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

Some professions are, understandably, difficult, stressful – and dangerous. Fire fighters, for example, should earn all of our respect for the daily dangers that they are exposed to. It should also come as no surprise to you that taxi drivers also have a dangerous job. They’re constantly in small, closed quarters with a wide variety of strangers, and there’s no telling where those circumstances could lead.

Two Boston robbery arrests this past weekend make my point all the more clear.

It was reported today in The Boston Globe that two men named Shawn Hickey and Brian Cunneen were in a Boston cab this past Sunday night, in Charlestown. According to the Globe Hickey allegedly pointed a gun at the taxi driver and demanded his money. At that point, all three men reportedly got out of the cab and had an altercation. During the melee, Hickey allegedly shot the driver twice with a pellet gun. According to Boston Police, he then got into the taxi’s driver’s seat, carjacked the cab, drove down Devens Street, and crashed into two parked cars before he fled on foot. After a lengthy pursuit, police caught the two men. They were charged in Charlestown District Court with Boston carjacking, Boston robbery, and I’m assuming, Boston assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Aren’t weddings fun?

There’s always love, romance, and best wishes for the happy couple.

But what typically goes hand-in-hand at many weddings, and wedding functions such as bachelor parties, is criminal behavior. It’s almost always because alcohol is involved, which lowers people’s inhibitions, and also tends to make them violent. This is the “dirty little secret” that few bridal magazines will tell you about.

When I was in college, I had braces, and my orthodontist, in Brookline, was a brilliant guy. During my visits every three weeks to adjust my braces, we’d always talk about a number of interesting things, usually historical or political. I’ll never forget one such conversation, because it made such an overwhelming impression on me. We were having a discussion one day in his office about anthropology and human behavior, and he very reflectively commented that people’s civility towards each other exists in direct proportion to the amount of scarce resources around them. This, of course, is an analogue to the law of supply and demand in the field of economics, and merely says that when resources amidst a population are plentiful, human behavior will generally be absent of aggression, but when those resources become scarce or limited, the degree of civility exhibited among human beings will decrease in direct proportion to the amount of scarce resources present.

Translation: When people are competing for a fixed number of goods or resources, and there’s not enough to go around, their civility towards each other dwindles as a result.

I believed this principle as a young man, and as an adult, I still do. It’s sad, but true. As Dedham, Massachusetts assault and battery attorney, I’ve heard all the stories about people getting into fights over a variety of things – and this post has to do with that most coveted of scarce resources in Boston and many communities. Yes, it’s the proverbial parking space. In January 2010, a fight over this prized possession developed after a snowstorm in Boston. But it turned into more than just an argument.

Previously in this blog, I’ve written about Secure Communities, the information-sharing program developed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Secure Communities allows local police and FBI personnel to share fingerprint and other identifying information on on someone who is arrested with federal immigration officials. For many years, it has been standard practice for local police to routinely forward fingerprints of people who they have arrested to the FBI for routine criminal background checks. The major gap with that procedure? Federal immigration officials were never given that information; they were always out of the loop. The result: Many illegal immigrants who had committed numerous crimes, including violent crimes, remained here illegally. Through the Secure Communities program, the FBI will now share those fingerprints with immigration officials to identify illegal immigrants for deportation, especially violent criminals and repeat offenders.

In my prior post on this subject, I generally supported Secure Communities, albeit with some concerns about the potential for non-violent immigrants to become subject to deportation in the effort to identify illegal immigrants who are also violent criminals. On the whole, I supported this program, with some cautionary comments.

For some time now, there has been a lot of friction between the employer community in Massachusetts, and (generally speaking,) civil rights groups, over the issue of access to criminal records. Those records are maitained by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety under a system known as the Criminal Offender Records Information, or the CORI unit.

Broadly speaking, business and employers feel that they need and should have broad access to search the potential criminal records of job and housing applicants. When making these criminal records searches, employers typically like to go back many years, perhaps as many as 25 years or more. Opposing this viewpoint are civil rights groups representing ex-convicts and former prisoners, who argue that after a person is punished and pays his or her debt to society, they should be allowed to seal their criminal records and move on with their lives. Without the ability to seal their criminal records after staying out of trouble for a certain amount of time, they feel their ability to turn their lives around and start anew will always be limited, because background checks will always reveal their criminal records. Thrown into this controversy is the role of private background-screening companies, which make their money from businesses who pay them to dig way back into court records of mainly job and housing applicants. These companies have often been accused of reporting false or conflicting information about applicants to employers.

Despite all this controversy, the law governing CORI searches in Massachuetts has just been changed, and those changes took effect today, May 7 2012. As a result, if in the past you you have been convicted of a crime in Massachusetts – it could be Massachusetts OUI/DUI Driving Under The Influence of Alcohol, Massachuetts Gun and Firearms violations, a Massachusetts Assault and Battery charge, a Massachusetts drug offense, or a Massachusetts sex offense, to name a few, you should know about these new changes.

This story just goes to show you that you need to be extra careful with the company credit card.

A Watertown man was recently charged in federal court in Boston, with allegedly misusing the company credit card. John J. Palandjian is accused of allegedly making unauthorized purchases and taking out cash advances of about $1.1 Million from his former employer, Iron Mountain Inc., a Boston company that helps corporate customers manage their business records. Reportedly, Mr. Palandjian had worked at Iron Mountain as a sourcing manager.

After the alleged Massachusetts embezzlement, Mr. Palandjian is accused of taking measures to hide the charges, yet ensure that his bills were paid. For this alleged Massachusetts theft crime, Mr. Palandjian was charged with 10 counts of wire fraud, which is a federal offense. If he is convicted of all counts, he could face a $250,000 fine, a forfeiture of all of the money he allegedly embezzled, and up to 20 years in prison. These are the penalties for this crime that apply in federal court, which is not the same as a Massachusetts state court.

Readers of this blog may remember that three years ago I posted a blog about a football player at Arlington Catholic High School, who faced Massachusetts assault and battery charges after he allegedly “head-butted” a football player at an Abington High School footbal game, In that case, I saw the defendant as possibly exhibiting the specific intent required to commit the crime charged.

Just a few days ago, there was a similar case in Duxbury, in which a high school student filed charges of assault and battery against a hockey player at Scituate High school. The victim, Tucker Hannon, filed the charges against Alex Way, charging him with needlessly “checking” him – hockey parlance for slamming into him. It resulted in Mr. Hannon experiencing a concussion and missing five weeks of school. He was also forced to sit in darkness for two weeks while recovering, as exposure to light can aggravate such a head injury.

However, yesterday, at a Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate hearing in Plymouth District Court, the Clerk Magistrate, Philip McCue, found no probable cause for the complaint. What this means, in layman’s terms, is that the Clerk-Magistrate determined that there was no “probable cause” to find that young Way posessed the specific intent to commit an assault and battery against young Hannon. The legal elements of assault and battery can be found by clicking here. As a result of the Clerk-Magistrate’s findings, no charges were brought against young Mr. Way.

On this blog, one of my goals is to educate the general public about the law and how it can affect them. As a Dedham, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, I know that most people have a lot of misconceptions about certain laws.

For example, most people think that “assaulting” someone, in an assault-and-battery charge, means hitting or striking them. Not true. In general, “assault” means a threat of violence, and not the actual bodily contact itself. Furthermore, a “battery” refers to the actual physical contact of another person — without his or her consent. The upshot? No actual physical harm has to result for a Massachusetts assault and battery charge to be filed.

Here is an interesting twist on how assault and battery charges can be brought in Massachusetts. There was a recent development last week in which a Franklin High School student videotaped an assault by one student on another. It resulted in not one, but two students being charged with assault and battery – the one who actually carried out the assault, and the accomplice student who made the videotape of it. This can serve to illustrate that you don’t necessarily have to be the actual assailant– in order to be charged with the underlying offense.

It seems that we, as a nation, are never going to be able to forget the tragedy of Columbine.

A few weeks ago, on Fox-TV 25, I spoke to anchor Maria Stephanos about an Attleboro, Massachusetts student who had just posted on Facebook his plans for a Columbine-style attack at his high school – for which he was arrested. At that time, and on that broadcast, I stressed the need for parents to monitor their kids. It’s one thing for a student to complain to his fellow student about his teachers, but it’s entirely different when you tell the world, on Facebook, about your specific plans to seriously harm your teachers and kill them.

Earlier this week, another student, this time at Stoughton High School, was also arrested for alleged plans for yet another Columbine-type attack. Specifically, the student, Sean Ivaldi, 18, was charged with causing a school disturbance, four counts of threatening to commit Massachusetts crimes — some of which will doubtless involve charges of threatened Massachusetts gun and firearms violations – along with threatened Massachusetts assault and battery with a dangerous weapon charges, and a felony charge of making a terrorist threat. It ha been reported that Ivaldi had outlined a devastating attack on the school in his journal, which was discovered by a school administrator.

Today’s lesson: You can be arrested by merely threatening to commit a crime.

Most people don’t know this fact. But as a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney,I can tell you that it is quite true, and certainly bears paying attention to.

Case in point: a Foxborough, Massachusetts man named Michael Viscardi was arrested this past week, on a charge of threatening to commit a crime against Town Selectman Mark Sullivan. Apparently, Mr. Visconti told Mr. Sullivan that he would be a “dead man” if he did not support the proposed casino that Las Vegas developer Steve Wynn is planning to build in Foxborough. There was another alleged incident, as well. The verbal attacks escalated to Mr. Viscardi “staring down” Mr. Sullivan — who lives on the same street — while wielding an axe and tossing it hand to hand.

Contact Information