Attorney Anthony M Salerno's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. DW 13SC0169

May 31, 2013

OUTCOME: NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ISSUED

Worcester: Police responded to a neighbor's call of a loud party and disturbance in the neighborhood. When police arrived they found a large amount of high school kids in the driveway, yard and fi ... rst floor. The music was loud and there was beer everywhere. Turns out there was a post prom party that had swelled and gotten a little out of control. Police entered the home, seized the alcohol, and made all the kids take breath tests. Subsequently, the parents of the party host were charged with a violation of Mass. General Law Chapter 138 section 34, Furnishing Liquor to Minor. The law provides that "Furnishing" means, to knowingly or intentionally supply, give, or provide to or allow a person under 21 (except for their own children), to possess alcoholic beverages on the premise or property owned or controlled by the person. The law also provides for a fine of up to $2000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both. At the Court hearing, we produced evidence that demonstrated our clients (the parents of the host), had taken precautions to avoid exactly what happened. We showed that the parents had reviewed the guest list with their child and followed up by contacting the parents of the original invited guests. The rules were laid out for the post prom sleep over that included no alcohol. The parents checked in all the guest and with the party under control, the parents headed off to bed on the second floor. With the TV on to drowned out the music from the first floor, the parents fell asleep. The parents came downstairs when the police arrived to find an over flow crowd of kids partying it up. At Court we introduced letters from the original guests parents, reinforcing the precautionary actions our clients had taken along with evidence of their location (asleep in 2nd floor bedroom) when the police entered the house. The evidence was clear that the clients DID NOT KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY provide or allow alcohol at the party. Additionally, evidence of social media spreading the word of the party, accounted for the swell of uninvited guests and their backpacks of Bud Lite. Both parents were absolved of any criminal charges as the application for criminal complaints were not issued against either, thereby ending the case in their favor. 13SC0169 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results --

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v RF 86WORC113840

May 23, 2013

OUTCOME: CHARGES DISMISSED

Worcester: Back in 1986, a Northbridge man plead guilty to Possession With Intent To Distribute Class B Drugs, Cocaine. His sentence at the time was, 10 years in Concord Prison, suspended for 2 ... years and probationary terms. Part of his probation was to attend and complete a drug rehab program and report to probation. Just recently, the individual contacted our our office for the first time. He had recently gotten arrested for a motor vehicle offense and a warrant for his arrest turned up. The court had issued a warrant for his arrest back in 1987 for probation violations. The warrant was issued due to his failure to complete the drug rehab program and his failure to report to probation. Our office was now hired to defend him on the probation surrender which, if convicted, would amount to him serving the original 10 year Concord sentence, NOW! We were able to present evidence demonstrating that the rehab facility had actually closed during the time he was in attendance. Additionally, at the time when he was on probation, the probation officers visited the defendants and there were not any actual reporting requirements. We argued to the court that our client had in essence, achieved the original goals of his sentence. Since 1987, he had remained drug free, worked and supported his family along with paying all his taxes and bills. We pleaded to the Court, that to send him to prison now would not be in the best interest of justice or society. A very compassionate judge spared him by DISMISSING the PROBATION VIOLATION and CLOSED THE CASE for good. 86WORC113840 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. JBA 13CR0224

May 22, 2013

OUTCOME: ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES DISMISSED

Worcester: Under cover police had a drug store parking lot under surveillance in the early evening hours. Police observed our clients BMW, SUV parked with its parking lights on. Also in the ... lot were two other vehicles. The drug store was closed at the time the police made these observations. When police drove into the parking lot, a passenger in our client's vehicle looked at them, exited our client's SUV and began walking away. The police drove by the SUV giving the appearance of leaving the lot. The passenger who had exited then turned back and re-entered the SUV. The SUV drove out of the lot in a hurry. The police were just up the street waiting and pulled the SUV over. The police said the reason for the stop was that a "dealers" license plate bracket obscured their view of the plate. Upon arrival at the SUV, police further allege they smelled a strong odor of "raw" marijuana coming from within the car. Police ordered our client and the passenger out of the car and proceeded to search the entire car. Found in the SUV were a number of Oxycontins. The client was arrested and charged with M.G.L. Ch. 94C Section 32A, Possession To Distribute Class B Drugs. Our office filed a number of pre-trial motions including a motion to suppress the search of the SUV without probable cause. The controlling law in Massachusetts does not allow a search of a motor vehicle based solely on the odor of marijuana. Additionally, the prior actions of the client and passenger did not rise to the level of suspicion to justify police action. ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES DISMISSED. 13CR0224 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. CP 12CR0736

May 20, 2013

OUTCOME: Directed Verdict of Not Guilty

East Brookfield: Police served a Harassment Order upon our client at her main address. The order was issued due to a dispute between the client and a real estate agent. There had been long stand ... ing friction between the two individuals over the listing and attempted sale of one of the client's property. The real estate agent represented a bank that was in the process of foreclosing on the property. Immediately, after being served with the Order by police, our client went to the property being foreclosed on. When the client arrived, the police who just served her along with the real estate agent, were there. Police arrested the client for violating the 100 yard stay away provision of the harassment Order. At trial, we established that the client had no knowledge that the real estate agent would be at client's property and the contact was purely accidental. The trial ended with a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty for our client on all the charges of Violation of Harassment Prevention Order. 12CR0736 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. CP 12CR0737

May 20, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

Hardwick: Police investigate a complaint of Vandalized Property. A realtor had filed a complaint that our client was changing the locks on a property she was going to sell. Each time the realtor ... had the locks changed the client would have them re-keyed. The issued stemmed in part from the fact that the property was heading into foreclosure. The realtor claimed she was retained by the bank and had the exclusive to sell the property. Our client's defense was that the property had not yet been foreclosed on and she still had an ownership interest in her own property. By establishing evidence that our client had existing property rights, the court could not enter a guilty finding against her. It is not a violation of law to "vandalize" (the removal of the improperly placed locks) your own property. NOT GUILTY 12CR0737 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v RB 12CR0166

May 15, 2013

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

Shrewsbury: Police responded to a motor vehicle accident on Route 20 in Shrewsbury. At the scene were the operator of a passenger car involved in the accident along with a witness. The witness infor ... med police that a large pickup truck had made a left hand turn across traffic in front of the car, striking it then fleeing. Police followed a path of automotive fluid from the scene down the street to a driveway. Located in the driveway was a large pickup truck, leaking fluid. Police searched the immediate area for the driver and eventually went to the door of the house the truck was at. The truck was registered to our client, who also was the home owner. The police had the client step outside, and subsequently charged him with Leaving The Scene Of An Accident, Failure To Use Care In Turning, Operating To Endanger and Failure To Signal. In court we were able to establish that the witness's ability to observe the accident was impaired and thereby compromised. Additionally, police did not ascertain, if our client was home alone or if the possible operator could have been inside the house. Without ability to properly put the client behind the wheel by either the other operator or anyone else, all the charges were DISMISSED. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 12CR01666

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v TC 12CR6140

May 06, 2013

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

Concord: Massachusetts State Police stopped a Sterling man after running a rolling check of his registration. The computer check revealed the client's license was suspended for a prior Operating U ... nder The Influence charge in another court. The trooper charged the client with Operating After Suspension for OUI. This charge carries a mandatory 60 day jail sentence with no options for probation or other alternatives to avoid jail. We were able to convince the Court that this charge did not apply to our client. To be guilty of this offense, you must first be found guilty of Operating Under The Influence, and have your your license suspended by the Court. We had defended the client in the earlier OUI and the jury found him not guilty. The suspension of his license had been in place from his refusal of the breath test at the time of arrest and prior to his trial. The client at the time of this stop, was awaiting the reinstatement of his license after our not guilty OUI verdict. By demonstrating to the Court that our client did not fall under the mandatory jail case by virtue of his OUI acquittal, his Operating After Suspension case was DISMISSED. 12CR6140 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v PH 12CR002288

May 02, 2013

OUTCOME: ALL NEW CHARGES DISMISSED

Barre: In September 2012, Barre Police arrested a Spencer man charging him with Operating Under The Influence of Alcohol, Operating After Suspension, Marked Lanes Violations and Resisting Arrest. ... The client had to be treated as a result of injuries he received in the struggle with the police. The Client was represented by a court appointed attorney at his trial and found guilty on December 6, 2012. The Client received a jail sentence with probation to follow upon his release. The police somehow came into possession of the client's medical records for the treatment he receive. Police, after reviewing the medical records, brought a second case against the client for Operating A Motor Vehicle Under The Influence of Drugs.A warrant was issued for the client's arrest for failing to appear on the new case. The client learned of the warrant for his arrest and contacted our Law Offices for representation. We immediately reviewed the facts of the case and how police came to bring the new charges. There was no waiver of HIPPA privacy requirements so as to allow access to his medical records. Additionally, by the police delaying the filing of the new charges (probably waiting to see the results of the first case) essentially attempted to prosecute the client for the same offense twice. We successfully argued that the new charges were a violation of the client's protections under the "Double Jeopardy Clause" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court agreed that our client would be charged twice and twice put in jeopardy for the same actions. ALL NEW CHARGES DISMISSED. 12CR002288 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v WM 12CR6140

May 01, 2013

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

Auburn: Auburn Police responded to an allege hit and run accident and road rage complaint. The incident involved a pickup truck and car. The witness told police a pickup truck had been tailgati ... ng her at a high speed and when it pass her it struck her car. The witness further stated that the truck then made a u-turn and drove back striking the car in the "exact same spot" then fled the scene. Police located the truck a short time later. The ignition had been punched and a screwdriver was inserted into it as a key. Police also located within the truck a cell phone. Police followed wet footprints to a nearby second floor apartment. No one answered the door at the apartment and eventually police left the scene. Police utilizing the registration, contacted the owner of the truck, who told police that her son had been using the truck earlier. Police called back to the owner a second time by dialing "mom" from the contact list of the found phone. Police printed from Registry records, the owner's son's license photo. This was the only photo shown to the witness. Police asked the witness to identify the driver of the truck from this highly suggestive photo and no others. Eventually, police charged the son, our client with Road Rage-Leaving The Scene Property Damage and Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle. Throughout the case we consistently challenged the photo identification of our client as an improper and overly suggestive "show-up" rather than a fair multi photo array as required by law. Once successful in eliminating the flawed witness identification, we moved onto to the evidence demonstrating the vehicle having been stolen,(screwdriver in the ignition). The popped ignition was completely inconsistent with our client's permissive use of his mothers truck and the lack of any finger print evidence on the screwdriver caused the case to be DISMISSED. 12CR6140 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. KM 12CR7895

Apr 29, 2013

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

Worcester: A Spencer man was arrested by police for drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident. A police officer was on duty at a local night spot when he observed a truck strike a park ... ed car then drive away. The officer was sure he had observed a hit and run accident because the car struck was his. Shortly after the radio broadcast went out, our client was stopped by the police. Within minutes, he was placed under arrest and charged with Drunk Driving and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. Police noted in their report, that the client had an odor of alcohol on his breath, was unsteady on his feet and failed several field sobriety tests. At trial, we were successful in having the evidence view in a much less damaging tone resulting in a NOT GUILTY Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR7895

Anthony M Salerno's Legal Cases (60)

Commonwealth v. DW 13SC0169

Commonwealth v RF 86WORC113840

Commonwealth v. JBA 13CR0224

Commonwealth v. CP 12CR0736

Commonwealth v. CP 12CR0737

Commonwealth v RB 12CR0166

Commonwealth v TC 12CR6140

Commonwealth v PH 12CR002288

Commonwealth v WM 12CR6140

Commonwealth v. KM 12CR7895