The case was tried before a jury in the Worcester Superior Court. The defendant and the defendant’s best friend, both reputed gang members, were indicted for murder as the result of a fatal shooting at a Worcester apartment complex. The defendant arrived at the complex in mid-afternoon. Between approximately 4 PM and 5 PM, there was a flurry of calls – approximately twenty-five – between the defendant, the co-defendant and the defendant‘s brother. The co-defendant, driven by the defendant’s brother, arrived at the complex a short time after the last call. A prosecution witness testified that he saw the defendant and the co-defendant arguing, at short distance, with three men. According to the witness, as this played out, the co-defendant took a handgun from his sweatshirt and fired several shots. One was fatal. The defendant and the co-defendant fled in a car driven by the defendant’s brother. The prosecution argued that the victim was set-up and that both defendants shared the intent to murder and thus they were both responsible for the death.
The prosecution’s eyewitness did not fare well on cross-examination. It became clear that his account of events could not be trusted. This fact was cemented by the testimony of the police ballistician. He testified that the physical evidence at the scene established that there had been shooting on both sides and that he could not say who shot first. One more point. It was somewhat of an open question whether the defendant knew that his co-defendant was in possession of a handgun. And thus whether the defendant shared the intent of his co-defendant, whatever it may have been, was unresolved.
The case was tried before a jury in the Worcester Superior Court. It was alleged that defendant and at least one other person burst into the apartment of an across-the-street neighbor with a machete and a baseball bat and attacked the man who lived there while the man’s wife and one of his daughters looked on. Minutes after the alleged attack someone made a 911 call – the wife testified that she made the call – reporting a “home invasion.” The police arrived in short order. They interviewed the man and his wife and their daughter and some other witnesses. The defendant was arrested. At trial the Commonwealth called five witnesses, three of whom testified that the defendant entered the man’s apartment and attacked him and two of whom testified that they saw the defendant enter the apartment. None of the five held up well on cross examination.
The defendant testified. When he arrived home, the alleged victim (man) was shouting insults at his wife from across the street. Their young children had scuffled with each other earlier in the day. After a while the defendant had had enough and told the man to shut his mouth or he would shut it for him. The man kept on. The defendant walked across the street. The man ran into his apartment and came out with a machete. The defendant who was younger, bigger and stronger than the man separated him from the machete and then his senses. In closing argument, Attorney Gallagher remarked that the alleged victim “came out to the wrong guy.”
Attorney Gallagher has tried six “life felony” cases. A life felony crime allows for sentence of life in prison upon a conviction. In five of the six trials, Attorney Gallagher‘s client was acquitted.
**********
ARMED ROBBERY WHILE MASKED
NOT GUILTY
This case was tried before a jury in the Suffolk Superior Court. The victim was robbed by two men at gun point. Immediately after the robbery the complainant provided the police with a description of his assailants. He also stated one of the men pulled a red bandana over his face, but only after the robbery had begun. The police stopped the defendant about thirty minutes later, no more than a half mile from the scene; he had a red bandana in his pocket. The police brought the complainant to defendant. The victim (from the back seat of a police cruiser) identified the defendant as the person who had robbed. The victim provided a number of somewhat different descriptions of his assailant at various stages in the proceedings. As this was made clear to the jury at trial, a reasonable doubt as to guilt arose.
**********
AGGRAVATED RAPE
NOT GUILTY
This case was tried before a jury Worcester Superior Court jury. The defendant and co-defendant, two young men, were charged with the sexual assault of a young woman. The three knew each other and had been friends. The woman testified that the men brought her into the bedroom where they both assaulted her.
The defendant testified on his own behalf. He said that he was in the apartment, but never went into the bedroom. His testimony undeniably had the ring of truth. Further, he stood up very well on cross-examination.
**********
ARMED BURGLARY
NOT GUILTY
This case was tried before a Worcester Superior Court jury. The Commonwealth’s primary witness testified that two men broke into her apartment and one of the two – Attorney Gallagher’s client – battered and sexually assaulted her.The two men were known to her. When the police arrived she named Attorney Gallagher’s client as her attacker and provided a description of the clothes he had been wearing. The police found him a short time later, not far from the apartment.His clothing was as had been described.
The alleged victim did not do well on cross examination. There came reason to believe that her accusations were payback for an earlier wrong she thought had been committed against her by the two men.
**********
ARMED ROBBERY
GUILTY
This case was tried to a judge sitting in the Worcester Superior Court. The only issue was whether the defendant was armed. Saying he had a pipe bomb, the defendant demanded money from a store clerk. The clerk did not see a pipe bomb or any weapon. That said the defendant had one hand tucked in a pocket of his sweatshirt. The police stopped the defendant as he drove from the store. On the floor of the car was a cut off piece of metal pipe.
It is critical to understand that some past success does not ensure future success. Each case is unique, with its own strengths and weaknesses. Each case turns on its own facts.