William D. Kickham
William D. Kickham
William D. Kickham
William D. Kickham
Justia Badge
Massachusetts Bar Association Badge
Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys Badge
The National Trial Lawyers Badge
American Institute of Personal Injury Attorney Badge
Super Lawyers
Avvo Raiting 10.0 - Top attorney

This coming November, Massachusetts residents will vote on a ballot question concerning medical marijuana. And now, opponents of medical marijuana have claimed that the standing version of the ballot question is misleading. Justice Robert J. Cordy of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on June 7, ruled in favor of the opponents.

Because of his decision about the ballot question, the “yes” section of the ballot question must now be re-written by Attorney General Martha Coakley and state Secretary William Galvin. Then, the re-written section must be submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court for review.

Heidi Heilman, the president of the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance, stated that she would like the question to explain three things: that, under the proposal, 35 dispensaries would be created in the first year, that patients would be able to possess an undefined 60-day supply of medical marijuana, and that some people would even be able to grow marijuana in their own homes. She explained that, as the question is currently written, she finds it to be vague and that it misinforms voters. She also continues to be opposed to the use of the term “medical marijuana,” which she and her group believe is misleading, because she says the drug is federally classified as having no medical value.

As a Norfolk County drunk driving attorney, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s really quite simple. Do not drink and drive. The laws regarding Massachusetts drunk driving are harsh and severe, and you should think twice before you ever get behind the wheel, if you have consumed even the slightest amount of alcohol.

Too many people drive after consuming alcohol, and this past weekend, there was a Salem fatal car crash in which the driver was alleged to have been operating under the influence of alcohol, commonly called OUI.

According to police reports, Angelique Griffin, 25, had allegedly been drinking before her car hit a parked tow truck early Saturday morning around 3:40 AM, on Boston Street in Salem. Police said that the man sitting in her passenger seat was killed instantly. Ms. Griffin was treated for bruises at a nearby hospital, and she was arrested afterward. The charges she is facing are Salem motor vehicle homicide, Salem negligent operation, and Salem operating under the influence. She is being held on $50,000 cash bail and is scheduled to be arraigned in Salem District Court this coming week.

Have you ever had the experience where someone you know of is said to have done something very surprising and seemingly out of character? Well, this past week, the police chief of Waltham, Thomas M. LaCroix, was arrested and charged with two counts of Middlesex County assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and was held without bail.

It just goes to show that none of us is immune to having bad things happen in our lives. But as a Norfolk County assault & battery lawyer, let me say upfront that the law makes it quite clear that all people charged with an alleged crime are innocent until proven guilty. This post doesn’t in any way say that police officers are bad people; in fact it says the exact opposite: These types of criminal charges can happen to anyone.

Chief LaCroix, the Police Chief of Waltham, is alleged to have first assaulted his wife Andrea, who afterward left their home in Maynard, and then returned with a friend. According to prosecutors, at that time, there was alleged to be yet another altercation in which Chief LaCroix allegedly struck the two women with a bicycle rack and also with a countertop. He is also alleged to have threatened to kill both people. Few details have been released about the alleged Maynard assault and battery. A dangerousness hearing is set for him this coming Tuesday, June 19, 2012 in Concord District Court.

It seems that the desire in some people to scam and to scheme displays itself all to often. The latest illustration of this on a grand scale in Massachusetts started when a conductor on a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter train happened to notice that an MBTA pass appeared to have a different color than usual. The rider admitted that he bought it on Craig’s List. That was enough to fuel suspicions, and proved to be the tip of the iceberg, in which three people have already been charged with a series of crimes that include Massachusetts larceny over $250; Massachusetts conspiracy to commit larceny; making false entries in corporate books; and conspiracy to commit receiving stolen property.

So far, this incident seems to be the biggest fare-evasion scheme in MBTA history. The three defendants who have been charged so far have all pled guilty. They are accused of being part of an elaborate scam in which millions of dollars in illegal monthly passes were sold to riders on Craigslist. Defendants in criminal cases sometimes choose to plead guilty instead of electing a trial, which they are entitled to, when the evidence that the Commonwealth (prosecution) has against them is so strong, that agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, is the legally and strategically preferred option.

The toughest sentence of these three went to Andres Townes, the alleged ringleader who was arrested in May 2011. Mr. Townes was accused of printing in excess of 20,000 MBTA passes at a Beverly, Mass., facility, while he was working as an MBTA sub-contractor. Mr. Townes admitted to printing $4 Million worth of phony passes. He was sentenced to three years in state prison.

The next time you’re in a car, and you are stopped by a police officer, make sure to ask to see the policeman’s badge — through the window. As a Norfolk County criminal defense attorney, I know — You can never be too sure of who you are dealing with. People can fairly easily impersonate a police officer, to your detriment. It is a serious offense, despite what you have seen in movies and on television.

This past week, an Everett man was charged with a wealth of criminal offenses, including allegedly impersonating a Boston police officer. The man, John Perry Carrington, 44, was arrested on Monday around 12:30AM. Here’s what allegedly occurred: A Dorchester couple was reported to be driving in their car, enroute to purchase medicine for an asthmatic child. While driving, they allegedly made a U-turn and cut off Carrington’s car. Carrington then allegedly blocked their vehicle with his car, flashed them some sort of police badge, identified himself as a police officer, and told the couple he thought they were driving drunk.

Things are alleged to get even worse from that point. Carrington is reported to then have seized the couple’s cellphones, and told the couple he would follow them home, where he allegedly wanted to be paid $100 in cash, so that they could supposedly avoid a police citation. Reportedly, he even forced the couple to stay in their car at their home on Callender street in Dorchester, despite their requests to provide the medication to a child suffering an asthma attack.

I was in the gym the other day, when I heard, quite loudly, a group of people who were having a discussion. The F-word played a loud — and prominent — part in their conversation, and they quite blatantly didn’t care who heard them. Similarly, I was in a drugstore not too long ago, when another customer started complaining to the other customers in line about the lack of service. He also, quite loudly, dropped the F-bomb to all of us. It occurred to me (and not for the first time): Remember, not so long ago, when people spoke in hushed tones when they swore in a public place – if they swore at all?

Well, the Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts has had enough, and decided to do something about it. And I couldn’t agree more. A citizen activist in that town approached a group of similarly concerned residents on the issue of the seeming explosion in the use of profanity, vulgarity and expletives in public. This group then approached the local business association on the issue, and soon a coalition of similarly-minded people discussed the matter with the local police chief. The chief brought a proposal to Town Meeting for debate and vote on a local bylaw that would allow police to impose a $20 fine for cursing aloud in public. People in violation of this proposal are defined in the proposed bylaw as those who “accost or address another person with profane or obscene language in a street.”

Before the American Civil Liberties Union has a chance to jump in with arms flailing, programatically predicting the end of “free speech” in this country, they should read the above definition: This local measure would not result in the “speech police” roaming the streets with fines in hand. You can banish images of baton-wielding police, trained Taliban-like to terrorize anyone found to curse in public. If you crush your thumb in your car door and curse to yourself, no one is going to leap on you.

To all of my readers out there – hope and pray that this doesn’t ever happen to you.

Imagine that you are on a public sidewalk, when the police decide that you look suspicious, and decide to conduct a strip search of you – in public. Suddenly, you find yourself lying face down on the sidewalk, with your hands handcuffed behind your back and your buttocks exposed to the world. Illegal drugs are found on your person.

This is exactly what happened to a defendant accused of Massachusetts drug crimes. However, the Massachusetts Supeme Judicial Court upheld a Superior Court judge’s decision to suppress drugs found during a strip search on a public sidewalk. In other words, those drugs cannot be used as evidence against the defendant accused of Massachusetts drug possession, because of the inappropriate location of the search and the manner in which the search was performed.

Hey, sportsfans. File this under “Now You’ve Really Gone Too Far.”

If you thought you heard it all when the Red Sox won the World Series, and fans went berserk in the streets, you actually haven’t. It was reported that this past Thursday night a Boston Celtics fan was attacked with a kitchen knife by a fan from the opposing Miami Heat. The victim, 22 years old, is a local college student who does not want to be identified.

The victim reportedly walked out after the game when the Miami Heat beat the Celtics. A group of fans wearing Miami Heat T-shirts allegedly started yelling at him. When he yelled back, he told police that a Miami Heat fan rushed into him, and stabbed him in the thigh, requiring 10 stitches at a local Boston hospital. The assailant has not been found or identified. He is said to be short and Hispanic. Police are asking the public’s help for information. If he is found, he will likely be charged with Boston Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon.

Gang members that are tried for various Massachusetts crimes – most of them violent offenses – are known to make a show of their support during these trials. A lot of people are now saying that a new ‘tool’ has been provided to friends of gang members on trial for criminal charges in Massachusetts. It might be summed up as follows: Are you a violent gang member? Do you have a good friend on trial for murder, rape, drug charges or other offenses? Want to end the trial or get him a new jury? Just pull a stunt — stab some of the key witnesses. And while you’re at it, do it near the courthouse.

That is the message that some are saying played out this week in Suffolk Superior Court, Boston. Judge Linda Giles suddenly ended a murder trial and dismissed the jurors. Why? Because in plain sight in downtown Boston yesterday, four people were stabbed near the courthouse, and two of the victims were possible witnesses in that trial. Those two people suffered injuries so serious they may not be able to testify next week.

Judge Giles did say that she was concerned that her decision could set a precedent by sending a signal that to end a trial, all someone needed to do was to attack some of its participants.

As a Dedham, Massachusetts motor vehicle violations lawyer, I’ve been watching the Haverhill District Court trial of Aaron Deveau, age 18. Deveau was on trial for Motor Vehicle Homicide By Negligent Operation, following the February 2011death of a man, Daniel Bowley of New Hampshire, in a car crash that police and investigators say was caused because Deveau was texting while driving. Actually, there were two separate criminal counts against Deveau: Negligent Motor Vehicle Homicide, and Texting while Driving.

It is the Texting While Driving charge that has generated all the attention, because it is the first criminal prosecution of the state’s relatively new law that went into effect in September 2010, which bans teens from texting while driving. Known as the Safe Driver Law, the law was enacted to deal with the growing prevalence of teenage drivers who are tethered to their cell phones and smart phones, many of whom think nothing of texting while driving. In essence, the Commonwealth was linking the two counts causally, saying that the Negligent Motor Vehicle Homicide occurred because Deveau was texting while driving. The texting while driving law prohibits any Junior Operator from using any type of mobile communications device, whether to text or phone, while driving. Penalties for this offense are:

• 1st offense: $100 fine, 60 day license suspension, & attitudinal course

Contact Information