Attorney James DeGiacomo's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. JR - Hingham District Court

Jul 20, 2018

OUTCOME: Dismissal

JR was charged out of Hingham District Court with a sole count of Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Suspended License for OUI – a charge that carried a minimum mandatory jail sentence, without the possi ... bility of any probation. Immediately upon review of the case, it was apparent to Attorney DeGiacomo, that the Hanover Police Department had mischarged JR, and that he should have been charged with a simply Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Suspended License – a charge that can often be dismissed upon a low payment in court costs. After attempting to explain the error in the charge to the prosecutor, Attorney DeGiacomo determined that a motion to dismiss would need to be filed. Attorney DeGiacomo then filed and argued the motion to dismiss the charge, citing Commonwealth v. Owyole, which was allowed. As a result of this, JR was able to avoid an otherwise unavoidable jail sentence.

DUI and DWI

Commonwealth v. CB - Hingham District Court

Jul 20, 1918

OUTCOME: Dismissal

CB was charged out of the Hingham District Court with Operating Under the Influence of Drugs, in July of 2017. The allegations against CB were that Massachusetts State Troopers found him sitting on a g ... uard rail after an apparent accidence. Troopers observed that CB was very unsteady on his feet, and after questioning did not know where he was. After some field sobriety tests, which the officers deemed to have been failed, they made the determination that CB was operating under the influence of drugs. After a full review of the evidence, Attorney DeGiacomo filed and successfully argued a motion to dismiss the charge of Operating Under the Influence of Drugs. During this argument, Attorney DeGiacomo argued that the case of Commonwealth v. Ferola required additional evidence than the prosecution had to support the charge of OUI Drugs. As a result of the motion to dismiss being allowed, CB was able to avoid possible jail time, thousands of dollars and fines, and a lengthy suspension of his driver’s license.

Violent crime

Commonwealth v. MA - Boston Municipal Court, West Roxbury Division

Jul 18, 1918

OUTCOME: Dismissal

In a matter where MA was originally charged with Armed Robbery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Firearm), MA was accused of robbing a convenience store in Hyde Park at gun point. At his arraign ... ment, the prosecutor asked that he be held without bail, however, Attorney DeGiacomo was able to successfully argue that MA should be released pending the outcome of his case. After reviewing the evidence, Attorney DeGiacomo filed and argued a motion to dismiss the matter. Attorney DeGiacomo successfully argued that the fingerprint evidence was insufficient to proceed with the prosecution of MA, and as a result, both charges against him were dismissed.

Domestic violence

Commonwealth v. EA - Marlborough District Court

Jun 14, 1918

OUTCOME: No Charges Issued

In a clerk magistrate’s hearing in the Marlborough District Court, Attorney DeGiacomo was able to successfully argue that no charges should issue against EA. Attorney DeGiacomo was able to show the cle ... rk magistrate that the documents filed by the police after taking a report about a domestic violence incident were not sufficient under the law. As a result of this, EA was never charged with Domestic Assault and Battery.

Criminal defense

Commonwealth v. TP - Milford District Court

Jun 08, 1918

OUTCOME: Dismissal

In a matter where TP was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle after a significant motor vehicle accident, Attorney DeGiacomo successfully argued a motion to dismiss the matter prior to T ... P’s arraignment. In his argument, Attorney DeGiacomo showed the court that the police department didn’t follow required protocol, and as a result, TP’s rights were infringed upon. The allowance of this motion to dismiss, resulted in the assurance that TP never received this

DUI and DWI

Commonwealth v. MR - Boston Municipal Court, Roxbury Division

May 23, 1918

OUTCOME: No Guilty

Boston Municipal Court - Roxbury Division MR was charged out of the Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court for Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor in February of 2018. Attorne ... y DeGiacomo was able to quickly secure a trial date for MR. At trial, a Northeastern University Police Officer testified that she observed MR passed out in his car while parked in the travel lane of Huntington Avenue. She further testified that it took numerous attempts to awake him, and once he was awake she was able to smell alcohol on his breath. The Officer also testified that she and another officer had to physically hold MR up to prevent him from falling once he was out of the car. During a successful cross-examination, Attorney DeGiacomo was able to point out that the officer's testimony differed widely from what she wrote in her police report. As a result of this, Attorney DeGiacomo argued that the Commonwealth had not met its burden of proof. A verdict of Not Guilty on the sole count of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor was then returned. After the trial concluded, Attorney DeGiacomo argued that the judge should order the Registry of Motor Vehicles to immediately reinstate MR's driver's license, which had been suspended for 180 days as a result of his arrest. After extended arguments against this motion by the Commonwealth, the judge ruled in MR's favor and ordered the RMV to give his license back.

DUI and DWI

Commonwealth v. CS

Feb 20, 1918

OUTCOME: Dismissal

CS was charged out of the Brighton Division of the Boston Municipal Court for Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor in November of 2017. After a full review of the case, Attorney James G ... . DeGiacomo was able to determine that that the favorable arguments that could be made on behalf of CS would likely be outweighed by a breathalyzer result of almost twice the legal limit. However, Attorney DeGiacomo was able to navigate the court system to ensure that the case would be scheduled for trial during a period of time where the breathlyzer results are barred from being entered into evidenced due to ongoing litigation regarding their reliability. On the second trial date on February 20, 2018, a mere three months after CS was originally charged with this offense, Attorney DeGiacomo argued that the case should be dismissed due to the Commonwealth’s sole witness, a Massachusetts State Trooper, not being present for the trial. After a short hearing, the Judge Agreed with Attorney DeGiacomo’s argument and dismissed the case.

DUI and DWI

Commonwealth v. KA - Boston Municipal Court, Brighton Division

Nov 07, 1917

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

A Massachusetts State Trooper observed K.A. traveling over the center double line for a few hundred feet. As a result of this observation, the Trooper conducted a motor vehicle stop. While speaking wit ... h K.A., the Trooper learned that K.A. had drank three bud lights. In addition, the Trooper observed K.A. to have bloodshot and glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol coming from his breath. Due to these observations, the Trooper ordered K.A. out of the car to conduct field sobriety tests. The Trooper testified that during the nine step walk and turn test, K.A. lost his balance, started early, missed touching his heal to his toe, and turned improperly. Furthermore, the Trooper testified that during the one leg stand test, K.A. raised his arms, swayed, and put his foot down early. K.A. was subsequently arrested and charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol. After a successful cross-examination, Attorney James G. DeGiacomo was able to show that the Trooper deviated substantially from his training. He then argued that the Commonwealth had not met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The resulting verdict was Not Guilty on the sole count of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol.

DUI and DWI

Commonwealth v EM - Ayer District Court

Sep 18, 1917

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

Boxborough Police initiated contact with E. M. after observing that his truck and the car in front of him were stopped at a stop sign for "an unreasonable amount of time." During their initial contact ... with E. M., officers observed bloodshot glassy eyes and an odor of alcohol coming from his truck. After arresting the operator of the car in front of his for OUI Liquor, officers returned to E. M. to conduct field sobriety tests. As a result of the tests, E. M. was charged with (1) Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol - Second Offense; and (2) Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. During a successful cross-examination, Attorney James G. DeGiacomo was able to establish that many of the cues the officer was trained to look for when investigating an OUI simply were not present during his interaction with E. M. In addition, Attorney DeGiacomo was able to show that prior injuries that E. M. suffered could have been the reason for the poor results on the field sobriety tests. The resulting verdict was Not Guilty on both charges.

DUI and DWI

Commonwealth v. JJ - Boston Municipal Court, Central Division

Aug 03, 1917

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

Massachusetts State Troopers observed J.J. traveling 70 mph in a 45 mph zone on Route 93 and make several marked lanes violations. After conducting a motor vehicle stop, the Troopers made observations ... that led them to believe that J.J. was operating while under the influence of alcohol. J.J. was subsequently arrested after a series of field sobriety tests. After the arrest, the Troopers searched the motor vehicle where they found numerous large and small bags of a substance they believed to be marijuana. J.J. was charged with (1) Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol; and (2) Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class D Drug. After a successful cross-examination, Attorney James G. DeGiacomo was able to show that the Troopers deviated substantially from their training. He then argued that the Commonwealth had not met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The resulting verdict was Not Guilty on both counts.

James DeGiacomo's Legal Cases (10)

Commonwealth v. JR - Hingham District Court

Commonwealth v. CB - Hingham District Court

Commonwealth v. MA - Boston Municipal Court, West Roxbury Division

Commonwealth v. EA - Marlborough District Court

Commonwealth v. TP - Milford District Court

Commonwealth v. MR - Boston Municipal Court, Roxbury Division

Commonwealth v. CS

Commonwealth v. KA - Boston Municipal Court, Brighton Division

Commonwealth v EM - Ayer District Court

Commonwealth v. JJ - Boston Municipal Court, Central Division