Attorney Anthony M Salerno's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. DV 13CR648

Jan 13, 2014

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

Westborough: A 18 year old college student and chemistry major, had been placed on Pre-Trial Probation for a period of one year, for a minor offense he was charged with. Pre-Trial Probation ... merely keeps your case open for a period of time without a plea or finding entering. Often times Pre-Trial Probation is a way to have a case dismissed, if there is no further involvement with the Courts. Our client contacted us after six months into his probation. He had received notice that his application for a Permanent Resident ("Green Card") Status, had been denied by US Immigration due to being placed on Pre-Trial Probation. His original attorney at the time he entered the plea, was unaware of the immigration ramifications. To complicate matters more, both the mother and father of the client received their Green Card on the same day his was denied. The client came to us upon receiving his notice from immigration that he would have to leave the country by March 31, 2014. We filed an emergency motion with the Court seeking to have his Pre-Trial Probation terminated immediately so as to prevent the deportation and separation from his family. We were able to convince the court over objections from the prosecution, that this case presented an unusual hardship. The client's mother and father, who are both scientist, had escaped from Russia through Israel. With the mother and father unable to return to Russia, the 18 year old faced the possibility of returning to the homeland alone to face the consequences. The judge agreed with our requests and ordered the Pre-Trial Probation terminated, thereby sparing our client deportation and keeping the family together here. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 13CR648

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. EG 13CR00584

Jan 07, 2014

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

Fitchburg: An off duty law enforcement officer was involved in a disturbance at a local establishment. Our client had gotten off work and had met up with a colleague at a hot wings/bar. While s ... eated at the bar, another individual came in and sat next to our client on his right side. As our client turned to his left to converse with his colleague, the patron on his right continued to insert himself into their conversation. This patron had a striking resemblance to Harry Potter. Our client repeatedly told the individual to "butt out" of the conversation and basically mind his own business. Advice not taken. The next warning was... "Look Harry Potter if you continued to butt in you'll get a face full of hot wings"... (demonstrating how he would push his face down into his platter of hot wings). Advice not taken. What happened next was captured on the restaurant's surveillance camera. We played the surveillance tape for the jury. As luck would have it, another customer had walked between the camera and the disturbance. The only images visible were that of Harry raising his right arm in the air causing it to appear like he was cocking his arm to throw a punch. Meanwhile our client appears in the film to be raising his arm to "block" the punch then he gets up and moves away. Harry is next seen with his cell phone in hand and hot sauce on his face, chasing after our client as he was trying to pay his tab and leave. Under cross examination at trial, the victim refused to answer our questions without arguing each point. He had to be instructed by the judge a number of times to just answer the questions. The one question that absolutely sent him off like a rocket, was when we asked him if he got angry when our client referred to him as "Harry Potter". The witness went off, ranting about dealing with this his whole life and how he wasn't going take it any more. The jury deliberated for only several minutes before returning a verdict. It was very apparent by the fast verdict that they all had, at one time or another, the unfortunate experience of sitting next to a Harry or two. NOT GUILTY. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 13CR00584

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. MB 13CR008154

Dec 10, 2013

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

Worcester: State Police charged a Worcester man with, Failing To Provide a DNA Database Sample, in violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 22E section 11. The new law provides that, "...a ... person being required to provide a DNA sample to the State DNA Database, after receiving written notice, and who did fail to do so within one year of conviction, or release from custody, whichever occurred first, shall be punished by: jail or house of correction for 6 months or a fine of $1000 or both..." Our client had a 2006 conviction which concluded in 2007. We established in court that the written notice to our client did not even get sent out until 2012. Further, we challenged the reliability of the written notice, as it was sent to his last know address. The judge agreed with us that, the prosecution could not establish that our client was notified in a timely manner or that he actually received notice at all. CASE DISMISSED. Real Cases, Real People, Real results 13CR008154

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. CC 13CR001152

Dec 02, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

Milford: Two Milford women had worked their shifts as bartenders at a local establishment. After work they had several drinks together before calling it a night. One went east while the other we ... nt west. Our client, who had gone east, drove into a State Police Sobriety Checkpoint (or call it what it really is, a Road Block). She had traveled along a route which unexpectedly brought her into a line of cars that were being stop and check by police. The client was still in her work clothes along with sandals. The police detained our client, having her perform Field Sobriety Tests (always refuse). The client was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence. The client wisely refused the breath test. At trial we developed evidence establishing her routine as a bartender and the handling of many drink orders throughout the evening. This was offered as a rational accounted for the alleged odor of alcohol on her. Further, the fact that police had her perform the 9 step walk and turn test along with the one legged stand, all while in open toe sandals, impacted on the jury. The police did not see her operate in an erratic or irresponsible manner, but rather, she followed in line with all the other traffic. We got the police witness to admit the only reason the client was initially detained was due to the "odor" and not her driving. NOT GUILTY 13CR001152 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. AB 13CR00223

Nov 08, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

SOUTHBOROUGH: Several friends had gone out for an early Saturday night dinner. A couple Mai Tais later, they left to stop over some other friends house. The night concluded relatively early. Ou ... r client was driving his friends home when he got stopped for speeding. The police had him get out of his car. He was asked to perform several Field Sobriety Tests. The client was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence of Liquor. When he was back at the police station, he agreed to take the breath test. The client registered a failing grade on the breath test. At trial, the prosecution called the arresting officer and the breath test expert for the police department. The defense never really challenged the breath test, as we had thoroughly reviewed the machine and the test procedure, prior to trial. Our focus was on the cross examination of the arresting officer. We elicited favorable testimony demonstrating our client's performance on the field sobriety tests. A number of factors, indicated for the jury, that his stability was fine. Additionally, it was brought out that but for the speeding, his operation of the car was fine. The defense summons in the client's booking DVD that had recorded him throughout his time back at the police station. The client was very polite, stable and spoke very clearly. The elephant in the room was his breath test failure. A failed breath test is very difficult to over come for a number of reasons. The judge in his instructions to a jury tells them, that if they find that a defendant fails a breath test, they should find him guilty. In our closing argument to the jury, we focused on the theme of "Man vs. Machine". The jury was told that they had seen with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, the client at the police station during the booking DVD. They heard on cross examination evidence of the client performing well on the Field Sobriety Tests. We argued to the jury to not surrender ( to a machine/Breath Test ) their human instincts gathered from their observations of the evidence. NOT GUILTY 13CR00223

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. KO 12CR008703

Nov 07, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

Worcester: Police responded to a Halloween Party in the city, for reports of gunshots being fired. Upon arrival police found a man who had been shot. As other police arrived they secured the cri ... me scene and searched for witnesses and evidence. Our client was found hiding in the corner of the property next to a hole in a fence. The police said they observed her go threw the fence several time and was eventually found crouching down next to the fence and the corner of the house. The police brought her out to the front of the house and began to question her. Just at that time, another investigator called out that he had just located a hand gun under some leaves on the ground in the area where our client was seen crouching down. She was arrested and initially charged with illegal possession of a handgun. At trial the prosecution called all the investigating police officers along with finger print and ballistic experts along with crime scene photographers. The defense was able to establish a significant level of reasonable doubt. The initial responding officer under cross examination, was unable to positively identify our client as the same individual who came through the fence the first two times. She was only identified as the person he saw crouching down when he found her. Under cross examination, the fingerprint expert could not positively establish that the gun had not been handled by others prior to her examination or if there was some other reason that no latent fingerprints could be found on the gun. We were able to prove through the ballistics, that the gun that our client was charged with possessing, was not the same gun used in the shooting. The defense established through the crime scene photos the area where the gun was located was directly below a bedroom window of another suspect. All this evidence or lack thereof, couple with our client's position that she ran out of the house to hide and get away from the shooting, allowed for the not guilty verdict. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR008703 --

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. BC 13CR722

Nov 01, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

Leominster: A women was charged with Domestic Assault With A Dangerous Weapon. The client and her husband were in the kitchen of their marital home arguing. The couple were headed for a divorce ... and the argument got heated. Our client was at the sink doing the dishes. The husband told police that she became upset with him and threw a butcher knife at him. Police later that night went to our client's work and arrested her. At trial we established evidence that the husband waited nearly 5 hours, after our client had left the house to go to work, before he called the police. Further we proved that the knife never really came near him or that he was ever in fear of being struck by the knife. Additionally, the wife had provided us with an email the husband had accidentally forwarded to her. The email was allegedly intended for his divorce attorney. In the email the husband stated in essence, that he would have to start putting a spin on things to get the upper hand in the divorce. His credibility at trial was seriously questioned resulting in a NOT GUILTY VERDICT. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13CR722

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. MO 13AC000412

Oct 08, 2013

OUTCOME: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED

WESTBORO: A mother was charged with providing alcohol to minors. The mom allowed her daughter to host a post prom party. The client was reluctant to host, but eventually gave in to her daughter ... . Prior to the party the mom/client contacted the parents of all 25 kids who were on the guest list. The client advised all the parents that there would be no alcohol allowed in her home. All the guests names and bags were checked when they arrived at the house after the prom. Shortly after the party got underway a number of uninvited kids showed up with 30 packs in hand. The client gave them the boot and the crashers simply went across the street to a parking lot. It did not take long before the police responded to the parking lot for a loud gathering. The crashers scattered upon seeing the police with some running across the street and through the client's yard while discarding cans of beer. The police caught a couple of the kids who said they were coming from a party at the client's house. The police then went to the client's home, observed several of the discarded beer cans. The client informed police that the crashers were never allowed in and she did not provide any alcohol to any of the kids. That did not fly and police brought the charge of providing alcohol to minors. At court we presented a number of witnesses. The kids who were present, their parents who picked them up all provided evidence that the client took every precaution to prevent alcohol on the premise. Further, the parents confirmed that they checked out their kids and were satisfied no alcohol was consumed. The witnesses also confirmed that any discarded beer cans found in the yard were those of the crashers. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13AC000412

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. GPH 13CR6190

Oct 03, 2013

OUTCOME: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED

WORCESTER: A young Worcester man got himself involve in an extra-martial affair. The affair was short lived. He attempted to break off the relationship several times unsuccessfully. The woman ... constantly called and text him at work and home. Fearful it would cause problem within his marriage, he attempted to ease out of the relationship rather than have it implode. Each time the client would meet with the woman to break it off, it would end in a highly emotional encounter. At the last meeting between the parties, the woman threatened to go to police and falsely accuse the client of domestic assault and battery, if he broke it off. The client had enough at that point, immediately exited her car and attempted to leave for the last time. The women pursued him chasing him to his car, striking, kicking both him and his vehicle. Later that night, police arrived at his home and arrested him for domestic assault and battery base upon a complaint filed by the woman. In court we produced numerous phone records showing hundreds of call and text messages from her. A number of the texts were threatening in nature if he broke off the relationship. Additionally, we secured the surveillance tape from the parking lot they had met in. On the tape, clear as day, was the woman striking the client multiple times and kicking the car as he attempted to leave. On the trial date, after presentation of the aforementioned evidence by us, all charges were dismissed. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13CR6190 & 13CR3500

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. JE 12CR01293

Sep 26, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

CLINTON, A Worcester man recently arrested for Operating Under the Influence, in Clinton. The client had driven at a rather fast pace as he approached the area of a high school football game. ... There were high intensity lighting and police cruisers lighting at the entrance to the football field parking lot. The client had come down a straight away and at the last second made an abrupt left turn into the parking lot. The police officer who was on the detail, observed the client circle the lot two or three times before picking up a passenger and attempting to exit the lot. The police ordered the client to stop. He fumbled for his license and registration prior to exiting the car. The police had him complete several field sobriety tests determining he failed all of them. He was arrested and brought to the police station. The client refused the breath test wisely. At trial we utilized a high speed projector along with Google Earth. With the aid of the images, we demonstrated during the trial, that the position of the intensity lights along with the police cruiser blocked the on-coming traffic's view of the lot's entrance on the left hand side. The client had no idea of where the entrance was till he was actually at it causing him to suddenly brake. Police testified that the client's driving caused an operator traveling in the other direction to brake and skid. The officer further testified that the client failed the alphabet test along with the 9 step walk and turn. During cross examination of the officer we established that the client preformed the alphabet fine up to the "LMNOP" area where he ran the letters together. We suggested that since most people were little children, that most sing the alphabet and run these particular letters together. The officer had testified under questioning by the prosecutor, that our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. During cross examination the officer reluctantly admitted he could not tell from the odor what the client may have consumed (beer wine etc), when he may have consumed or how much he may have consumed. Further, the Google images proved that the area where the client preformed the field sobriety tests, was on a slope rather than flat surface, as the officer had also testified too. The evidence developed by the defense undermined the prosecution's case significantly. NOT GUILTY Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR01293

Anthony M Salerno's Legal Cases (60)

Commonwealth v. DV 13CR648

Commonwealth v. EG 13CR00584

Commonwealth v. MB 13CR008154

Commonwealth v. CC 13CR001152

Commonwealth v. AB 13CR00223

Commonwealth v. KO 12CR008703

Commonwealth v. BC 13CR722

Commonwealth v. MO 13AC000412

Commonwealth v. GPH 13CR6190

Commonwealth v. JE 12CR01293