Jump to Navigation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Success Stories

  • TRAFFICKING IN HEROIN: CASE DISMISSED. A South Shore single mother was arrested in a car on the parking lot of a suburban movie theater when the police discovered a large quantity of heroin and prescription medications in her passenger's shopping bag. Although the client had never previously been arrested, she faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in state prison under the drug trafficking statute. Attorney Bennett successfully argued to the Court that the evidence should be suppressed because police lacked the necessary probable cause to search the car. Case dismissed.
  • UNARMED ROBBERY: DEADLOCKED JURY - CASE RESOLVED. A Boston man was charged with unarmed robbery and being a habitual criminal. Quincy police alleged that the client followed a man from a supermarket to his apartment building, where the client allegedly assaulted and robbed him. There were no witnesses to the incident, but the building's video surveillance camera allegedly depicted the assailant fleeing the building after the crime was committed. Attorney Bennett argued that no crime occurred. The complaining witness originally told the police that he was injured when he fell in the elevator. He did not claim that he was assaulted or robbed until an hour later. The police received a tip that the client committed the crime after they posted the surveillance video on Mass. Most Wanted. A car owned by the client played a prominent role in the case. The prosecution introduced video evidence from a supermarket parking lot that showed a car similar to that owned by the client circling the parking lot at the time the complaining witness was supposedly doing his shopping. However, Attorney Bennett pointed out that the complaining witness could not be seen on any video taken inside or outside the supermarket, thereby undermining the prosecution's claim that the witness had been followed. The case was complicated by the fact that Boston police charged that the client committed a similar crime in Hyde Park against a different person on the same day. The case proceeded to trial in the Norfolk County Superior Court. Over the objection of Attorney Bennett, the trial judge permitted the prosecutor to introduce evidence of the Boston robbery on the theory that the two crimes were so similar that it was likely both crimes were committed by the same person. No one was able to identify the client as the person who had committed the Boston robbery. A key witness for the government contended that she observed the assailant leave the scene of the Boston crime in an automobile just like the one owned by the client. However, on cross-examination Attorney Bennett forced the witness to admit that she was at least the distance of a football field from the fleeing vehicle, that she only saw the car for a couple of seconds, and never saw the assailant enter the vehicle. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and a mistrial was declared. Subsequently, the case was resolved when the client was credited for the time he had been held in custody awaiting trial.
  • STATUTORY RAPE: NOT GUILTY. A Boston man met a young woman on the internet. The young woman told the client that she was nineteen, and exchanged explicit sexual messages with him, culminating in an invitation to visit while her parents were out. The client accepted the invitation, and the couple allegedly engaged in numerous sex acts at the young woman's home. The father arrived home unexpectedly and observed the client leaving the home. The father quizzed his daughter about her visitor, which resulted in a complaint of statutory rape. The young woman was in reality fifteen years old. In Massachusetts, the age of consent is sixteen. The police arrested the client the next day. The police informed the client that he was charged with rape (to which consent is a defense); they did not inform the client that he was charged with statutory rape (to which consent is not a defense). The police said that the client admitted meeting the young woman, going to her home, and engaging in sex. He reportedly told the police that he believed that she was nineteen and stated that the young woman was a willing participant in all that occurred. In addition, the prosecution presented DNA evidence to corroborate the account of sexual activity at the home. At trial, the young woman claimed that she met the client when he approached her in the toy department of a store while she was shopping with her mother. She admitted inviting the client to her home for conversation, but denied that she expected a sexual encounter. The prosecution disintegrated when Attorney Bennett confronted the complaining witness on cross-examination with photographs and writings she had posted on-line which completely contradicted the story she had presented to the jury. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
  • OUI: .22 BAC- DEADLOCKED JURY. The client was arrested and charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol after he was involved in a minor collision. The client was transported to a local hospital. A blood sample was withdrawn "for medical treatment" purposes. The government subpoenaed the blood test results, which allegedly showed that the client's blood alcohol content was "over the limit". It is a crime to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher. However, the government was forced to rely on a chemist's statistical theory to convert the hospital blood results to evidence of the percentage , by weight, of alcohol in the client's blood. The chemist testified that the statistical theory was valid for 95% of the population of the United States, and that according to the theory of conversion, the client's blood alcohol content was .22, well in excess of the legal limit. On cross-examination, Attorney Bennett forced the chemist to concede that the conversion theory was invalid for approximately 15 million people living in the United States. The chemist also testified the theory depended on the water content of a person's body, that the medical records of the hospital contained no information pertaining to the water content of the client's body, and that she therefore could not state within a reasonable degree of certainty that the statistical theory had any application to the client. The jury was unable to return a unanimous verdict, and a mistrial was declared.
  • OUI: CLIENT CANNOT RECITE ALPHABET: NOT GUILTY. A 25 year-old high school graduate was stopped by the police on suspicion of drunk driving. The arresting officer claimed that he observed the client repeatedly stray over a double yellow line. In response to questions from the officer, the client admitted that he had consumed several beers earlier in the evening. The officer required the client to perform some so-called "field sobriety" tests. The client was arrested after he was unable to "walk the line" or recite the alphabet. Attorney Bennett introduced medical evidence that the client suffered from a learning disability that inhibited his ability to process and respond to oral instructions, thereby explaining his admitted inability to recite the alphabet. Attorney Bennett also introduced evidence from the client's employer which described accommodations in the workplace that were in place to compensate for the client's disability. Evidence was also introduced evidence to challenge the officer's description of the client's driving. The officer and the client were traveling in opposite directions at 30 mph, and it was proven that the client had likely already reached the end of the road almost a mile away before the officer caught up to him and stopped him. A jury found the client Not Guilty.
  • Attorney Bennett defended a Braintree woman who was arrested for OUI Drugs after she was involved in a minor auto collision. At a pretrial hearing Attorney Bennett cross-examined the government's Drug Recognition Expert ( a police officer) about his training and experience. Following the cross-examination, the Court ruled that the officer was not qualified to express an opinion that the client was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs. The client was found Not Guilty of OUI Drugs.
  • Police executed a search warrant at a home and discovered a large quantity of prescription pills. The client was charged with drug trafficking and faced a mandatory minimum of ten years in the state prison, if convicted. Attorney Bennett successfully argued that the search warrant was issued without probable cause. The evidence was suppressed and the case was dismissed.
  • Attorney Bennett represented a man who was charged Assault & Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon. The client was accused of beating another with a metal baton. The police claimed that the injured person was a member of a motorcycle club, and that he was targeted by rivals over a "turf" issue. Attorney Bennett proved to the jury that his client actually acted in defense of a friend. The client used the baton in justifiable self-defense when he saw that his companion was about to be stabbed with a screwdriver. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.