Sample Trial Cases
Sample of Significant Trial Cases*:
Commonwealth v. #############; Superior Court Docket No. ##-#### (1-2)
This case involved a reputed gang leader who was prosecuted for two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm pursuant to M.G.L. c.269, §10(H). The case was significant because it involved novel evidentiary issue concerning gang affiliation, joint venture, statements of the defendant and co-defendant, and police “zero tolerance zones”. The case was tried before a jury of twelve and the Hon. James P. Donohue in the Worcester Superior Court. The Jury returned verdicts of NOT GUILTY on all counts after trial.
Commonwealth v. ##################; District Court Docket No.: #### -####
In this matter the defendant was charged with Operating Under the Influence of Liquor and Negligent Operation and Causing Serious Bodily Injury, a violation of M.G.L. c.90, § 24L(1); Operating a Motor Vehicle Negligently so as to Endanger, a violation of M.G.L. c.90, § 24; and three separate civil motor vehicle infractions. The case was significant because the defendant was operating a motorcycle with a back seat passenger when he was involved in a violent accident. The defendant struck a taxicab and both he and his passenger sustained multiple life threatening and permanent injuries. The police department’s accident reconstructionist opined that at the time of the impact the defendant was traveling at a speed of approximately 52 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Blood was drawn from the defendant at the hospital and was tested for serum ethanol levels. The level was .131, approximately .05 points higher than the limit in which a jury could have infered intoxication in Massachusetts. The case was tried jury waived before ######, J. in the Worcester District Court Jury Session. The case centered on the cross examination of the government’s experts as well as the introduction of serum conversion rates and permissible inferences that may be drawn from all such testimony. The defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts.
Commonwealth v ############; District Court No.: #### CR ####
This case involved a number of people involved in a dispute with a person allegedly brandishing a handgun. It was alleged that after an argument an African American male displayed a handgun to another person in such a way as to cause him to become fearful. The suspect then left the scene as a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by the client. A description of the vehicle and the occupants were then transmitted to the police and the motor vehicle was stopped at a location in close proximity to the scene of the offense. The occupants were then removed from the vehicle and the back seat passenger was identified as a local gang member who was currently under investigation for a drive by shooting. The officers then searched the motor vehicle and located a firearm under the rear passenger’s seat. The gun was later determined to be a possible match for the gun used in the drive by shooting. Our client was a 19-year-old woman with no prior criminal history. She was charged with one count of carrying a handgun, a violation of M.G.L. c.269, §10a. That particular section of the statute provides for minimum mandatory sentencing. She was also charged with possession of a handgun, a violation of M.G.L. c.269, §10h. The case centered on the fourth Amendment issues surrounding the stop as well as whether or not the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupant had committed a crime, as it is defined by the case law. After an evidentiary hearing the evidence seized by the police was suppressed by the trial judge. The matter was thereafter DISMISSED for lack of prosecution as a result of the ruling.
Commonwealth v. #################; Superior Court Docket No. ##-####(#-#)
Although not tried, this case was significant because the defendant was charged with a number of “life felonies”, including; Home Invasion, Armed Assault in a Dwelling, Armed Robbery; and Armed Burglary. The alleged facts of the case involved a number of high profile gang members breaking into a home and beating and murdering the occupant of the apartment and shooting his wife. Our client was alleged to be a participant at the scene as well as the owner of the gun used during the crime. Our client was held in custody for almost one year before all indictments were dismissed against him. The alleged shooter was tried and convicted of first-degree murder. The case took an extensive amount of time to investigate. There were numerous evidentiary hearings related to all facets of the case. Our client refused to testify for the prosecution and waived his Fifth Amendment privilege in order to testify on behalf of the defendant at the murder trial. After a brief voire dire, the defendant elected not to ask my client any questions. The case had fascinating evidentiary and negotiation issues. All charges were DISMISSED against my client at the request of the prosecution.
Commonwealth v. ###############; District Court Docket No.: #### CR ########
In this matter the defendant, a tow truck driver, was alleged to have been involved in a “road rage” incident with an off duty police officer. The incident culminated with the defendant allegedly ramming the police officer’s vehicle from behind and then backing up and ramming the vehicle five more times. The defendant was charged with five separate counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, a violation of M.G.L. C.265, §15A and one count of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250.00, a violation of M.G.L. C.266, §127. The case was tried before a six-member jury in Worcester and the defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts. The case was significant because it involved the introduction of videotaped simulations to aid the jury. On the advice of counsel, the defendant elected not to testify because of the risk of the introduction of his prior criminal convictions. Counsel was therefore forced to rely on the video simulation as well as effective cross-examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses to create reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. #################: Superior Court Indictment No ##########
The defendant was charged with Aggravated Rape by the Police and indicted on one count of Rape. The complainant alleged that the alleged victim had fallen asleep after a night out with the defendant and a number of friends. She was then carried up to a bedroom by the defendant and placed in bed. The other members of the party then went to other bedrooms in the house and went to sleep. Later that night it is alleged that the defendant went into the complainant’s room and raped her. The Complainant testified that she awoke during the assault and chased the defendant to another part of the house.The complainant made fresh complaint statements to the other occupants of the house and then ran from the house and called a family member. The case was tried in the Worcester Superior Court for two days before ######### J. and a twelve person jury. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. #############, District Court Docket No.: ####CR ######.
In this case the defendant was charged with Operating Under the Influence of Liquor, 2nd Offense, Possession of Class D. Controlled Substance, Subsequent Offense and a marked lane violation. The defendant was videotaped via a cruiser mounted video and videotaped again during the booking process. The conversation between the police officer and the defendant were recorded while the defendant was being transported to the police station. During the conversation the defendant’s speech was slurred and he made a number of inculpatory statements. The court allowed the defendant’s motion to exclude the conversations which occurred while the defendant was being transported. The case was then bifurcated and the defendant admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty to a reduced charge of Possession of Class D, Controlled Substance and the matter was continued without a finding for six months. The remaining criminal charge was tried before a six person jury and the defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
####### v. ##### #######, District Court, Docket No. ####CV####.
In this matter the Plaintiff alleged that his commercial tenant had left his gas station in disrepair after the expiration of the lease. The Defendant contended that the language of the lease in question provided that the Defendant was under no obligation to make any repairs and if it chose to make repairs or improvements it would make them using products of equal or greater value. During negotiations the Plaintiff offered to settle the case for $3,500.00 and the Defendant rejected the offer and made no counter offer. On the eve of trial the Defendant offered the Plaintiff $3,000.00 in full settlement and the Plaintiff rejected the offer. After trial, the jury returned a PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT with a judgment in the amount of $20,000.00 (more than $25,000.00 with interest and costs). The Defendant appealed and the parties settled for $23,000.00. Defense counsel was from one of the largest firms in the state.
Commonwealth v. ##### ######; District Court, No. ####CR####
The Defendant was charged with a Domestic Assault and Battery in which his former wife and her new boyfriend, a Police Officer, testified that defendant pushed the victim, pulled a dog crate from her hand and threw the crate across the parking lot. The defendant was arrested by Police at the scene. The prosecution produced three witnesses and the defendant called one witnesses and testified himself. The jury deliberated less than fifteen minutes before finding the defendant NOT GUILTY.
#### ####### v. ##### ###### Insurance Co., District Court, No. C.A. #### CV####
In this matter the client, the Plaintiff, alleged that his car had been stolen and involved in an accident on New Years day of 2000. The insurance company denied my client’s claim because when the motor vehicle was recovered the ignition had not been defeated nor were there any other signs of theft. My client initially gave a recorded statement in which he indicated that he did not know who took the vehicle but months later during an examination under oath (EUO) he revealed to the investigator that he had learned that his friend had taken the vehicle but that it was without his permission. The claim was eventually denied and the Plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract and a violation of M.G.L. c.176D. The defendant counterclaimed and alleged fraud, deceit, civil conspiracy and a violation of good faith and fair dealings. The operator of the vehicle was deposed in state prison at MCI Shirley and a writ of habeus corpus was issued for his presence at trial. Both sides waived their right to a jury trial when the case was called for trial. The case centered on insurance contract terms such as “customary operator”, “cooperation” and “theft.” The Defendant received a Judgment on both counts of the Plaintiff’s claim and the PLAINTIFF RECEIVED A JUDGMENT on all four counts of the Defendants counterclaim.
In re: Custody of ##### #####; Probate and Family Court, No. ########## and ############.
This case involved competing Guardianship petitions of a 2 ½ year old boy brought by the maternal and paternal grandmothers. It was alleged by our client, the maternal grandmother, that the child’s parents were unfit because of drug use and neglect and that the paternal side of the family was unfit because of drug and alcohol issues and their inability to supervise the child’s Father. The Paternal grandmother accused the maternal grandmother of abuse of prescriptive medication, not having a significant bond with the child, an unhealthy obsession with the child, being deceitful with investigators including the Department of Social Services and the appointed Gurdian Ad-Litem. It was also alleged that our client had an inability to care for the child because she herself had three grown drug addicts for children. The cases were consolidated and tried over the course of three days with numerous witnesses and exhibits being produced by both sides. Our client received PERMANENT GUARDIANSHIP of the child.
Commonwealth v. ###### ###; District Court Docket No. ####CR#####
The Defendant was charged with OUI-Liquor OR .08%. At the time of the incident, the defendant was a municipal employee operating a town vehicle. He was involved in a single vehicle accident at 1:40 a.m. while he was on-call in the municipal truck. The truck he was operating crashed into the Jersey barriers on a major highway, causing serious damage to the vehicle. The plow hitch on the front of the truck was wedged between the Jersey barrier and the truck could not be removed without a tow truck. The police alleged that the client failed all sobriety tests and admitted to drinking. Two police officers and a civilian witness testified against the defendant. The cross-examination was so effective that the case ended when the Judge allowed the defendant’s motion for a required finding of NOT GUILTY at the close of the Commonwealth’s case.
City of Worcester vs. ##### ##### d/b/a ###### #######y; Division of the Housing Court No. ##-CV-###.
The City of Worcester brought and action against the defendant to enforce certain provisions of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Worcester. Specifically the City sought an injunction against the defendant to replace 1370 square feet of sidewalk based on work he performed on a retaining wall which abutted the sidewalk. The trial was originally scheduled for May 28, 2007 but the City moved for a continuance to perform a survey at the property and secure an expert after the parties could not negotiate a settlement and the Defendant answered ready for trial. The motion to continue was allowed over objection of counsel and the matter was continued for trial. A trial was thereafter held wherein the City called a Health and Code Inspector familiar with the matter and a Professional Land Surveyor. The Defendant was the only witness called by the Defense. The case was important to the client because he was a well known contractor in the city and wanted to let the city know that he would fight for his rights in instances where he believed that the city was being unreasonable. After Proposed Findings were submitted by the Parties on June 20, 2008, the Court issued Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Order for JUDGMENT on behalf of our client. The Court also stated in its Rulings that the Defendant may seek relief against the City under G.L. c.231, §6F, the statute which is entitled, and provides for, costs, expenses and interest for insubstantial, frivolous or bad faith claims or defenses.
Commonwealth v. ######## #######: District Court No. ####CR######
The Defendant was charged with Operating Under the Influence and a Marked Lanes Violation. The Commonwealth called one witness and the Defendant called three, including himself. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTYon the OUI and the judge made a finding of NOT RESPONSIBLE on the civil infraction and ordered that the Defendant’s license be restored. The Jury deliberated for approximately twenty minutes before returning a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. ######## ###### District Court No. ####CR-####
The Defendant was charged with 3 Separate Complaints of Indecent Assault and Battery on 3 different victims. After extensive discovery, it was revealed that one alleged victim had made certain statements that seriously questioned the credibility of the allegation and the complaint was DISMISSED. The second case was tried before a jury over two days and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts. The third case was DISMISSED at the request of the government as a result of the second cases not guilty verdict and the facts brought to light during the trial.
###### v. ##### ## #######: Superior Court: No. ###### – ######
Client had lost her driver’s license for 5 years as a result of a refusal to submit to a chemical test on a second OUI Offense. Our office appealed the decision to RMV Board of Appeals and took the position that because the first OUI resulted in a continuance without a finding and not a guilty finding that the client had only one prior conviction for purpose of her license suspension and that therefore her license loss should for 2 ½ years and not 5 years. The Board denied the request and upheld the 5 year licensee loss. Our firm then brought an action against the Registry of Motor Vehicles (“RMV”) in Superior Court. After a hearing, wherein the RMV was represented by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, the Court overturned the RMV decision and issued a JUDGMENT for our client, remanded the case back to the Board and ordered them to reinstate the client’s driver’s license.
*the cases referenced above are only a sample of cases tried by Attorney Jon L. Revelli and are listed to give potential clients some information on the overall experience and results secured by the firm. Divorce cases are intentionally excluded from this section to afford clients privacy and confidentiality.
