchased from our client. He was arrested and charged with this crime. Our office was able to prove that the informant liked the requisite reliability. We also showed that the police did not follow proper procedures for monitoring the informant. The assistant district attorney agreed with us and did not object to our motion to dismiss. 

This resolution of this case came telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a fund manager in New York City. He owns a waterfront vacation home in Massachusetts. Several months ago the police were called to the man's home after a neighbor heard screaming. When the police arrived they met with a woman, the defendant's wife. The woman had been crying, appeared to have bruises on her throat and neck area. Upon questioning the woman revealed that during an argument involving accusations of infidelity the husband struck her several times and grabbed her by the neck and throat causing her severe pain. The man was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M and strangulation under G.L. c 265 section 15D. Law Offices of Stephen Neyman Criminal Lawyers were immediately hired to defend the man. Today, the wife invoked her marital privilege and all charges were dismissed. 

This resolution of this case came telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Strangulation

Several months ago police in a large Massachusetts city responded to a call for a man in parking in someone's driveway, unlawfully and arguing with the individual. The officer investigating was told by the alleged caller that things were fine now and it was okay to leave the area. The officer did not leave. Instead, he inquired of neighbors and others in the area about the nature of the dispute. He determined that our client had become physical with the 911 caller. The "victim" denied any physical assault. The officer then confronted our client and aggressively interrogated him. Feeling intimidated, our client allegedly pushed the office away telling him "get out of my face". Our client was then arrested and charged with assault and battery on a police officer in violation of G.L. c. 265 section 13D. He hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. Today, we were able to get pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 section 87 for our client. All charges will be dismissed after the production of a letter of apology to the police officer. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in G.L. c. 265 Section 13D

The defendant is charged with leaving the scene of an accident with property damage under G.L. c. 90 section 24. He retained our office months after being charged. We understood that our client never had a clerk magistrate hearing under G.L. c. 218 section 35. Once we made that clear to the judge we moved for a dismissal of the charges. The judge allowed our motion even though the district attorney objected. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

The defendant was involved in a felony malicious destruction of property, G.L. c. 266 Section 127 that occurred over two years ago. He had a lawyer from another office that scheduled a change of plea and a restitution hearing. The man continued to protest his innocence. Nevertheless the lawyer insisted that he admit responsibility, get a continuance without a finding and have a hearing to determine restitution. The defendant was unhappy with this advice and hired our office to represent him. We convinced the assistant district attorney to proceed with restitution first. He agreed. As we expected, the judge found that our client did nothing wrong and agreed that no money was due. The judge further agreed to dismiss the case as he could not see any wrongdoing on our client's part. This was handled telephonically due to the coronavirus emergency. All charges were dismissed. 

This case was determined telephonically due to the courts being closed

Read More in Malicious Destruction to Property

The defendant was charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 section 13M. It was alleged that several months ago a truck driver operating on a major Massachusetts highway observed the defendant and a woman on the side of the road engaged in what appeared to be a heated altercation. The man contacted the police and told them he thought that the man was hitting the woman but could not be sure. The police went to the scene and observed the man and woman, still there and appearing to be arguing next to their car. The officer inquired of both parties. Each separately told the officer that there was no actual violence or threat, just arguing. Nevertheless, the man was charged with domestic assault and battery. Attorney Neyman was hired. A motion to dismiss was scheduled and heard. The judge allowed the motion and the case was dismissed. 

Read More in Domestic Assault and Battery

Several months ago our client was charged with rape of a child under G.L. c. 265 section 23. It is alleged that the man was a daycare worker and that he had engaged in various forms of illegal sexual activity with some of the children at the facility. He was arrested and held under G.L. c. 276 section 58A, the Massachusetts Dangerousness Statute. The family hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent the defendant. The first thing our office did was investigate the case viability of the case. Our investigators concluded that what was alleged could not have happened and that our client was working out of state at the time these acts supposedly occurred. Attorney Neyman successfully moved the Court to reconsider its finding of dangerousness. After a hearing the defendant was released on personal recognizance. We expect to have all charges dismissed shortly. 

Read More in Sex Crimes

The defendant is out on bail facing drug trafficking charges under G.L. c. 94C section 32E. He is looking at a mandatory minimum three year sentence. In the past, on other cases the individual defaulted and missed his court appearance. He has a significant criminal history. He was permitted release but on strict conditions that required GPS monitoring. He hired Attorney Stephen Neyman to represent him. Today, we successfully moved the judge for the removal of the GPS device. 

Read More in Bail

In July of 2019 an individual and his wife were on their boat in a marina sleeping. In the early morning hours they heard a noise. The man left the cabin to investigate and saw four men on his boat. It is alleged that these individuals broke into the marina and boarded this boat and others with the intention of stealing fishing gear and valuable personal items. A neighboring boat owner heard the commotion and saw the four men flee the boat and enter a car. He was able to get the license plate of the vehicle which led the police to our client. Our client admitted to being on the boat with the intention to commit larceny. He was ultimately charged with two counts of breaking and entering in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony in violation of G.L. c. 266 section 16, larceny over $1,200, G.L. c. 266 section 30 and malicious destruction to property over $1,200, G.L. c. 266 section 127, all felonies in Massachusetts. Attorney Stephen Neyman was retained to represent the man. Today, all charges were continued without a finding (CWOF). After successful completion of probation all charges will be dismissed. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

In January of 2019, police responded to a 911 call in a city south of Boston. They arrived to find the defendant intoxicated and arguing with family members in the street in front of his home. Officers interviewed several witnesses who confirmed during an argument our client pulled a firearm out of a drawer in his home and threatened a family member with it. It was further alleged that the man struck another family member with the gun and threatened to kill her if she called the police. The police obtained permission from our client's wife to search the home. During the search they located several firearms that were improperly stored. Our client was charged with assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G.L. c. 265 Section 15B, threatening to commit a crime G.L. c. 275 Section 2, improper storage of a firearm G.L. c. 140 section 131L, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, G.L. c. 269 section 10H and intimidation of a witness, G.L. c. 268 section 13B. Attorney Neyman was hired to defend the man. Today, all charges involving the assaults, threats and witness intimidation were dismissed. The firearm cases were continued without a finding (CWOF) and will be dismissed in a few months. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

The defendant is a college student who back in December was charged with negligent operation of a motor vehicle in violation of G.L. c. 90 Section 24. The police reported that on a Sunday in December around 3:00 a.m. they received a call for an accident with an indication that a vehicle had struck a home. Officers observed the defendant sitting on the ground near the vehicle and obviously upset. Officers inquired about the origin of the accident. The defendant was unable to state with certainty what had happened, instead advising the officers that he must have fallen asleep at the wheel. The charges that issued were today continued without a finding. In six months or less this case will be dismissed. 

Read More in Continuance Without a Finding

The defendant was arrested for armed robbery and arraigned in an urban district court in Massachusetts. The police report stated that witnesses observed the defendant, armed and robbing a store and people in the store. The defendant was charged with, among other things, armed robbery under G.L. c. 265 Section 17. The defendant has a criminal record and has served state prison time in the past. The district attorney moved for detention under the Massachusetts Dangerousness Law, G.L. c. 276 Section 58A. He was detained by a judge in the district court. Attorney Neyman was hired to appeal the order of detention. We scheduled a hearing on the appeal in less than one week. Our investigators were able to provide reliable information that the eyewitness accounts were biased and that their identification of our client was based on unlawful and suggestive police identification procedures. The Superior Court judge agreed with our position and released our client. 

Read More in Armed Robbery 

The defendant is the victim's father. He is a well known, high ranking executive in the biotech industry. In mid December of 2019 his twelve year old daughter complained to a friend at school that she had been repeatedly raped by her father. A mandated report at the school overheard the conversation and called DCF workers and the local police. The girl recited a litany of stories of abuse and rape at the hands of the defendant. He was arrested and charged with rape of a child, G.L. c. 265 Section 23 and indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, G.L. c. 265 Section 13B. He hired our office to defend him. A probable cause hearing was scheduled for the soonest possible date. Today, we were able to get all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Sex Crimes

The defendant is a software engineer in his early twenties. In late December he was in an argument with a former girlfriend. She asked him to leave her house. He did. He then went out to several bars, got drunk and in the early morning hours went back to her home. He made a forced entry into the home by breaking down the front door. A neighbor heard the noise and saw the man entering the home. The police were called and the defendant was arrested and charged with unarmed burglary under G.L. c. 266 Section 15 and malicious destruction to property over $1,200 in violation of G.L. c. 266 Section 127. Attorney Neyman was retained to represent the man. Our office had information that our client may have been drugged. Following up on that lead we had him tested. Date rape drugs, probably intended for someone else were found in his system. Our toxicology expert provided a report, evaluation and analysis consistent with our client lacking the criminal intent to commit these acts. The district attorney's office accepted this representation as did the victim and all agreed to this case being dismissed prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Theft Crimes

The defendant is a medical doctor who is married with several children. He lives outside of Massachusetts. Over the summer he was in Massachusetts attending a convention. It was the only time he had been in this state. Weeks later he received a call from a detective asking him questions about his activities in Massachusetts at the time of the convention. The detective's tone was accusatory, demeaning and vague. The doctor did the right thing in this case and refused to speak with the detective, instead contacting our office for advice. Attorney Neyman was hired. Our discussions with the police detective disclosed that a woman had claimed that the weekend of the convention she met our client at a reception. She claimed that she went to his room in the hotel and while in the room he would not let her leave. The woman further complained that while in the room our client coerced the woman into performing oral sex on him. Our client subsequently received a summons charging him with rape, G.L. c. 265 Section 22 and kidnapping, G.L. c. 265 Section 26. Our client denied all allegations. We hired an investigator. Through security videos, witness interviews and receipts we were able to show that our client had absolutely no contact with this woman. Consequently, this information was presented to the appropriate authorities and all charges were withdrawn prior to arraignment. 

Read More in Sex Crimes

The defendant lives in a rural part of Massachusetts. Several months ago he called the police to complain of a disturbance with unfriendly neighbors. The police arrived and noticed that the man, while in his home was in possession of a firearm. He was properly licensed to possess and carry the weapon. The officers then contacted the neighbors to advise them of the complaint. While doing so the neighbors were told that the man owned a gun. The police left. Later that evening, after an exchange of hostile texts between the neighbors and our client the police were called back to the home. This time however the neighbors called. The officers contacted our client and observed him still in possession of the firearm but this time intoxicated. Our client was summonsed to court and ultimately charged with possession of a firearm while intoxicated in violation of G.L. c. 269 Section 10H. Attorney Neyman was hired for representation. Today, we were able to negotiate a continuance without a finding (CWOF) for our client. All charges will be dismissed in 6 months. 

Read More in Continuance Without a Finding

The defendant is an officer in a local law enforcement office. In early December he was seen entering and leaving the home of a known drug dealer. A drug enforcement task force had been monitoring and conducting surveillance of that location. Officers followed the defendant to a busy parking lot. They saw him park. They then watched as he opened a small plastic bag, placed a powdery substance on his console and snorted the substance with a McDonald's straw. He was confronted by the police and the remaining drug was seized. He was summonsed to court for possession of cocaine a Class B substance under G.L. c. 94C Section 34. Attorney Neyman was hired. A clerk magistrate hearing was held today. The complaint did not issue. Had it issued the defendant likely would have lost his job. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant is a non-citizen restaurant owner in Massachusetts. The complainant worked at the restaurant for many years. About fifteen months ago the complainant went to the police station to report a series of sexual assaults alleged to have been committed against her by the owner. The police department conducted a very poor, limited investigation and filed an application for a criminal complaint for indecent assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13H. If found guilty of these charges our client would likely be deported. Even a continuance without a finding would destroy the defendant's chances of citizenship. Our office was hired to defendant the accused. Discovery and pretrial motions went on for over a year. Rape allegations were also beind considered against out client involving the same victim in accordance with G.L. c. 265 Section 22. We were able to prevent this charge from being issued. We were finally able to schedule this case for trial. Today. All charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Sex Crimes

Our client is a college graduate working in the entertainment industry. He owned a firearm that lawfully purchased outside of Massachusetts however when he moved to Massachusetts he never properly registered the weapon. About six months ago he was hiking in a forest while in possession of the weapon. This is something that he had done regularly in the state where he purchased the firearm. Another hiker observed the weapon on our client and when he was able to get a cell signal he alerted the local police. They responded quickly. They questioned our client and when they learned that he did not have a license to carry he was arrested and charged with possession of a gun under G.L. c. 269 Section 10(a), a felony. This law requires a mandatory eighteen months jail sentence. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired to defend the man. Our office was able to negotiate a reduction of the charges to G.L. c. 269 10(h), a misdemeanor that does not require jail time. 

Read More in Guns and Weapons Defense

Just prior to Christmas of 2019 police in a Massachusetts city received a call from a concerned citizen stating that a woman had fled her home following a domestic assault and entered their home for safety. The police quickly responded and interviewed the victim. They observed her to be bruised and swollen around the face and nose area. She had a large laceration on her leg. She claimed that following a heated argument over another woman our client had struck and beat her. Our client was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13M. Attorney Stephen Neyman was hired. Once it was determined that the wife had exaggerated the allegations and fabricated some aspects of the incident we scheduled the case for trial. Today, the day of trial, all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Assault and Battery 

Our client is a non-citizen who was attending college in the United States on a student visa. Towards the end of last semester the man was found trespassing at a business in an industrial park. He was clearly intoxicated. The police tried to speak with the man to learn his identity. He became belligerent. Further attempts at conversation failed. The man became verbally abusive and then assaulted one of the police officers. He was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, G.L. c. 265 Section 13D and trespass, G.L. c. 266 section 120. Our office was hired to represent the man. We expedited the case and convinced the district attorney's office to agreed to our motion to dismiss. All charges were dismissed. The man is now able to continue with his education and his student visa will not be revoked. 

Read More in Assault and Battery

In August of 2019 police responded to a call for a domestic disturbance in a Boston suburb. They were greeted by a woman who claimed told them that violence had erupted in her home after her husband learned that she had just filed for divorce. The defendant is a non-citizen who would be deported if convicted of this crime. The woman told the police that during an argument the defendant grabbed her by the throat, threatened to get a knife and cause her severe harm. The defendant denied the allegations but was nevertheless arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery, G.L. c. 265 Section 13M and threats, G.L. c. 272 Section 2.  Attorney Neyman was hired. Today all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Threats

The defendant is not from the United States and he is not a citizen. On September 6, 2018 he came to western Massachusetts with a friend who intended to confront someone who had stolen money from him. There was never an intention to commit an act of violence and the defendant his friend arrived unarmed. Upon spotting the defendant and friend, the "victim" retrieved a stun gun and a knife. He attacked the defendant and friend. In an effort to defend himself, the defendant disarmed the victim who in turn lunged at the defendant. A scuffle ensued during which the victim was stabbed several times in the chest nearly causing death. Our client was charged with armed assault with intent to murder, G.L. c. 265 Section 18b, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, G.L. c. 265 Section 15A and assault and battery dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, also G.L. c 265 Section 15A. Attorney Neyman was hired. A series of witnesses and the victim were charged with an assortment of crimes all stemming from this incident. Consequently, Attorney Neyman arranged to meet with all attorneys. It was agreed that all defendants had 5th Amendment privileges as a result of their individual actions in this case. As a result, the district attorney's was notified and all cases were joined for status. At today's status conference all defendants exercised their constitutional rights and the cases were dismissed. The defendant, our client, avoided certain deportation 

Read More in Violent Crimes

Our client is a professional living in a Boston suburb. Last September he was visiting with a friend. A woman arrived at the home driven by a friend. The friend did not go into the home. Rather, he waited in his car, parked near the home our client was visiting. Seeing the occupied car, a concerned neighbor called the police. They questioned the driver. His answers were evasive. He indicated that he dropped a friend off at a house next to where he was parked and was waiting for her. The police went to the house and looked into a window. They observed what they believed to be people ingesting cocaine. They entered the home. Our client was in the bathroom. The police demanded that he come out of the bathroom. He flushed the toilet before doing so. The officers observed an item going down the toilet they believed to be drugs. They were unable to collect the object and charged our client with interfering with a police investigation in violation of G.L. c. 268 Section 13E. Attorney Neyman was hired. He filed a motion to dismiss that was ultimately agreed to by the district attorney's office. The case was dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

Several months ago our client was observed by police officers driving the wrong way in a rotary. In the process of doing so our client struck a vehicle being driven by someone else. The man was charged with violating G.L. c. 90 Section 24. He hired Attorney Neyman to represent him. After one court appearance our office was able to get all charges dismissed. The judge agreed with the substance of our motion that the police had not provided sufficient information with which to sustain the criminal allegation. 

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes

The defendant is charged with illegal possession of several firearms. Some of the indictments mandate state prison time if the defendant is convicted. At his arraignment he was found dangerous under G.L. c. 276 Section 58A. Attorney Neyman was hired to represent the defendant. As a result of a change in circumstances over the course of several weeks Attorney Neyman was able to convince the assistant district attorney and judge to vacate the 58A dangerousness finding. The defendant is now eligible for release. 

Read More in Bail

On July 20, 2018 the defendant was driving his girlfriend's car in an upscale Boston suburb. Police officers pulled him over for driving twelve miles per hour over the speed limit. Officers asked the driver if he had any weapons or if there were drugs in the car. He responded "not that I am aware of". This heightened the officer's suspicions. The defendant then made furtive movements causing further alarm prompting the officers to have him exit the car. The officers then conducted a pat frisk of the defendant and found several thousand dollars cash in his pockets. The police then searched his car and found drugs. Our client was arrested, the car was seized as was the defendant's cell phone. A search warrant was applied for and issued permitting the police to search the phone. On the phone was a significant amount of evidence of our client's drug dealing. Attorney Neyman filed a motion to suppress challenging the lawfulness of the search warrant. Today, the judge agreed that the search was illegal. Consequently, all evidence in the phone linking our client to the drugs was suppressed. The prosecution will not be able to proceed with the case and all charges will be dismissed. 

Read More in Drug Crimes

The defendant lives in a high income Boston suburb. On September 27, 2019 police in his town received an OnStar call alerting them to an accident severe enough to deploy airbags. The officers responded and found a mailbox had been knocked over. The OnStar operator identified the owner of the vehicle and his address. The officers went to the address and tried to make contact with the occupants. Noises, including voices within the home were heard by the police. Through a window they observed one of the home occupants on a stairwell. The police illuminated the garage with their flashlights and observed the vehicle, damaged and with deployed airbags. The next day officers contact the car owner. Their recorded conversation with the man matched the OnStar recording. Accordingly, charges of leaving the scene with property damage under G.L. c. 90 Section 24 were applied for. Attorney Neyman was retained to represent the defendant at the clerk magistrate hearing, G.L. c. 218 Section 35. After the hearing, we convinced the clerk magistrate not to issue the complaint. No charges will issue. 

Read More in Clerk Magistrate Hearings

On June 21, 2019 police responded to a call for a domestic disturbance. The female caller stated that she was shoved by the defendant while he was intoxicated. Officers went to the scene and interviewed the defendant and the victim. The victim stated that the defendant and his father had been drinking scotch all night. The drinking led to an argument that involved recurring marital problems. The victim attempted to record the argument on her cell phone. The defendant became incensed and shoved the victim in the chest, twisted her wrist and arm and took from her the phone on which the incident had been recorded. The defendant, a non-citizen on a work visa was arrested and charged with domestic assault and battery under G.L. c. 265 Section 13M. Today our office was able to get all charges dismissed. 

Read More in Violent Crimes

On July 31, 2019 the defendant was driving on a public way. A police officer conducted a random query of the vehicle. The query showed that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license. The vehicle was stopped so that the operator could be identified. The driver was in fact the owner of the car. He was issued a criminal citation and the car was towed. In the meantime, the defendant moved to the West Coast. He received a summons for arraignment charging him with operating on a suspended license in violation of G.L. c. 90 Section 23. Attorney Neyman was hired. Today, the case was advanced prior to arraignment and all charges were dismissed. 

Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes