Personal Injury Claims FAQ

If you’re the injured party in a personal injury case, the party found liable for the harm you’ve suffered is typically responsible for paying any settlement or damages. This can include paying for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages resulting from your injury.

What if my medical bills are more than my settlement?

If your medical bills exceed the amount of your claim settlement, you may be able to negotiate with your healthcare provider to reduce the amount you owe. Alternatively, your personal injury lawyer Cape Cod may be able to negotiate with the at-fault party’s insurance company for a higher settlement.

Is pain and suffering separate from medical bills?

In addition to medical bills, victims of accidents may also be entitled to recover damages for pain and suffering. Pain and suffering encompasses both physical and emotional pain caused by the accident. This can include physical discomfort, such as headaches or back pain, as well as emotional distress, such as anxiety or depression. However, our personal injury lawyer MA notes pain and suffering can be difficult to quantify, and it is often left to a jury to determine the appropriate amount of compensation.

On the other hand, medical bills refer to the actual cost of treatment that the victim incurs at a medical facility. These bills can include costs for hospital stays, medication, surgery, and other medical procedures. Together, pain and suffering and medical bills are both important factors to consider when seeking compensation with your personal injury lawyer Cape Cod for an accident.

Who gets the insurance check for my medical bills?

There are three common instances:

1. If your health insurance company receives your medical bills, the insurance company will typically receive the check.
2. If you paid the bills out of pocket, the check will be sent to you.
3. If you have a personal injury lawyer MA, the insurance company may send the check directly to them. This ensures that any outstanding legal fees are covered before you receive the remaining settlement amount.

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III | Personal Injury Lawyer MA

While personal injury settlements will provide financial relief, we’d like to note that the process may take some time. Before the courts resolve your claim, you must still start paying any medical bills incurred. While this is inconvenient, most settlements include reimbursements for incurred bills. A qualified personal injury lawyer MA can help you navigate the complexities of personal injury law and work to ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve. With over 100 years of combined case experience, it’s no wonder we’ve come to be known as the best personal injury lawyer Massachusetts. To learn more about our firm, personal injury law, or to schedule a consultation, visit our website today.

Manufacturing Defects

A manufacturing defect is a term used to describe a flaw or abnormality in a product that was caused by a mistake or error during the manufacturing process. This defect makes the product different from other products of the same type and can result in the product being unsafe or unusable.

A defective product can also cause financial hardship for the consumer, as they may be required to pay for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages. This is why it is important for consumers to understand their legal right to a defective product attorney.

In addition to helping individual consumers, a product defect attorney also plays an important role in promoting public safety. By holding manufacturers accountable for their products, they help to ensure that companies take the necessary steps to identify and address potential defects before they reach the market.

Design Defects

Unlike manufacturing defects, which occur during the production process, design defects are present in the product from the outset. This means that every product made according to the same design is potentially dangerous. Examples of design defects include a car that has a tendency to roll over easily or a medical device that is prone to failure. One of the most infamous medical device design defects is the hernia mesh case.

Design defects can be particularly dangerous because they affect an entire line of products, rather than just a few isolated instances. In order to pursue a design defect claim, a plaintiff must prove that the design of the product was unreasonably dangerous and that there was a feasible alternative design that would have made the product safer. A product defect attorney can help you determine whether you have a valid design defect claim and assist you in pursuing compensation for any injuries or damages you have suffered.

Marketing Defects

Marketing defects are another type of defective product liability claim that can arise when a manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions for the safe use of a product. This can include a failure to disclose known side effects of a medication or a failure to provide sufficient warnings about the dangers of a particular product’s use.

Marketing defects can also occur when a manufacturer fails to provide clear and complete instructions for the proper use and operation of a product. In order to pursue a marketing defect claim, a plaintiff and their product defect attorney must prove that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions and that this failure directly led to their injury or damages.

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III | Product Defect Attorney

Defective products are more than just lost money, they can result in lost lives. You have the right to a product defect attorney. If you or a loved one has been injured by a malfunctioning product, the experts at our Cape Cod law firms are here to help. With over a century of case experience, and a passion for compassion, we’ve stood the test of time. If you’re ready to receive personalized and dedicated legal representation, contact us to speak to a defective product attorney today.

What happens when public safety measures collide with rights secured by the U.S. Constitution to the criminally accused? Many of these questions remain unanswered as the legal issues wind their way through the courts.

In a case recently considered by the state’s highest tribunal, the issue was whether a Zoom hearing was permissible given certain constitutional rights. As is often the case, the court had to take several different factors into consideration.

Facts of the Case

In a recent criminal court case that was considered on appeal by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the defendant was charged with a felony drug offense. In late 2019, he filed a motion to suppress certain evidence and statements. The matter was scheduled for a hearing in early 2020, but the defendant requested a continuance and it was reset for May 2020. The second hearing date was rescheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At some point thereafter, the trial court judge ordered that the hearing take place via Zoom. The defendant objected to the Zoom hearing and asked that the matter be continued until an in-person hearing could be held safely. When making this request, the defendant agreed to waive his right to a speedy trial.

A hearing was conducted over Zoom regarding the defendant’s motion for a continuance. The trial court judge denied the motion. The defendant filed an appeal directly to the state’s highest court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3. A single justice reserved and reported the question of the constitutionality of virtual hearings for the full court’s consideration.

The Court’s Decision

The court began by acknowledging that both the Governor of Massachusetts and the President of the United States had declared a state of emergency in March 2020 due to the COVID-10 pandemic. Since that time, over 17,000 deaths had occurred in Massachusetts due to the virus. In addressing the novel issue of whether a virtual hearing satisfied the constitutional right to be present a motion-to-suppress hearing, the court found that, in certain circumstances such a hearing could be conducted virtually without violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.

In the instant case, however, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the lower court, holding that, although a virtual hearing was not a per se violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights in the midst of the pandemic, the trial court judge had abused her discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to continue to suppression hearing until it could be held in person, given the particular circumstances presented. In so holding, the court noted that the defendant had waived his right to a speedy trial and that there were no civilian victims or witnesses who would testify at the hearing.

Speak to a Cape Cod Criminal Defense Attorney

Those who are facing criminal charges in a court of law need experienced, assertive legal representation. For an appointment to speak to a member of our firm about your Cape Cod criminal court case, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. We serve clients in Hyannis, Plymouth, and the surrounding area.

When evidence is suppressed, it cannot be used to support a conviction against the defendant. Without crucial evidence, the Commonwealth’s case may be much weaker. Charges may be reduced or, sometimes, even dropped.

If the defendant loses his or her motion to suppress evidence at the trial court level and is convicted, he or she can file an appeal. When this happens, the appellate tribunal will review the trial court’s decision to determine whether a reversible error of law was made. If the reviewing court does so hold, it is possible that the defendant’s conviction may be reversed.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in a recent Massachusetts appellate court case was a man who was accused of multiple weapons violations (unlawful possession of a firearm without a license in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 269, § 10(a); unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 269, § 10(m), and unlawful possession of ammunition in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 260, § 10(h)). The defendant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence that police had recovered in a warrantless search of a multifamily home. Although the defendant did not live in the home, the home (along with the gun seized by police) had been depicted in several videos that the defendant posted on social media.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, and the case was tried to a jury. The defendant was convicted on the first two charges but acquitted on the third. After being sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 years and 2 1/2 years in state prison, the defendant sought appellate review.

The Decision in the Case

The defendant’s conviction was affirmed. The Massachusetts Appeals Court began by acknowledging that the trial court had opined that the defendant lacked standing to contest the search about which he complained and that, under the circumstances presented, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the area that police had searched. Although the defendant argued that the motion judge in the court below had created a reversible error in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained by police during the warrantless search and that the trial court had erred in finding him guilty on two of the weapons offenses on which he was charged, the reviewing court found no reason to set aside the lower court’s order.

In so holding, the appeals court sided with the Commonwealth on the issues of standing and reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. Under the Fourth Amendment, the issue of standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search or seizure was merged with the question of whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. Here, the defendant himself was not in actual or constructive possession of the weapon at the time that it was seized, such that he lacked “automatic” standing to challenge the search. He also lacked standing based on an expectation of privacy because the search took place in the basement of a home that the defendant did not own, that he did not occupy, or to which he did not claim to have been a guest at the pertinent time.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Cape Cod Now Reviewing Cases

If you have been accused of a crime and need a felony criminal defense attorney in the Cape Cod area, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III for an appointment. You can reach us at 888-262-6664 or through the “contact us” form on this website.

During trial, you have a Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, as well as the right to a jury trial and the right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the government in its case against you. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees those accused of criminal activity the right to be informed of the charges being brought against them and the right to a “speedy” trial.

Once a conviction has taken place, a criminal defendant is protected against cruel and unusual treatment by the Eighth Amendment. Knowing your legal rights at each step of a criminal case is important, as law enforcement must be kept in check lest they overstep their bounds. Facts of the Case

The defendant in a recent appellate case was indicted on charges of trafficking in heroin in violation of Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32E(c) and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(c). The case was tried to a jury, and the defendant was convicted on both charges. She was sentenced to five years in prison on the trafficking charge and two years of probation on the possession charge; the sentences were to run concurrently.

The defendant appealed her conviction and was given leave by the intermediate appeals court to file a motion for a new trial. She sought a stay of her sentence while the motion was pending. The trial court granted the motion but imposed certain conditions on the defendant’s release, including home confinement and GPS monitoring (the defendant was to remain in her home except for medical and legal appointments). The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the conditions set by the trial judge violated her Fourth Amendment rights. After her request was denied, the defendant appealed.

Outcome of the Appeal

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the lower court’s order with regard to the conditions imposed upon the defendant for her release pending the pursuit of a new trial. In the reviewing tribunal’s opinion, the defendant’s confinement to her home was not a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In so holding, the court noted that the condition was imposed pursuant to a valid conviction and a lawful sentence imposed thereupon.

With regard to the defendant’s argument concerning the GPS monitoring, the court agreed that it was a “search” under existing principles of constitutional law. However, the court went on to find that the search was reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

Speak to an Attorney About a Cape Cod Criminal Matter

Facing charges for an alleged misdemeanor or felony can be frightening. So much is at stake if you are convicted: jail time, hefty fines, and a criminal record that could haunt you for the rest of your life. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, we can provide the felony criminal defense that you need in order to have the best chance of a fair outcome in court. To schedule an appointment, call us at 888-262-6664. Always remember: you have the right to remain silent. It is best to talk to a lawyer before giving any type of statement to law enforcement or consenting to a search of your vehicle or home.

One such example would be evidence that was illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that probable cause be shown before a search warrant is issued.

The burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is on the Commonwealth, so excluding illegally obtained evidence at trial can be an important step to a defendant in his or her quest for justice. Without certain key evidence, it may be possible to have charges reduced or, in some instances, get a Cape Cod drunk driving case dismissed.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in a recent appellate case was a man who was arrested and convicted of several criminal offenses following an automobile accident. These charges included operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI) in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1), operating a motor vehicle negligently so as to endanger others in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 90, § 24 (2) (a), operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury in violation of Massachusetts General Law ch. 90, § 24L (2), and misleading an investigator in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 268, § 13B.

After the defendant appealed his convictions, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that his conviction was invalid because the trial court had improperly admitted both his blood alcohol level and the statements upon which the charge of misleading an investigator had been based. The supreme judicial court agreed that certain evidence had been wrongfully admitted and, accordingly, vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a retrial.

In so holding, the court noted that the defendant had not consented to a blood draw following the accident. Rather, police officers had procured a search warrant to obtain a blood sample from the defendant and state troopers had restrained his arms and legs while a nurse drew two vials of his blood. Under Massachusetts law, a statutory scheme exists to address the drawing and testing of blood alcohol content as it pertains to OUI; under this scheme, those who operate motor vehicles in the Commonwealth give “implied consent” to submit to a blood test if they are arrested for OUI. However, as the court pointed out, Massachusetts General Laws ch. 24(1)(f)(1) dictates that, if someone refuses to submit to a blood test, the test is not to be conducted and, as a result, the person can lose his or her driving privileges for up to 180 days.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Cape Cod

If you are facing criminal charges in Hyannis, Plymouth, or elsewhere in the Cape Cod area and need to speak to a seasoned OUI drunk driving attorney, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. Remember: you have the right to remain silent, so do not speak to police without an attorney present. If you waive this important legal right, your own words can be used against you at trial.

For example, what prompted the officer to pull over the vehicle? What did he or she observe when approaching the vehicle? Was any additional information obtained from nearby witnesses?

Facts of the Case

In a recent criminal case considered on appeal, the defendant had been convicted on charges of unlawfully carrying a firearm (and unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm) in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 269, § 10(a) and (n). He appealed, arguing that it had been error for the arresting officer to order him to get out of the vehicle in which he had been riding based on information obtained by a private security guard from employees of a nearby nightclub.

According to testimony offered by the Commonwealth at trial, the nightclub employees informed the security guard (who in turn told the arresting officer) that the occupants of the vehicle had been asked to leave the nightclub earlier in the evening and that a passerby had later informed the employees that the occupants of the vehicle had a firearm in their possession. When the officer told the defendant to get out of his seat in the vehicle, it was discovered that the defendant had been sitting on a gun when the vehicle had been pulled over.

Decision of the Court

The Commonwealth Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. The defendant argued on appeal that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court had committed reversible error when it denied his motion to suppress the firearm that the officer found when the defendant stepped out of the vehicle in which he had been riding when the driver was pulled over. According to the defendant, the officer’s decision to make him exit the vehicle did not pass the two-pronged test established by the cases of Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. U.S. and thus, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to force him from the vehicle.

In rejecting the defendant’s plea for a reversal of his conviction, the appeals court first pointed out that the Aguilar-Spinelli test was not applicable to the facts presented in the case at bar. Rather, the court found that the officer’s action was constitutional insomuch as it was grounded in “specific, articulate facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom” – in other words, more than just “on a hunch.” In so holding, the court noted that the nightclub employees stayed at the scene and were subject to identification. Furthermore, the found that officer was justified in taking prudent precautions for his own safety.

Seek Counsel About a Criminal Matter in Massachusetts

As this case shows, a seemingly simple traffic stop can result in serious repercussions not only for the driver of the vehicle but for the occupants as well. The area of criminal law is constantly evolving, and it is important that someone who has been accused of a crime be represented by legal counsel who stays current on developments in this area of the law. To schedule a consultation about your Hyannis or Plymouth area arrest with an experienced Cape Cod criminal defense attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664.

Without this evidence, the Commonwealth’s case may quickly fall apart. This can result in a plea bargain on lesser charges, or, in some cases, in outright dismissal of the case. Of course, the Commonwealth will usually fight hard against such a result, so it is important that the defendant be represented by an attorney well-versed in this area of the law.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the defendant was arrested on numerous drug charges in 2009. He filed a motion to suppress certain evidence concerning calls made to his cell phones – and intercepted by police while he was in custody – relating to the possible sale of illegal substances. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and he was convicted on multiple charges. He appealed, seeking relief from his convictions.

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the trial court had been correct in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the officer’s interception of the defendant’s cell phone calls because exigent circumstances allowed the police officer to answer the defendant’s phone without first obtaining a warrant. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals disagreed with this argument, however, and reversed the lower tribunal’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress the phone calls (and the fruits thereof) and set aside the verdicts in the court below.

In so holding, the court of appeals noted that the first call occurred 1 hour and 14 minutes after the defendant’s booking procedure began. The second phone call occurred about 90 minutes later. Both phone calls were allegedly from individuals seeking to purchase illegal drugs from the defendant. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the defendant had a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of his possessions, including his cell phones, and any warrantless searches and seizures were presumptively unconstitutional. As the appellate court pointed out, only when a warrantless search fell within a narrow class of permissible exceptions to the warrant requirement could a court deem such as reasonable.

Here, the officer was authorized to “seize” the defendant’s cell phones during the routine inventory search conducted during his booking; however, this authority did not extend to manipulating the phone to answer incoming calls. While it may have, in fact, been impractical for the officer to have obtained a warrant during the short period before the calls were intercepted, there was no evidence in the record concerning the purported difficulty of such. Consequently, the trial court judge should have suppressed the evidence obtained by the officer when he intercepted the calls.

For Advice About a Cape Cod Criminal Case

In a Cape Cod criminal defense case, it is important that the defendant be represented by a knowledgeable and assertive legal advocate who will fight for his or her rights in court and stand up against over-reaching search and seizures by authorities. To schedule an appointment to discuss your case, call The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, now at 888-262-6664. We are working hard to serve and protect our clients during the COVID-19 crisis and will work with you to schedule the best situation-specific consultation, whether in person, via teleconference, or over the telephone.

Sometimes, however, the issue is not so much whether a search itself was legal but, rather, whether the evidence that was found by police during the search was of a particular type or located in a place such that a given statute is applicable. Because reasonable minds can disagree about such matters, it is not unusual for such cases not only to proceed to trial (rather than be settled via a plea agreement) but, sometimes, through the appellate process, as well.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in a recent case was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon on his person or under his control in a vehicle in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 269, § 10(b). The charge was brought after a woman, with whom the defendant was apparently in a relationship of some sort, made a complaint to police, and police began searching for the defendant. The defendant and the complainant were located inside a truck and camper that was parked in the parking lot of a large retail store. At the time police approached the defendant, who was inside the camper, the camper was hooked up to a running generator. According to the complainant, the pair had been living in the camper for several days at that location.

After the defendant was arrested and removed from the scene, police transported the truck and camper to the police station. While executing a search warrant a few days later, police located a spring-loaded knife with a four-inch blade. The knife was located in the sleeping area of the truck, and DNA testing showed the defendant to be the major contributor of a swab taken from the knife’s handle. After a jury-waived bench trial, the defendant was convicted as charged. He appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that the camper in which the knife was located by police was a “vehicle” within the meaning of the relevant statute.

Decision of the Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower tribunal’s order convicting the defendant of carrying a dangerous weapon. The appellate court began by exploring the nature of the camper in which the knife was found; according to evidence submitted in the trial court below, the camper was not of the “freestanding” variety with a driving cab and wheels. Rather, the camper was designed as an attachment that was affixed to the defendant’s truck, partially through the use of bungee cords and ropes. Under these circumstances, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that a) the camper at issue was a “vehicle” or part of a vehicle within the meaning of the statute and b) the knife was under the defendant’s control in the vehicle.

Although the term “vehicle” was not defined in the statute, the court found that its ordinary meaning was “a device … for carrying passengers, goods, or equipment… .” In the court’s view, a camper that was affixed to a truck was a means of transporting people and things; thus, it was a “vehicle” under the statute. Given that the defendant was alone inside the camper for 20 to 30 minutes between the time police arrived and the time that he was arrested, combined with his DNA on the handle and the fact that the knife was found inside the defendant’s sleeping quarters, led the appellate court to agree with the trial court that the defendant had sufficient control over the knife, such that the statute applied.

Seek Counsel from a Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are facing felony charges after an arrest by Cape Cod police or other authorities, the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, is here to help. Call us at 888-262-6664 to schedule a consultation about your case. In the meantime, do not give any statements to law enforcement and do not discuss your case with other individuals. While the Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent, it does not necessarily apply to situations in which you voluntarily speak to officers or others about an alleged criminal act.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the defendant was arrested on a drug trafficking charge. He filed a motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle by police, insisting that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal search. According to the defendant, the exit order given to him by the police officer who stopped him was illegal, and thus the evidence found by the officer after the defendant stepped out of the vehicle should have been excluded. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and he appealed to the intermediate appellate court. That court reversed the lower tribunal’s denial of the defendant’s motion. The Commonwealth sought further review from the state’s highest court.

Decision of the Court

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that exit order was not lawfully issued and that, therefore, the evidence obtained by the search should have been suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The court began by stating that an exit order cannot be constitutionally justified solely based on a traffic violation. Rather, there must have been some event or observation made by the officer after the defendant’s vehicle has been stopped; this can include a belief by the officer that his or her (or someone else’s) safety has been threatened, a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, or a search of the vehicle on other grounds (such as in execution of a search warrant).

Here, police had been “tipped” that a vehicle similar to the defendant’s would be in a certain location with a large amount of narcotics inside, but, according to the supreme judicial court, the limited observations made by the officer prior to the stop did not amount to “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. The court held that the “safety concern” exception was likewise inapplicable, noting that, after being stopped, the defendant, though “nervous,” complied with all requests made by the officer and did not make any movements consistent with reaching for a weapon after the vehicle was stopped.

If You Have Been Arrested in Cape Cod

The laws of evidence, criminal procedure, and constitutional law are ever evolving. Even veteran police officers can make mistakes during an investigation, arrest, or search. If you have been arrested and need to talk to a knowledgeable Cape Cod criminal defense lawyer, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice. You can reach the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, by calling 888-262-6664; we’ll be glad to set up a time to discuss your case.

In a Cape Cod operating under the influence (or “OUI”) case, the question of whether a search and seizure was legal often hinges on whether the arresting officer acted in accordance with the law in stopping the defendant – in other words, did he or she have probable cause for the stop?

If a reviewing court determines that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity prior to stopping the defendant, it is likely that any evidence obtained during the stop (and any search and seizure executed in accordance therewith) will be deemed inadmissible at trial.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the defendant was a man who was travelling along a two-lane highway in the early morning hours when a police officer reportedly observed him cross over the “fog line” on the right side of the road for a few seconds. The officer pulled the motorist over and, after additional observations and inquiries, charged him with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Mass. Gen. Law ch. 90, § 24. The defendant was also charged with a marked lanes violation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 89, § 4A (a civil motor vehicle infraction punishable by fine).

After the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence gathered during what it deemed to be an unreasonable stop (and, thus, an illegal seizure), the Commonwealth filed an application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal. The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an unpublished memorandum in the defendant’s favor, from which the Commonwealth sought further review.

The Court’s Holding

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court vacated the trial court’s order allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In so holding, the court noted that the trial court judge had found that the defendant had driven out of the marked travel lanes when he crossed over the fog line. Therefore, the police officer who observed this had sufficient reason to stop the defendant for a marked lanes violation.

Although the trial judge had allowed the motion to suppress on the basis that the defendant had not violated § 4A, the reviewing court concluded that, because the circumstances (including a video recording taken from the officer’s dashboard camera) suggested that the defendant had both failed to operate his motor vehicle entirely within his lane of travel and had moved from his lane of travel without first ascertaining the safety of that movement, the defendant had violated § 4A. Thus, in the court’s opinion, the ensuing traffic stop was reasonable, and the trial court judge had erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Talk to a Cape Cod Criminal Defense Attorney

Being accused of a crime is very upsetting. A criminal conviction, even for a misdemeanor, can have far-reaching consequences for the criminal defendant. If you have been arrested for OUI drunk driving or another crime, you need accurate, up-to-date legal advice. To schedule a consultation with an experienced Cape Cod criminal defense attorney, call The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, at 888-262-6664.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in a recent appellate case was a man whose mother was pulled over allegedly failing to display a valid inspection sticker. As the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed that the defendant – who was a passenger in the right front seat – was not wearing a seat belt. Intending to ticket the defendant for this offense, the officer asked the defendant for his identification. As the defendant was giving the officer his identification, a dark-colored object, which the officer believed could possibly be a weapon, fell between the car seat and the console. After backup arrived, the officer ordered the defendant to step out of the car, arrested him on unrelated but outstanding warrants, and searched the vehicle. A loaded .38 caliber snub-nosed revolver was found.

The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. At trial, the defendant’s mother testified that the gun was hers and that the defendant had no knowledge that it was in the vehicle. Nevertheless, the defendant was convicted on both charges. He appealed, alleging that the motion judge should have granted his motion to suppress the firearm, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant was aware that the firearm in question was loaded, the prosecutor made comments in his closing argument that created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge did not instruct the jury that the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the firearm was loaded.

Decision of the Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the motion to suppress the firearm from evidence at trial was properly denied insomuch as the stop of the vehicle was legal, the officer’s request for identification was proper, the defendant was lawfully arrested on active warrants, and it was reasonable for the officer to look under the front passenger seat to determine whether the object that he had observed earlier was, in fact, a weapon. In so holding, the court rejected the defendant’s contention that, because he was handcuffed and in the officer’s cruiser during the search, there was no continuing threat to the officer’s safety; two adults and three children were still in the car, and thus the threat to the officer’s safety and the safety of the vehicle’s occupants had not ceased, in the appellate court’s opinion.

The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the defendant was aware that the gun was loaded. After all, the court reasoned, it was quite possible to discern whether that particular firearm was loaded simply by looking at it. The court likewise found no miscarriage of justice from the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument.

Talk to a Cape Cod Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have been arrested, there may be a lot more at stake than you realize. In addition to the jail time and fines associated with the offense of which you are accused, there can be many other negative consequences, especially if the crime at issue is a felony. To talk to a lawyer about how to defend yourself and protect your future, please contact the experienced Cape Cod criminal defense team at The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III. Call us at 888-262-6664 for an appointment.

One of the rights that is generally afforded under the United States Constitution is the right not to be put on trial a second time for the same criminal offense. Of course, there are some conditions that come with the Double Jeopardy Clause, some of which are long-standing and some of which are still being litigated today.

The United States Supreme Court recently weighed in on a case in which a defendant urged that the clause prevented him from being convicted in both state and federal court for the same basic offense.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the defendant was a man who, after having pleaded guilty to a state law charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, was indicted by federal prosecutors for the same instance of possession of a weapon pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the federal charges, arguing that the state offense and the federal offense were essentially the “same offense” such that he was being unconstitutionally put in double jeopardy. The federal district court denied the defendant’s motion.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the federal offense but preserved his right to challenge his double jeopardy motion to dismiss in a higher court. On appeal, the federal circuit court affirmed, relying upon the dual-sovereignty doctrine expressed in prior case law. The United States Supreme Court granted the defendant’s request for certiorari.

The Decision of the United States Supreme Court

The nation’s highest court affirmed the lower tribunal’s decisions, opting not to overturn the dual sovereignty doctrine relied upon by the circuit court. The Court explained that, although the dual sovereignty rule has been referred to as an “exception” to the general prohibition against double jeopardy, it was actually not an exception at all. Rather, according to the Court, the doctrine honored the substantive differences between the interests of two separate sovereigns (the state government and the federal government in this particular case) in punishing the same act.

In so holding, the majority of the court noted that a dissenting judge had found it to be error to treat the federal and state governments as two separate sovereigns because “sovereignty belongs to the people.” According to the majority, the people are indeed sovereign but that did not mean that they had conferred all of the attributes of sovereignty upon a single government.

Hire an Experienced Cape Cod Criminal Defense Attorney

At The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, our knowledgeable Cape Cod criminal defense lawyers work hard to defend the rights of our clients. This means holding police and prosecutors accountable, filing motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence, and seeking the best possible outcome under the circumstances presented. If you have been arrested recently in Hyannis or Plymouth, call us at 888-262-6664 to schedule an appointment to discuss your criminal defense with a member of our team.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the defendant was a man who was accused of several crimes relating to the illegal possession and improper storage of firearms and ammunition. When the matter was tried to a jury, one of the jurors was excused during deliberations because she told a court officer that she could not continue to deliberate because she was upset by other jurors being “argumentative.” The juror also mentioned that she was emotional due to health issues being suffered by some members of her family. The trial judge opted to replace the juror with an alternate, and the deliberations continued. After the defendant was found guilty, he appealed. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction. He sought further review from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Decision of the Court

The supreme court vacated the judgments entered against the defendant, concluding that the juror had been discharged for reasons that were “not purely personal” and that, thus, her dismissal was prejudicial error. The court went on to conclude that, because there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to deny the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty, the appropriate thing to do was to remand the case for further proceedings.

In so holding, the supreme court noted that the jury’s deliberations had begun late one afternoon and resumed the following morning. During the jurors’ lunch break on the second day of deliberations, a court officer informed the trial court judge that the juror in question had removed herself from the jury room and was visibly shaken, saying that she could not continue as a juror. After interviewing the juror, the trial court judge had informed counsel that the juror’s distress stemmed from her views of the case. The defendant’s attorney had requested that the other jurors be questioned, theorizing that the remaining jurors may have been “bullying” the juror for her views on the case. The trial court had refused to so.

Hire an Experienced Cape Cod Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you have been accused of a crime, it is imperative that you hire a skilled Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, we handle both felony and misdemeanor criminal cases, including operating under the influence (OUI) cases. To schedule an appointment to learn more about how we can be of service to you, please call us at 888-262-6664 and ask for an appointment. Our offices are located in Hyannis and Plymouth. Always remember that you have the right to remain silent, and that, if you waive that right and voluntarily speak to police without an attorney present, your own statements can be used against you in court later on.

When an arrest is made based on information obtained through the use of a technological device, the courts must consider whether police acted lawfully in light of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures, as well as other relevant legal principles.

Facts of the Case

In an appellate case arising from a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk, the defendant was a man who was indicted on a charge of trafficking cocaine in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 94C, § 32E(b) after police found cocaine and cash in a crawlspace located inside his residence. This evidence was found during a warrantless search, to which the defendant consented after police obtained his location through use of the defendant’s cell site location information. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine and cash on the grounds that they had been the fruit of an illegal search and seizure.

The superior court judge in the case held that the cocaine and cash had to be suppressed as the fruits of unlawful police tracking of a cellular telephone through which the defendant’s cell site location was obtained without police obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause. After review by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.

Decision of the Supreme Judicial Court

The state’s highest court affirmed the order of the superior court judge granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. According to the court, the evidence had to be suppressed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” because police had effectively monitored the movement of a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. The court found that, under the circumstances, it was irrelevant whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the crawlspace where the evidence in question was found.

In so holding, the court made a specific finding that the defendant’s consent to the search did not remove the seizure of the evidence from the taint of the illegal cell site location information search because the defendant’s consent was obtained through the use of information obtained from that search.

Schedule a Consultation with a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you are facing criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor or felony offense, you need to talk to an attorney who can help protect your legal rights as you forward towards trial. The law is always evolving in this area, and it pays to consult an attorney who stays abreast of the latest developments. For an appointment with one of the experienced Cape Cod criminal defense attorneys at the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, call us at 888-262-6664. We handle many types of criminal cases, including operating a vehicle while under the influence (OUI) of drugs or alcohol.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, police entered a building that contained four apartments. They did not have a warrant but were acting on information supplied by a 9-1-1 caller to the effect that she had seen some men go into the building with a gun. There had been several home invasions in town, although the record did not specify whether those events were in the same neighborhood. While they were conducting “protective sweep” of the building, police officers observed what appeared to be illegal narcotics. After the suspects were arrested in a different part of the building, officers obtained a search warrant for the apartment unit in which the drugs were seen, and the resident thereof was indicted.

The defendant moved to suppress the drugs and other paraphernalia that were seized during the execution of the search warrant. The trial court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the initial warrantless search upon which the search warrant was later based was permissible under the emergency aid doctrine. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further review.

Outcome on Appeal

The court allowed the motion to suppress, thus affirming the ruling of the trial court. According to the court on appeal, the case involved two exceptions to the warrant requirement: the emergency aid exception and the exigent circumstances exception. The court began by observing that a warrantless government search of a home was presumptively unreasonable under both state and federal constitutional law. Under the exclusionary rule, however, there are certain circumstances in which a warrantless search may be justifiable.

Here, the officers’ warrantless search was not justified under the emergency aid exception. When responding to the call, the officers did not observe any signs of a disturbance, nor were there any signs of forced entry. The residents with whom the officers spoke did not report hearing anything suspicious or out of the ordinary.

The court went on to analyze whether the officers’ warrantless entry into the building was justified under the the probable cause and exigent circumstances exception. In order for this exception to have applied, there would have had to have been objectively reasonable grounds to believe that residents of the apartment in which the drugs were seen were in danger or that others were at risk of imminent harm. The court again noted that, at the scene, officers encountered no indications of violence or forced entry and were, in fact, unaware of any resident or victim inside apartment unit in question. After concluding that the officers lacked a reasonable basis to believe that they or others were at risk of imminent harm, the court concluded that the warrantless search was impermissible.

Contact a Criminal Defense Attorney in Cape Cod

If you have been arrested and need to talk to an established Cape Cod criminal defense lawyer, the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can help. Call us at 888-262-6664 to schedule an appointment to discuss your case.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Court of Appeals Partially Reverses Firearm Conviction Massachusetts Court Reviews Alleged Cross-Examination “By Innuendo” of Defendant and Others in Illegal Gun Possession Case

Facts of the Case

In a recent criminal case considered on direct review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the defendant was charged with possession of an illegal substance with intent to distribute. During voir dire, a prospective juror stated that she believed that “the system is rigged” against individuals of the defendant’s general age, gender, and race. That juror was excused for cause by the trial court judge, and the case was tried to a jury that did not include that particular juror.

After being convicted, the defendant sought appellate review of his case, arguing that the trial court judge had abused his discretion in dismissing the prospective juror who had expressed her opinion about the legal system being “rigged.” The supreme judicial court granted an application for direct appellate review.

Decision of the Court

The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. While acknowledging that the voir dire of the juror in question was incomplete, the court was of the opinion that the defendant had not shown that dismissal of the prospective juror for cause resulted in prejudice to him.

The defendant maintained that neither the would-be juror’s work experience (she worked with low income youth in a school setting, including teenagers convicted of drug crimes) nor her belief that the criminal justice system was unfair to those from certain backgrounds rendered her unfit to serve on the jury. The appellate court agreed with the defendant that a juror’s beliefs about how the criminal justice system treats a particular group should not, on its own, disqualify a juror from service. However, the court noted that, in this particular case, the trial judge did ask the juror several questions about the issue. Even though judge did not ask her every question that, in hindsight, he should have asked her, the defendant had not proven that he was prejudiced as a result.

It is interesting to note that at least six different non-profit organizations groups, two retired judges, and two law professors filed amicus curie briefs in this case, suggesting that the defendant may intend to seek further review from the United States Supreme Court. However, that Court only hears a limited number of cases per year, so the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will likely be the final word on the matter.

Talk to a Cape Cod Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with a felony offense, you need the most effective legal representation possible. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, our experienced criminal defense attorneys work hard to protect the legal rights of the accused. For a consultation regarding the charges pending against you, call us now at 888-262-6664. In the meantime, please do not speak to police or anyone else about your case. Any statements you make may be used to convict you in court later on, so please exercise your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Related Blog Posts United States Supreme Court Issues Ruling Regarding Cell Phone Location Records, Potentially Affecting Customers in Massachusetts and Across the Nation Massachusetts Appeals Court Remands Criminal Case, Ordering Trial Court to Make Specific Finding Regarding Defendant’s Financial Ability to Make Restitution

For example, the crime of criminal harassment (sometimes referred to as “stalking”) is not necessarily a new offense, but, with modern technology, there are now many more ways in which someone might find themselves accused of violating the law with respect to this crime.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the defendant was charged with two counts of criminal harassment in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 265, § 43A due to his alleged use of global positioning system (GPS) devices to track the movements of two particular individuals. The defendant and the victims had never met in person, but the defendant had allegedly placed GPS devices on the underside of each of their victims’ vehicles, allowing him to track their movements. Although the defendant’s motivation was not completely known, he claimed that his actions were in light with him “guarding the hen house.”

The trial court ruled that the Commonwealth’s complaint did not allege the requisite facts to support a charge of criminal harassment. The Commonwealth appealed, and the supreme judicial court transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own initiative.

Holding of the Court

The supreme judicial court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the Commonwealth’s charges. Acknowledging that, “as technology has advanced, the tools that people can use to harass victims have increased,” the higher court agreed with the Commonwealth that the defendant’s behavior was sufficient to satisfy the “three acts” requirement for a viable charge under the Massachusetts criminal harassment statute. In so holding, the court noted that it’s holding was specific to the facts at hand and that, in similar cases, the outcome might be different.

This case is interesting not only from a criminal law standpoint but also from the perspective of personal injury litigation. Query how relatively easy it would be for a detective or insurance company representative to “spy” on an injured person had the court decided that placing a GPS unit on a stranger’s car was acceptable under the law. Of course, even without GPS surveillance, those who strive to limit or avoid payouts in negligence cases already have a great many tools at their disposal – surveillance video from places of business that a litigant might frequent and social media postings, just to name a few.

Consult a Cape Cod Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you have been accused of criminal harassment or another misdemeanor or felony under Massachusetts law, you need to talk to an experienced Cape Cod criminal defense attorney. For an appointment to discuss your situation with a member of our staff, please call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at 888-262-6664 and schedule an appointment at your earliest convenience.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Appeals Court Remands Criminal Case, Ordering Trial Court to Make Specific Finding Regarding Defendant’s Financial Ability to Make Restitution Massachusetts Court of Appeals Partially Reverses Firearm Conviction

If the defendant does not abide by the terms of his or her probation, the trial court may revoke the defendant’s status as a probationer and order that he or she be placed in prison or county jail.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently under consideration by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court, the defendant was a woman who had been convicted on criminal charges (larceny and identity fraud) in 2008. She was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay $28,200 in restitution, at rate of at least $100 per month. The defendant’s probation was extended several times, and her monthly restitution obligation was adjusted both upwards and downwards at various times. In February 2017, the defendant was still on probation and still owed over $14,000 in restitution.

The defendant filed a motion to terminate her probation. The trial judge denied the defendant’s motion but ordered that her restitution payments be reduced back to $100 per month. She appealed, arguing that the trial court’s denial of her motion resulted in additional punishment for her due to her poverty.

Decision of the Court

The appeals court vacated the lower tribunal’s denial of the defendant’s motion to terminate probation and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court first noted that, on appeal, orders pertaining to restitution are to be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. The defendant argued that there was an abuse of discretion present because, at the hearing, she had shown that she lacked the financial ability to pay the restitution ordered previously.

The appellate court agreed with the defendant that her ability to pay should have been considered in setting the restitution amount and that, if she truly lacked the ability to pay, her probation should not have been extended. However, the court noted that the burden of proving the inability to pay was on the defendant. In making such a determination, factors to be considered should have included both the defendant’s ability to earn money and her other ongoing financial obligations.

In reviewing the defendant’s income and expenses as reported to the trial court, the reviewing tribunal had questions about the amount of taxes the defendant paid out of her self-employment income and the exact amount of some of her monthly expenses, such as her car payment and her credit card bills. On remand, the trial court was directed to make specific factual findings regarding the defendant’s affidavit of indigency and her financial ability to make restitution to the victim of her crimes.

Contact a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney

The issue of restitution can come up in several different types of criminal cases – not only theft cases, but also, for example, drunk driving cases involving a personal injury or wrongful death. If you are facing criminal charges and need to speak to a lawyer, the Cape Cod criminal defense team at the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III will be glad to review your case. For an appointment, call us at 888-262-6664. We have offices in Plymouth and Hyannis.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Court of Appeals Partially Reverses Firearm Conviction Massachusetts Court Reviews Alleged Cross-Examination “By Innuendo” of Defendant and Others in Illegal Gun Possession Case