ASSAULT AND BATTERY
NOT GUILTY
This case was tried to a judge in the Dudley District Court. The defendant was involved in a melee one afternoon in Southbridge. He was charged with assault and battery. Others were charged as well. At the very beginning of his testimony at trial, the alleged victim invoked his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself. This ended the Commonwealth’s case. The judge entered a required finding of not guilty on behalf of Attorney Gallagher’s client.
TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE
NOT GUILTY
The case was tried before a jury in the Worcester Superior Court. A police officer was in an unmarked cruiser in a Rite Aid parking at about 9:00 PM when a car pulled in and parked about 8 or 9 spaces to his left. The driver shut off the lights but left the engine running. A second car pulled into the lot and parked alongside the first car. This car also shut of its lights but kept its engine running. The cars which were parked in the last row of the lot caught the officer attention officer. The officer testified that he saw what he believed was drug sale between the driver of one car and the front seat passenger (Attorney Gallagher’s client) of the other car. When this second car drove from the lot the officer stopped it. A search uncovered twenty-seven grams of cocaine under a cup holder in the center console to the immediate left of Attorney Gallagher’s client.
The case was tried before a jury in the Worcester Superior Court. A police officer was in an unmarked cruiser in a Rite Aid parking at about 9:00 PM when a car pulled in and parked about 8 or 9 spaces to his left. The driver shut off the lights but left the engine running. A second car pulled into the lot and parked alongside the first car. This car also shut of its lights but kept its engine running. The cars which were parked in the last row of the lot caught the officer attention officer. The officer testified that he saw what he believed was drug sale between the driver of one car and the front seat passenger (Attorney Gallagher’s client) of the other car. When this second car drove from the lot the officer stopped it. A search uncovered twenty-seven grams of cocaine under a cup holder in the center console to the immediate left of Attorney Gallagher’s client.
The Commonwealth’s witnesses did not fare on cross examination. The jury returned a verdict of simple possession and Attorney Gallagher’s client was sentenced to probation.
ARMED ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER
GUILTY
The case was tried before a in the Worcester Superior Court jury. Two men and two women were sitting on the stoop of a first floor apartment when a man came from nearby bushes and struck one of the men in the back of the head with a golf club. The blow fractured the man’s skull. The police immediately responded to the scene and interviewed the persons who had been on the steps. They named the defendant as the assailant. At trial, they testified that they knew the defendant and had even socialized with him. And they both identified him as the assailant.
MURDER
NOT GUILTY
This 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 flurry of calls – upwards of 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 with three men who were a short distance away. According to the witness, as this played out, the co-defendant took a handgun from his sweatshirt and fired several shots. One proved fatal. The defendant and the co-defendant then fled in a waiting car driven by the defendant’s brother. The prosecution argued that the defendants were in it together, that the victim was set-up, that the defendant shared the murderous intent of his co-defendant and thus, in the eyes of the law, 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. Also, 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 an open question.
ARSON
GUILTY
This case was before a jury in the Worcester Superior Court. A fire brought an abandoned warehouse to the ground. While the evidence was overwhelming that the defendant was responsible for the fire, the crime of arson requires that the defendant have the specific intent to cause the fire. Attorney Gallagher argued that the fire was caused not by an intentional act but rather by a reckless act. In other words, the defendant did not have the state of mind required for the crime of arson.
OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
NOT GUILTY
AND/OR A BREATHALYZER RESULT OF .08 OR ABOVE
NOT GUILTY
This two count complaint was tried before a jury in the Worcester District Court. The defendant was stopped about 1 A.M., because her car had a headlight out. According the arresting officer, the defendant failed all field sobriety tests. At the police station, the defendant took a Breathalyzer Test and she registered .10. The Commonwealth’s case did not stand the scrutiny of cross-examination.
OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
NOT GUILTY
This case was tried to a judge in the East Brookfield District Court. The defendant was stopped for speeding at about 1 AM. The officer testified that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, that his speech was somewhat slurred, and that he had an odor have alcohol on his breath. With regard to the field sobriety tests, the officer testified to mixed results. It became clear on cross examination that the defendant’s guilt could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
NOT GUILTY
UNATHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
NOT GUILTY
LEAVING THE SCENE OF A PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT
NOT GUILTY
This three count complaint was tried to a Judge in the Fitchburg District Court. The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver of the car involved in the accident. Unable to prove that, it could prove none of the charges.
ARMED ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, A FIREARM
NOT GUILTY
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM
NOT GUILTY
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF AMMUNTION
NOT GUILTY
INTIMIDATION OF A WITNESS
NOT GUILTY
This four count indictment was tried before a jury in the Worcester Superior Court. The defendant and another person allegedly fired shots into the apartment house of a person who had provided the police with information incriminating them in a crime. Shell casings were found at the scene and bullet holes were seen in the side of building. The defendant was arrested shortly after the shooting, not far from the scene. Two persons who were at the scene at the time of the shooting identified the defendant as one of the shooters.
Through cross-examination it became clear that the identification witnesses could not be trusted to tell the truth.
HOME INVASION
NOT GUILTY
ARMED ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER
NOT GUILTY
ARMED ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO KILL
NOT GUILTY
ARMED ASSAULT IN A DWELLING
NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON
NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON
NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
GUILTY
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
GUILTY
This eight count indictment 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 his wife and one of his daughters looked on. Minutes after the alleged attack someone made a 911 call, (the wife testified that it was her), 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 three witnesses who testified that the defendant entered the man’s apartment and attacked him. They also called two witnesses who testified that they saw the defendant enter the apartment. None of the witnesses held up well on cross examination.
The defendant testified. From across the street, the alleged victim (hereinafter man) had been calling his wife some very insulting names. Apparently, 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. This advice went unheeded. The defendant walked across the street. The man ran into his apartment and came out with a machete. The defendant was younger, bigger and stronger than the man; the defendant separated the man from the machete and then his senses. In closing argument, Attorney Gallagher remarked that the man “came out to the wrong guy.”