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

By now, many have read or heard of the gruesome, recent murder of a 16 year-old boy in Hyannis, Massachusetts. The body of Jordan Mendes was found buried in a ditch on Jennifer Lane in Barnstable on Tuesday night, December 16 2008. According to Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe, Mendes had been stabbed and shot to death shortly after noon on December 15 2008. The next day, his body was doused with gasoline, rolled in a carpet, set on fire, and then buried, smoldering, in a dirt hole. Police have arrested three individuals for this murder.

But if the facts couldn’t get any worse, investigators allege that two of the victim’s killers were 13 year-old boys – and that one of the 13 year-olds was the victim’s half-brother. The two 13 year-olds are Kevin Ribeiro and Mykel Mendes; Mendes is the victim’s half-brother, and they share the same father, one Manuel Mendes. Manuel Mendes is a convicted cocaine dealer, who is currently serving a 35-year federal prison sentence for cocaine trafficking. The third defendant is 20 year-old Robert Vacher. According to a criminal complaint in Barnstable County District Court, investigators allege that Robert Vacher stabbed and shot Mendes, while the two 13 year-old defendants supplied the gun and the knife, and were present during the murder. The three defendants allegedly stole $10,000.00 from the victim, who was alleged by the defendants to be a drug dealer, and bought a silver BMW with the cash.

Any reasonable person would expect that all these defendants should be put on trial for murder (presumably in the first degree,) and if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, spend the rest of their lives in prison. But it gets complicated from here – and unpleasant. Because two of these three defendants are under the age of 14, they cannot be tried as adults in Massachusetts. This is due to the state’s Juvenile Offender Law, which provides that while defendants aged 14 and older can be tried as “youthful offenders” and sentenced as adults, juveniles under the age of 14 are shielded by this statute from: 1) A public trial; and 2) If found guilty of this charge (or any criminal charge,) such juvenile defendants can only be held in state custody until a maximum of age 21. If these two 13 year-olds were 14 or older, they could be charged as youthful offenders in open court, and incarcerated past the age of 21. Under the existing law, they can’t.

Unfortunately, the alleged Ponzi scheme reportedly orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff continues to cause ripple effects locally in Massachusetts. Aside from wealthy individual investors, many institutional clients have suffered as result of this scheme, including several charitable organizations. While some organizations have suffered substantial financial losses but appear able to absorb the damage without folding, some have suffered a fatal blow.

One such charitable organization is the Picower Foundation of Palm Beach, Florida, run by Jeffry and Barbara Picower, well-known philanthropists. This charitable foundation has been one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the United States, with assets at one point reaching a half a billion dollars. The foundation invested a great deal of its money with Bernard Maddoff, and suffered devastating losses as this scheme collapsed. Barbara Picower, the foundation’s president, announced earlier this week that the foundation has ceased all grant-making activity, and will close its doors. The effect in the Massachusetts medical community will be felt painfully: The Picower Foundation had donated heavily to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to fund brain research, and to Harvard Medical School, for diabetes research. Now, that funding, and the important medical results that flow from research in these areas, will cease.

Madoff was arrested by federal authorities earlier this month, on December 11, and charged with orchestrating and running a Ponzi scheme – which essentially pays one set of investors with money from another set. In addition to the Picower Foundation, the Boston family of Carl and Ruth Shapiro, which has funded tens of millions of dollars in medical research in Boston, reportedly lost over $145 million, and the Robert L. Lappin Charitable Foundation in Salem, Massachusetts, was also forced to cease operations last week.

In my previous and second post on this subject, I reviewed the events leading to the killing of a Wal-Mart worker at the company’s Valley Stream Long Island New York store, and what should be done in response to this crime, in the parochial and more national sense.

Equally as important as law enforcement’s anemic response to this banality, where was the moral leadership in responding to this event, from elected officials? To date, nothing of any import or gravity has come forth from Long Island, NY elected officials or New York state officials such as the Governor. Critically, this was a stunning opportunity for president-elect Barack Obama to depart very briefly from purely economic issues (which are understandably pressing,) and exert moral leadership and direction, to a country that has all but lost its moral compass. Yet, nothing. How can it be that in this country, a nation hailed as the world’s most civilized, something like this can happen, and nary is a word uttered from our national leaders? The contradiction is stunning. As my previous profession used to be as a public policy and political affairs manager, I’ve advised several political officials in my career. Had I Barack Obama’s ear now, I would have advised him that this tragedy represented an enormous opportunity for him to set the moral tone for his incoming presidency; an opportunity to raise our sinking national decency along with raising our national economy.

A country cannot borrow civility. It cannot mortgage it; it cannot legislate it; and it cannot bail it out. It must both be set by example from without, and it must come from within. Our national and local leaders must see this, and set this example. Only then, will the “average person” respond in kind.

In my last post, I reviewed the events leading to the killing of a Wal-Mart worker at the company’s Valley Stream Long Island New York store, when shoppers tore down the doors of the store, stampeded inside and trampled to death one man, as well as injuring several others including an eight-month pregnant woman. Part Two of this post deals with what should be done about this crime, in the immediate and much larger sense.

What has happened to us as a country, as a people? What kind of culture have we descended to, and when did this kind of savagery and numbing down of our country begin? Twenty to 25 years ago, an incident like this would have been front-page news- and justifiably remained so for several days. It would have provoked gasped shocks across the country. Upon hearing news like this, people would have held their hands over their mouths, in shocked disbelief that Americans could act this way. Now? It’s seemingly nothing extraordinary. As a nation, we have become numb to violent acts like this; numb to civility that has dropped to an all-time national low in this country. Nothing shocks us anymore. Most people see this in a newspaper, and turn the page; if they see a ten second piece on TV they click to another station. “Wait! Isn’t there a re-run of “Deal or No Deal” on now? Yeah, put that on!”

Understand something: This “stampede” was not a scenario where starving masses in a war-torn area mobbed a food supply truck. We’ve all seen those images, from Bosnia and Darfur, and similar points all over the globe. However ugly, such desperate, unregulated behavior like that can be explained by the primitive desire to survive, the will to live, by human beings in desperate, life-threatening circumstances. The circumstances that existed here? $25 off the price of the latest Blackberry.

This post reflects more editorial commentary than legal analysis, but is nonetheless appropriate for this criminal law blog. The news that a Wal-Mart worker was killed in a human stampede at a Long Island, New York store’s post-Thanksgiving Day sale, has seemingly come and gone, apparently without major public reaction. A blip on the mainstream news media’s radar screen, this sickening news came, and apparently just as fast, has disappeared. No meaningful outcries came forth from local officials; or from state officials in New York. No outcries emerged from religious or clerical leaders, local or national. A few columnists in some of the dailies such as the Boston Globe (to their credit) wrote of the event, but on the whole, this event seems to be a non-event.

I find this shocking. Not only was this incident legally criminal, it was savage and barbaric – the behavioral province of the lowest form of animal life. Readers will notice I inserted the word “human” in front of “stampede,” above. There is a reason for this grammatical construction: “Stampede” is a word almost always associated with the behavior of wild animals. And that is precisely the behavior that took place here. Witnesses reported the mob of shoppers at this store knocked the man down, mercilessly. After he fell, he was intentionally stepped on and trampled by hundreds of shoppers, who could not have cared less what they were doing. As the helpless victim gasped for air, people ran over and around him, completely unfazed, as though he were invisible.

“He was bum-rushed by 200 people,” said Jimmy Overby, 43, a Wal-Mart co-worker. “They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too…I literally had to fight people off my back.” The offical word from the Nassau County, New York Police is that the investigation is still ongoing, but as of a conversation I had earlier this week with the Department’s Public Information Office, no arrests had yet been made – and neither are any arrests expected. The reason? So many people collectively committed this act, police have no idea who to arrest – and not one of the “shoppers” who was at the scene are willing to say a word. An ignorant, pathetic wall of silence. Aside from the man killed, police said several other people suffered injuries from this sorry spectacle. One witness told reporters she saw a woman knocked down just a few feet from the dying worker. The woman was eight months pregnant. This meant nothing to this mob.

In my previous post on this subject, I wrote of the guilty verdicts returned by a jury last week in Springfield, Massachusetts, against Jason Strickland, the stepfather of Haleigh Poutre. The evidence against Strickland was compelling, he’s been found guilty, and hopefully his sentencing on December 11 will be extremely severe, as it should be. I say this as a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney who believes every person has the constitutional right to a zealous defense of any charges against him or her. But now that guilt has been established, someone like this deserves as severe a sentence as can be handed down. It isn’t at all inconsistent for a defense attorney to believe in punishment after guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. Strickland’s appellate rights will remain unchanged under the Massachusetts sentencing parameters for this crime.

But there are other guilty parties in this sad story, and at the center of them is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through its child protection agency, the Department of Social Services (DSS.) The negligence exhibited by DSS caseworkers in this case is appalling. On numerous occasions over five years’ time, several people reported their suspicions to health workers and DSS officials that this young child was being badly abused by her step parents. Reporting parties included doctors and nurses at hospitals and medical offices that Haleigh was treated at on various occasions over those five years, as well as teachers, and even neighbors. According to sources, after each of these reports, DSS workers made inquiry to Haleigh’s stepmother Holli Strickland, and her stepfather Jason Strickland. Both Stricklands told DSS workers that Haleigh was responsible for casing her own injuries – and shockingly, DSS believed it. Repeatedly. Over five years. These injuries included cigarette burns, whip marks, ligature (rope) marks, welts and bruises from being beaten by something resembling an electric cord, cuts, lacerations, bruises, concussions and sprains. Yes, you read correctly: In the face of injuries and evidence like this, DSS officials bought repeated stories offered up by these twisted step parents that this young girl had “A habit of hurting herself.”

Incompetence and negligence on this level strains credulity. But it happened. Now, what to do about it? Plainly put, heads should roll here: There should be a top-to-bottom review of who was in charge at DSS when this incompetence was allowed to take place, and all responsible people involved in this inexcusable tale should lose their jobs, immediately. Further, DSS leaders and its caseworkers should not only be sued civilly for gross negligence, they should be held criminally responsible for what occurred here. Legally accomplishing this would be a tough task – something known as “reckless disregard” would likely need to be shown on the part of DSS executive leadership and its caseworkers, as opposed to ordinary negligence. There is also the problem of something known as the “sovereign immunity” of DSS leaders and workers acting in their official capacity. Notwithstanding, I believe a state prosecution should be undertaken here. It is not enough for DSS to “have the best of intentions.” It is not enough that it “means well.”

This past Wednesday, November 26, a Hampden County jury found Jason Strickland, stepfather of Haleigh Poutre, guilt on five of six counts of child abuse and neglect. This case has become famous for several important reasons: First, Haleigh has tragically become an icon for child abuse and neglect by parents and caregivers within many homes in this state, and across the country as a whole. Secondly, the case has raised right-to-life issues: Haleigh’s multiple injuries were so severe that several doctors determined that she had suffered irreversible brain damage, was in a “persistent vegetative state”, and would never emerge from that state. Based on those medical diagnoses, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS – the state child protection agency,) waged a four-month legal battle to remove life-support from the girl. Shortly after the state won that battle, Haleigh emerged from unconsciousness, and began breathing on her own. Now 14 years old, she can speak simple sentences, and communicate with an alphabet board.

Third, this case exposed the incompetence and neglect practiced far too often by the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS), the state’s child protection agency. Evidence in the case made clear that for five years, state officials failed to detect the abuse this child was suffering, and failed miserably in their charge to protect this tragic, and innocent, figure.

Strickland, who was married to Haleigh’s adoptive mother, Holli Strickland, was found to have not only abused Haleigh himself, but also to have recklessly permitted multiple instances of abuse to be perpetrated against Haleigh by Holli Strickland, who the jury apparently concluded was the chief abuser in this horrid story. Shortly after the Stricklands were arrested on charges of abusing Haleigh, Holli Strickland was killed in an apparent murder-suicide committed by her (Holli’s) grandmother, who raised her. The world became a better place when that day arrived.

Observers of recent developments in Massachusetts criminal law couldn’t avoid the news of one Che Blake Sosa, a particularly vicious excuse of a human being currently housed as the state’s esteemed guest at MCI-Cedar Junction prison in Walpole, Massachusetts. In February 2007, Sosa made news when he concealed a knife or “shiv” in his prison jumpsuit, made out of carved plexiglas, brought it into court, and in front of an entire courtroom, stabbed the very – and only – man in that courtroom willing to defend him – his own lawyer. Since then, Sosa has never been taken anywhere without at least a half-dozen armed guards surrounding him, shackled hand and foot. He seemed to relish the attention.

Now he’s got some more attention to be happy about: It seems Sosa was able to persuade a registered nurse who was contracted by the state to work at MCI-Cedar Junction, to assist him in a plot to break out of the maximum-security prison. Deborah Girouard, 44, confessed to police and prosecutors this past Wednesday that she had developed a “relationship” with Sosa, and had agreed to smuggle saw blades, a disguise, and other weapons into the prisoner’s custody to facilitate his escape. According to police investigators, Girouard had gone so far as to obtain and store all of the weapons and disguises in her locker at the prison, but backed out of the plan at the last minute, when Sosa reportedly threatened to kill her if she didn’t follow through with the scheme.

This news has more than a few people asking: How could such an irresponsible, arguably unstable person such as Girouard, end up being granted access to some of the most dangerous criminals in Massachusetts? Several observers have begun to question the process of how independent contractors like Girouard (she was not a state employee, but contracted by the state to work inside the prison as a nurse,) come to be placed inside some of the most sensitive security situations possible, such as inside a maximum security prison. Had Sosa’s plan been carried out and he successfully escaped, several people – prison personnel as well as residents of surrounding communities – would likely have been killed or seriously injured.

In my last post on this subject, I explained the legal changes soon to take place in Massachusetts (probably early January 2009) in the area of marijuana possession and use. Police officials in Massachusetts, understandably, are now publicly expressing concern that they have no idea exactly how to enforce this new law. Among the questions they have:

• How will police officers on the street accurately measure what constitutes one ounce of pot? Should each police cruiser have a measuring scale in it? If the pot is rolled into cigarettes, how many joints equal an ounce?

• If a vehicular stop occurs and pot is found, does that give officers probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of criminal activity or contraband? Will any such searches withstand legal challenges?

Contact Information