Winning is Everything
Evaluating the trial or appellate abilities of Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers is not an easy task. As may be the case with many professionals, criminal defense lawyers may exaggerate their abilities or, indeed, their successes and minimize their losses, in an effort to “land” a client. Few lawyers, after all, wish to concede to their prospective clients, or even to themselves, that they are average, or mediocre trial lawyers. Yet, finding the right lawyer to whom you can confidently entrust your case is imperative. Perhaps the best indicator of a lawyer’s trial prowess is his record. As Bill Parcells routinely noted, “You are what your record says you are.”
Criminal Defense Trial Record: 58 wins*; 1 hung jury; 6 losses
Successful Motions to Suppress Requiring Dismissal of Charges: 11
Civil Trial Record: 6 wins; 0 losses
Largest Civil Judgment: $389,000.00
Appellate Record as an Assistant D.A.: 12 wins; 2 losses
Trial Record as an Assistant D.A.: 18 wins; 2 losses
Trial Record as a MA Criminal Defense Lawyer
Latest Results
Commonwealth vs. E.K., Waltham District Court
OUI 1st: Not Guilty
According the police, the client drove through two stop signs as he sped through a college campus, swerving at the last moment to avoid striking a parked vehicle, was unable to stand without leaning against his car, slurred, appeared confused, and smelled of strong odor of alcohol.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., BMC
OUI 1st: Not Guilty
According to the State Police, the client swerved across four lanes of traffic on 93 North, failed the heel-to-toe test and alphabet test, and had to lean against his car to keep from falling down. The Client passed the one-leg-stand test.
Commonwealth vs. Y.Y., Dedham District Court
Domestic A&B: Not Guilty
Man accused of assaulting wife during domestic dispute. Police claimed client admitted assault. The jury deliberated ten minutes before returning not guilty verdict.
Commonwealth vs. C.D., Malden District Court
OUI: Not Guilty
Young man accused of nearly colliding with oncoming police cruiser. Police claimed client failed the field sobriety tests, smelled of alcohol and admitted drinking five beers. The jury deliberated for 15 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. D.M., Lawrence Superior Court
Indecent Assault & Battery: Not Guilty
Assault & Battery: Not Guilty
Woman accused the client of raping and sexually assaulting her in a bathroom. The client met with a detective and denied any physical contact occurred. DNA testing produced a match between the client’s DNA and the biological material recovered from the underwear of the alleged victim. The District Attorney’s Office called several witnesses, including forensic experts from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory. Attorney Mahoney cross-examined the alleged victim for nearly three hours. The jury deliberated for two hours before acquitting the client of both charges.
Commonwealth vs. F.S., Lynn District Court
Larceny Over $250: Not Guilty
Client was charged with embezzling over $418,000.00 from his employer, a local retailer, by manipulating the store’s cash registers to conceal his thefts spanning over five years. The District Attorney’s Office called five witnesses and introduced more than 9,000 documents, including spreadsheets detailing the cash shortages, cash register receipts, cash register detail tapes, credit card receipts, time records, and photographs. Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney cross-examined the Commonwealth’s “expert” for almost two days, effectively discrediting her calculations and conclusions. The jury acquitted the client after only 50 minutes of deliberations.
Commonwealth vs. D.M., Woburn Superior Court
Rape: Not Guilty
Rape: Dismissed
When Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney entered the case the defendant was charged with raping two different women. Witnesses had seen the defendant unlocking a door within which one alleged victim lay essentially unconscious. Forensic testing revealed the defendant’s DNA on swabs obtained during the rape kit of one of the victims. The outlook appeared grim. After Mahoney persuaded the Court to force the District Attorney’s Office to try the cases together, the District Attorney’s Office chose to nolle pros the weaker case. Pursuing what the Superior Court Justice characterized as a “high-stakes gamble” trial strategy, Attorney Mahoney persuaded the jury to acquit the defendant of rape. Today, the defendant is free.
Commonwealth vs. C.A., Woburn Superior Court
Trafficking in Cocaine – Dismissed
A confidential informant (“CI”) was arrested on cocaine trafficking charges. To secure his release, the CI called the Defendant’s boyfriend to arrange to buy a kilo of cocaine at a Somerville Dunkin’ Donuts. The Defendant and her boyfriend arrived at the appointed time. The Somerville Police surrounded them, seized a small knife from the boyfriend, and the kilo of cocaine from the vehicle that the Defendant drove to the meet. The Defendant allegedly made conflicting statements to the police about her relationship with her boyfriend. The police arrested her. Criminal Defense Attorney Mahoney filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to enter the vehicle without a search warrant. After a two-day hearing at which Mahoney cross-examined the police and exposed their lies, the Court allowed the motion to suppress. The District Attorney’s Office was forced to drop the charges.
Commonwealth vs. B.M., Dedham Superior Court
Rape – Not Guilty
Alleged victim testified she went to the Defendant’s apartment and had a beer or two with him, before going to a couple of bars. Returning to his apartment, they went into his bedroom where she claimed that she told him she would not have sex with him. She testified that the Defendant disregarded what she said, forcibly raped her, held her hostage, and raped her repeatedly throughout the night. A nurse testified that the woman’s cervix was red, swollen and abraded. The jury deliberated two hours.
Commonwealth vs. S.L., Framingham District Court
Motor Vehicle Homicide – Not Guilty
The Defendant was driving down a lonely, poorly lit road in Wayland. As she approached a crosswalk, she checked her speed, looked up, and saw an individual dressed in a yellow sweatshirt off to the right. Assured that the boy wasn’t entering the roadway, she returned her attention to the road; just then, another boy, dressed in dark clothing, ran out before her car. She could not avoid the boy and he died later that night from the injuries he sustained. The State Trooper who investigated the crash claimed that the Defendant should have seen the victim from 120 feet, and had she applied her brakes at all, the victim would have been able to clear the path of her car. Criminal defense lawyer Kevin Mahoney cross-examined the Trooper for two days. The jury deliberated less than an hour.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Worcester Superior Court
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
The Defendant was the prime suspect in a series of fires in the town of Clinton. Members of the Clinton Fire Department, Clinton Police Department, State Police, and Railroad Police descended upon the Defendant’s home armed with a search warrant. The police seized, destroyed or damaged the Defendant’s personal property. They attempted to question the Defendant, but he invoked his right to an attorney. However, when the police threatened to tear down the house and put his family on the street, the Defendant confessed to the setting the five fires. After a four month long hearing on Criminal defense Attorney Mahoney’s motion to suppress the Defendant’s confession, the judge ruled the confession inadmissible. On the day of trial, Mahoney filed a motion in limine, convincing the trial judge to rule that the prosecutor couldn’t introduce additional statements from the Defendant that had not been suppressed. The District Attorney’s Office was forced to dismiss all the charges.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Fitchburg District Court
Possession of an Incendiary Device – Dismissed
Disturbing the Peace – Not guilty
Police, responding to Defendant’s home on complaint of loud explosions coming from the backyard, heard a huge explosion and saw a large fireball rise from behind the single story. They claimed they saw the Defendant holding some type of device in his hands. Running to the backyard, the police discovered a crater with a burn mark around its rim. By thoroughly cross-examining the responding police officers, criminal defense lawyer Kevin Mahoney was able to discredit their observations.
Commonwealth vs. D.D., Cambridge Superior Court
Kidnapping — Not Guilty
Aggravated rape — Not Guilty
Aggravated rape — Not Guilty
Aggravated rape — Not Guilty
Aggravated rape — Not Guilty
Aggravated rape — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Alleged victim testified that, following a work party, the Defendant locked her in the basement of the office building, overpowered her, slammed her into a wall injuring her wrist and repeatedly raped and assaulted her. The District Attorney’s Office called five witnesses. Criminal defense attorney Kevin Mahoney called not one witness. The jury deliberated for two days.
Commonwealth vs. W.T., Cambridge District Court
Possession of Class B (cocaine) — Not Guilty
According to prosecution, once the Defendant observed a Mass State Police Cruiser, he attempted to evade the Trooper by driving behind a Burger King restaurant. When the Defendant finally drove away, the Trooper pulled him over. Inside the car, the Trooper discovered a bag of cocaine. A co-defendant informed the Trooper that she, the Defendant, and the other two occupants had gone to Boston to purchase the cocaine. According to the State Trooper, the Defendant conceded to him that what the co-defendant had said was true.
Commonwealth vs. J.K., Attleboro District Court
Operating Under the Influence — Not Guilty
State Trooper testified that he observed a BMW weaving in and out of its lane on 95 North in Attleboro. The Trooper testified that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath and that the Defendant slurred and gave confusing answers to simple questions. The Defendant admitted drinking four rum and cokes. According to the Trooper, the Defendant failed the field sobriety tests known as the heel-to-toe and one-leg stand. Trooper admitted the Defendant passed the alphabet test.
Commonwealth vs. M.P.F., Cambridge Superior Court
Rape of Child — Not Guilty
Rape of Child — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
A&B Dangerous Weapon — Not Guilty
A&B Dangerous Weapon — Not Guilty
A&B Dangerous Weapon — Not Guilty
A&B — Not Guilty
Dissemination of Pornographic Material — Not Guilty
Defendant’s daughter testified that between her 8th and 10th grades, the Defendant raped her twice a week for two years, beat her with an electrical cord and a police stick, broke plates over her head, punched her in the stomach, and forced her to watch pornography. The jury deliberated for 8 1/2 hrs.
Commonwealth vs. L.B., Suffolk County Superior Court
Aggravated Rape — Not Guilty
Aggravated Rape — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Indecent A&B — Not Guilty
Alleged victim testified that she slept over the Defendant’s home as the guest of his stepdaughter. The following morning, after the Defendant drove the stepdaughter and his wife to work, he returned to the home. The alleged victim claimed that he entered the guest bedroom, took off his clothing, subdued her and twice raped her. Jury deliberated less than an hour.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Newburyport Superior Court,
Motor Vehicle Homicide — Not Guilty
Operating Under the Influence — Dismissed on first day of trial
According to the Commonwealth, the Defendant was driving 89 mph down Rt. 95 in Topsfield when he rear-ended another vehicle, sending that vehicle out-of-control and rolling down the embankment. The occupants of the vehicle were ejected. The driver died within a few hours. Responding police, EMTs and firemen detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. Two witnesses described the Defendant as intoxicated. Criminal defense attorney Mahoney eviscerated the Commonwealth’s accident reconstructionist by exposing his inconsistencies, his perjury and his motives. After deliberating for three hours, the jury found the client not guilty.
Commonwealth vs. M.L., Cambridge Superior Court
1st Degree Murder — Not Guilty
Possession of Firearm — Not Guilty
The still burning remains of an unidentified victim were discovered on a remote road in Fitchburg, not far from the Defendant’s parents’ home. The victim had been shot once in the head, twice in the chest, before being discarded on the snow covered road, soaked with gasoline and set on fire. After identifying the victim, the police quickly settled on the home of KF as the likely murder scene. State Police Detectives conducting surveillance on KF’s home observed individuals carrying items from the home to cars parked in the driveway and decided to secure the residence. Bursting through the front door, State Troopers swiftly tackled KF and the Defendant to the floor, got them to their feet and hustled them out the door, dressed only in jeans and t-shirts, into a blizzard. Beginning at approximately midnight, two detectives relentlessly interrogated the Defendant. For the first 5 hours of the interrogation, the Defendant maintained that KF and KF’s girlfriend, SL, had shot and killed the victim. The Defendant admitted that after the murder, and while the victim lay dead in a pool of blood just down the hall, he, KF and SL smoked the victim’s cocaine. According to the Defendant, they wrapped the body in saran wrap, drove to Fitchburg, and burned the body. At 05:00 a.m., the Defendant exhausted and dope sick, confessed to executing the victim with a 9mm handgun provided by KF. Arguing that the police had interfered with the Defendant’s access to a telephone, criminal defense lawyer Mahoney persuaded a Superior Court judge to suppress the most damaging portion of the confession.
Commonwealth vs. T.W., Dedham District Court
Assault — Not Guilty
Ex-wife claimed that after informing the Defendant that she would deny him scheduled visitation, he became enraged and swung at her, just missing her face. Later, he swung at her stomach. The prosecutor called four witnesses, including two neighbors and a police officer. Criminal defense attorney Kevin Mahoney called but one witness. The jury deliberated 14 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. John Doe, Cambridge Superior Court
Assault with Intent to Rape — Not Guilty
Indecent Assault & Battery — Not Guilty
Indecent Assault & Battery — Not Guilty
Indecent Assault & Battery — Not Guilty
Open & Gross Lewdness — Not Guilty
Open & Gross Lewdness — Not Guilty
Open & Gross Lewdness — Not Guilty
Assault & Battery — Not Guilty
Assault & Battery — Not Guilty
Assault & Battery — Guilty
According to the Prosecutor, the Defendant and two co-defendants, in the Boston area on a high school field trip, relentlessly sexually assaulted two classmates. At one point, the Prosecutor claimed, the defendants pinned one victim to the bed and attempted to force him to perform fellatio on one of the defendants. The jury deliberated 16 hours over 3 days. The co-defendants were found guilty of 23 of 32 indictments, including two counts of assault w/ intent to rape, which carries a prison term of up to 20 years. Sentencing hearing scheduled for this fall.
Commonwealth vs. J.M., Newton District Court
OUI — Not Guilty
An officer, responding to scene of a motor vehicle accident, smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. He gave the Defendant three field sobriety tests, two of which, the officer claimed, the Defendant had failed badly. Jury deliberated approximately 1 1/2 hrs.
Commonwealth vs. M.C., Dedham District Court
Assault & Battery — Not Guilty
The Defendant, who was deliveryman for Dragon Chef, was accused of grabbing, holding, pushing and punching three female college students who had ordered Chinese food. Three students and a Brookline police officer testified against the Defendant. The defense called no witnesses. Jury deliberated 7 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. H.M., Cambridge District Court
Assault & Battery w/ a Dangerous Weapon — Not Guilty
Defendant was accused of striking his brother in the face with a milk crate, cutting the alleged victim’s nose and drawing blood, threatening the alleged victim and his son with a crowbar, throwing punches at the alleged victim and his son, ripping an eight foot long nail ridden board from the porch and chasing the alleged victim and son with the board until the police arrived. Criminal defense attorney Mahoney exposed the alleged victim as a liar over the course of two days of exhausting cross-examination. Jury deliberated 11 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. D.W., Taunton District Court
OUI – Not Guilty
Driving to Endanger – Not Guilty
According to responding police, the Defendant was standing outside the driver’s side door of a truck that had struck a wall. He was very drunk. As the owner of the truck, he admitted to driving, but denied hitting the wall. The Defendant’s girlfriend, who was extremely intoxicated and covered in her own vomit, denied being in the truck. She said that the Defendant had driven the truck. After failing the field sobriety tests, the Defendant claimed that his girlfriend had driven the truck. At trial, criminal defense attorney Mahoney persuaded the jury that the police had lied and that the now ex-girlfriend was the driver.
Commonwealth vs. G.W., Cambridge District Court
Operating Under the Influence – Not Guilty
At 03:45 a.m. on the Sunday morning following St. Patrick’s Day, the Defendant almost collided with two cars as he ran a red light in Somerville. The Defendant failed the alphabet, heel-to-toe, one-leg stand, and nystagmus eye field sobriety tests. He admitted that he had been drinking. He was unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot, glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol on his breath. The client took the breathalyzer, which recorded a blood alcohol content of .07 (presumption of intoxication at .08).
Commonwealth vs. E.T., Brookline District Court
Operating Under the Influence — Not Guilty
On the way home from two Christmas parties, the Defendant skidded to a stop at the intersection of Harvard and Beacon Streets in Brookline. At the next intersection, he drove down the wrong side of the median, into oncoming traffic. The Defendant was unable to say the alphabet in three attempts, and failed the heel-to-toe and one-leg stand field sobriety tests. The breathalyzer recorded a .13 (legal limit .08). Criminal lawyer Kevin Mahoney cross-examined the three police officers who testified for the prosecution. The jury deliberated only 20 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. J.M., Wrentham District Court
Disorderly Person — Not Guilty
Resisting Arrest — Not Guilty
Police-responding to an altercation in a parking lot outside Foxboro Stadium following a Patriots’ game-handcuffed the Defendant, mistaking him for one of the combatants. When he protested, another police officer instructed him to “shut the fuck up,” grabbed him, slammed him to the ground, twisted his arm, and threw him bodily into the patrol wagon. The police eventually identified the correct combatants. The four responding police officers still testified that the Defendant had been one the combatants, that he had been drunk, abusive, threatening, and violent. They said that the Defendant was only “placed” on the ground when he resisted their efforts to handcuff him. We will now be filing a civil lawsuit against the Foxboro Police Dept.
Commonwealth vs. H.T., Westboro District Court
Possession of a Loaded Firearm While Intoxicated — Not Guilty
The Defendant was riding in the passenger seat of his car on Rt. 9 when he removed a handgun from a bag and held it to his head. Unable to talk the Defendant out of killing himself, the driver fled the car. Responding police shut down Rt 9 and surrounded the Defendant’s car. The police ordered him to throw his weapon from the car, and subsequently took him into custody. He had bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred his words, and was unsteady on his feet.
Commonwealth vs. C.C., Cambridge Superior Court
Accessory After Fact to Bank Robbery — Not Guilty
A Hispanic male robbed the Stoneham Savings Bank by indicating he had gun beneath shirt. Fleeing the bank with the cash, he got into a getaway car driven by the Defendant. The dye pack exploded and he began throwing money out the window of car while the Defendant drove the car away from scene. Eight days later police arrest the man on an unrelated charge. The man implicated the Defendant, and police arrest her five days later. She told police she had no idea that the man planned to rob bank and that, following the robbery, he threatened to kill her if she “ran her mouth.” With a compelling closing argument, criminal defense lawyer Kevin Mahoney was able to persuade the jury to acquit his client.
Commonwealth vs. M.S., Woburn District Court
OUI 2nd – Not Guilty
Resisting Arrest – Not Guilty
The Defendant failed 3 of 5 field sobriety tests. The Defendant submitted to a portable breathalyzer, with a result of .134 (legal limit .08). On the booking video, the Defendant was slurring words, swearing and yelling at officers.
Commonwealth vs. M.D., Cambridge Superior Court
Assault w/ intent to Rape – Not Guilty
Indecent A & B (hand on vagina) – Hung Jury (7 to 5 in favor of acquittal)
Indecent A & B (hand on breast) – Hung Jury (11-1 in favor of acquittal)
A & B – Guilty (Def. received 2 yrs straight probation)
An eleven year old victim testified that the Defendant, an eighteen-year-old male, gave her a piece of candy, and followed her to her mother’s truck where he grabbed her, dragged her from the truck, jammed his hand down her shorts, grabbed her crotch, hit her repeatedly, fondled and squeezed her breast, and kissed her on the mouth.
Commonwealth vs. D.R., Cambridge Superior Court
Uttering – Not Guilty
Obtaining Narcotics – Not Guilty
Obtaining Narcotics (7 counts) – Hung
Uttering (6 counts) – Hung
Receiving Stolen Property (a prescription pad) – Guilty
The co-defendant testified that the Defendant was the ring leader of a group passing prescription drugs, who had beaten, threatened, kidnapped, and robbed her and had sold her drugs. Jury deliberated for 12 hours and repeatedly reported that they were hopelessly deadlocked, before judge forced them to return verdicts.
Commonwealth vs. R.H., Dorchester District Court
Assault & Battery – Not Guilty
Assault & Battery w/ Dang. Weap. – Not Guilty
Driving to Endanger – Not Guilty
Police responded to a 911 call of a woman who had been beaten by man and thrown from a moving car. The woman was taken by ambulance to the hospital and diagnosed with multiple contusions. The Defendant was jury foreman on previous trial.
Commonwealth vs. G.R., Cambridge Superior Court
Armed Robbery – Not Guilty
Two eyewitnesses separately selected the Defendant’s photo from mug shot books, and positively identified him in court. Attorney Mahoney severely undermined each witness’s credibility by juxtaposing their original descriptions of the assailant against their courtroom descriptions to obtain a not guilty verdict for the Defendant.
Commonwealth vs. W.T., Malden District Court
Possession of Marijuana – Not Guilty
The arresting Officer testified that he smelled an overpowering odor of marijuana emanating from within the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant was seated in passenger seat. The officer found the marijuana beneath the passenger seat.
Commonwealth vs. J.W., Northampton District Court
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Driving at 65 mph in a 35 mph zone, the Defendant crossed the double yellow lines, forcing an oncoming police cruiser off the road. The Defendant reeked of the odor of alcohol, had slurred speech, watery, bloodshot eyes and was very unsteady on his feet. The Defendant failed all three field sobriety tests and admitted to drinking 3 or 4 beers. The booking room video showed the Defendant unsteady, slurring, making contradictory statements and, at times, incoherent and engaged in bizarre behavior. Criminal defense attorney Mahoney successfully moved to suppress the videotape.
Commonwealth vs. H.T., Framingham District Court
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
The Defendant was driving 58 mph in a 40 mph zone when he was pulled over by a police officer. The Defendant admitted to drinking 4 – 5 beers and to being lost. He refused to take the breathalyzer. The video showed defendant failing field sobriety tests, slurring, stammering, and arguing with officer.
Commonwealth vs. A.O., Malden District Court
OUI 4th – Not Guilty
Failure to Stop – Not Guilty
The Defendant was weaving all over road and refused to stop when signaled. As he finally slowed down to pull over, he almost struck the curb. He staggered from his car, and he nearly fell down attempting both one-leg raise and heel-to-toe tests. Defendant did not testify.
Commonwealth vs. E.M., Newton District Court
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
The Defendant had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, could not say the alphabet and failed all field sobriety tests. So angry was State Trooper following cross-examination that he threatened criminal defense attorney Mahoney outside courthouse.
Commonwealth vs. E.M., Cambridge Superior Court (re-trial after previous jury was unable to reach verdicts)
Indecent A&B: Not Guilty
Indecent A&B: Not Guilty(See description below).
Commonwealth vs. E.M., Cambridge Superior Court
Indecent A&B: Hung
Indecent A&B: Hung
The Defendant slept in the room with his daughter and her nine-year-old friend. The alleged victim testified that the Defendant had been molesting her for at least 6 months. She said when he started to rub her stomach that night, which had always been a prelude to him touching her vagina, she threw-up on herself. She told her mother the next morning, and her mother and father confronted the Defendant that day.
Commonwealth vs. R.R., Cambridge District Court
OUI 1st – Guilty
According to police, the Defendant was weaving wildly up Rt. 93 northbound. After being stopped, the Defendant pretended to be suffering from an asthma attack and then claimed to be having a heart attack. The Defendant refused the breathalyzer and insisted that a hospital test his blood. The Prosecutor used the Defendant’s prior drunk driving conviction to impeach the Defendant’s wife who claimed the Defendant had not had a drink in 27 years. The Defendant testified that he had not had drink in 10 years.
Commonwealth vs. M.K., Framingham District Court
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
The Defendant was weaving all over Rt. 9. After being stopped by the police, he failed all field sobriety tests. Six empty beer bottles and an empty nip bottle of whisky were found in his car. The Defendant took the breathalyzer and registered a .06. The Defendant was taken to hospital at his request and there recorded a .30 blood serum level.
Commonwealth vs. T.K., Malden District Court
OUI 1st – Guilty
The Defendant was driving northbound on the southbound side of Rt. 93. He failed all field sobriety tests, and claimed he was lost. The Defendant’s witness changed his story on stand and was exposed as liar.
Commonwealth vs. G.B., Framingham District Court
Home Invasion – Dismissed
Home Invasion – Dismissed
B&E – Not Guilty
B&E – Not Guilty
A&B – Not Guilty
A&B – Not Guilty
Assault – Not Guilty
Malicious Destruction of Property – Not Guilty
Malicious Destruction of Property – Not Guilty
Threats – Not Guilty
The witnesses testified that the Defendant and co-defendant forced their way into home #1 and threatened, struck the residents and broke furniture. The Defendant and co-defendant proceeded to home #2 where they again forced way into home, assaulted the residents and destroyed furniture, lamps and a vacuum cleaner before leaving. The Defendant and co-defendant were arrested as they drove away.
Commonwealth vs. A.T., Woburn District Court
Operating after Susp. 3rd Offense – Guilty
The Defendant was arrested for riding his motorcycle on Rt. 93 without a license. The Defendant claimed he was unaware that his license had been suspended. Attorney Mahoney argued that the docket sheet, while sufficient to show that his license had been suspended, was insufficient to show that the Defendant had been advised of the same.
Commonwealth vs. M.W., Somerville District Court
Oper. After Susp. 2nd Off. – Not Guilty
The Defendant was charged with operating after suspension, second offense. The Prosecutor wanted him sentenced to 30 days committed. Attorney Mahoney argued that the Defendant did not receive notice of the suspension.
Commonwealth vs. G.S., Cambridge District Court
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Police pulled the Defendant and his friends over for speeding. Police testified that the Defendant was drunk and failed all field sobriety tests. Vomit was also found on the Defendant’s Jeep.
Commonwealth v. E.O., Cambridge District Court
Assault & Battery – Guilty
The Prosecutor showed that the Defendant had attacked security guards of apartment. One guard had a scar from the altercation.
Commonwealth v. GN, Malden District Court
OUI (2nd Offense): Not Guilty
According to the Everett police, the Client had crashed into the rear of a vehicle stopped at a red light, staggered unsteadily as she walked, and admitted, with slurred speech, that she had been drinking nips. The officer noticed a moderate odor of alcohol on her breath, and that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Within the car, an officer discovered a half-empty 750 mg bottle of vodka, as well as knives. The client was transported to the hospital by ambulance. The jury deliberated for approximately 40 minutes before acquitting the client.
Drug Cases
Commonwealth vs. C.M., West Roxbury District Court
Possession of Class B w/ Intent to Distribute (to wit: Oxycontin) – Dismissed
Officers Dentremont and O’Sullivan of the Boston Police Narcotics Squad observed what they believed to be a narcotics deal between the Defendant and an unknown male in the parking lot of the Star Market on Hyde Park Avenue, Boston. With the assistance of a marked cruiser, they stopped the Defendant as he drove away. After surrounding him, O’Sullivan reached into the Defendant’s pants, retrieving a Tic Tac box containing 27 Oxycontin pills. At the evidentiary hearing on Attorney Mahoney’s motion to suppress the drugs, Mahoney attacked the officer during cross-examination, exposing his shoddy investigatory tactics and deceit. The Court suppressed the drugs and the Assistant District Attorney was forced to dismiss the charges. O’Sullivan had bragged to Mahoney that, unless they got a “moronic” judge, criminal defense lawyer Mahoney would never get the drugs suppressed.
Commonwealth vs. D.D., Cambridge District Court
Possession Class D – Dismissed
Possession Class D w/ intent to Distribute – Dismissed
A Constable forced the Defendant, who was driving a Ford Explorer, to stop for speeding and erratic driving. When the Defendant appeared to reach for a gun, the constable drew his gun on him, removed him from the Explorer, searched the vehicle, and found three bags of marijuana. Mahoney filed a motion to suppress, successfully petitioning the Court to find the search unconstitutional.
Commonwealth vs. J.B., Cambridge District Court
Domestic A&B — pled to straight probation
Possession Class D w/ intent to Distribute w/i School Zone– Dismissed
Possession Class C w/ intent to Distribute w/i School Zone– Dismissed
Possession Class E – Dismissed
The Defendant’s wife called 911 and accused her husband of assault & battery. The Defendant fled the scene carrying a backpack. The police arrested him not far from his home and, searching his backpack, found a substantial amount of marijuana and approximately 200 methamphetamine tablets. Attorney Mahoney filed a motion suppress arguing that the drugs had been seized during an unconstitutional search of the backpack. After an evidentiary hearing, the Court allowed criminal defense attorney Mahoney’s motion and suppressing all the drugs. The drug charges, which carried a minimum mandatory sentence of 2 years in prison, were Dismissed.
Civil Trials
Ming’s Import, Inc., et al. v. Stephen L., et al., Civ. No. 91-6498 (Suffolk Superior Court) Win
A major fire in downtown China Town (covered by T.V. show, 48 Hours), caused by Defendant landlord’s negligence, destroyed the Plaintiff’s business. Following a nine-day trial, Judge Patti Saris awarded the Plaintiff a verdict of $389,000.00. Attorney Mahoney represented the plaintiff.
Frederick L. v. E&T Auto, Inc., Civ. No. 95 SC 0346 (Cambridge Dist. Ct., Sprague, J., presiding) Win
Plaintiff-Owner claimed E&T did a substandard paint job on his car. The Owner had received $1,100.00 from small claims and appealed to jury session in attempt to increase award. The jury returned a verdict of only $400.00 in favor of plaintiff, saving plaintiff $700.00.
Trial Record As An Assistant District Attorney
Tried approximately 30 cases as a Middlesex County Assistant District Attorney (1991–1993), winning all but three trials.
Appellate Record
Between early 1991 and December 1992, Attorney Mahoney compiled an appellate record of 12 wins and 2 losses as an assistant district attorney. As a criminal defense lawyer, Mahoney has represented more than 30 criminal defendants on appeal. Most appellate court decisions are not published.
Commonwealth vs. M.S., Superior Court, No. 90030-32
When Attorney Mahoney agreed to represent him, the Defendant had already been confined to MCI-Walpole for eight years. A jury had convicted him of assault & battery with a dangerous weapon and armed assault within a dwelling. The judge sentenced the Defendant for a term of 18 to 30 years for the armed assault and a term of 5 to 10 years for the assault & battery with a dangerous weapon. The Defendant’s appellate attorney argued unsuccessfully to the Appeals Court that the trial judge had improperly abridged trial counsel’s right to fully cross-examine the alleged victim.
Later, Attorney Mahoney argued to Judge John Tierney that the trial judge’s instructions were so hopelessly flawed that there existed a substantial risk that the jury had in error convicted the Defendant of armed assault. Judge Tierney agreed and overturned the conviction.
Published Opinions Of Supreme Judicial Court
As a Defense Attorney:
Commonwealth vs. Allard, 431 Mass. (2000)
1st Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. The Court was unpersuaded by Attorney Mahoney’s argument that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on “reasonable doubt” was flawed. There was overwhelming evidence that, on the day the Defendant had planned to marry his fiancé, he had murdered the man who had stolen away his fiancé.
Commonwealth vs. Ashman, 430 Mass. 736 (2000)
1st Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. The Court was not receptive to Attorney Mahoney’s argument that where a defendant raises a “diminished capacity” defense, potential jurors should undergo the same scrutiny that a defendant does when the defendant raises the insanity defense. The Court declined to reduce the verdict to 2nd degree murder where the Defendant, who had been recently released from a mental hospital, had stabbed his girlfriend to death.
Commonwealth vs. Martin, 427 Mass. 816 (1998)
1st Degree Murder – conviction overturned. Attorney Mahoney successfully argued on appeal that the District Attorney’s Office withheld exculpatory toxicology evidence and that the Defendant’s trial attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge the cause-of-death evidence.
Commonwealth vs. Meuse, 423 Mass. 831 (1996)
Armed Robbery – conviction overturned. Attorney Mahoney persuaded the Court that the prosecutor had improperly vouched for the credibility of a “snitch” who testified that the Defendant and his accomplices had committed armed robbery.
As an Assistant District Attorney:
Commonwealth vs. Ward, 412 Mass. 395 (1992)
1st Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney persuasively countered the defense attorney’s argument that a juvenile – who had repeatedly stabbed a homeless veteran to death and attempted to set him on fire – had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that the conviction should be reduced to 2nd degree murder. (It was my “victory” here that fueled my desire to defend people – rather than prosecute them).
Commonwealth vs. Sabetti, 411 Mass. 770 (1992)
Trafficking in Cocaine – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney successfully opposed defense counsel’s contention that the State Trooper’s warrantless search of the Defendant’s car was unconstitutional. Mahoney persuaded the Court that the trial judge had erred in reducing the jury verdict of “trafficking” to “intent to distribute” – which carried substantially less mandatory prison time. (From the beginning, Attorney Mahoney thought the Defendant was innocent. When it came time to re-sentence the defendant in accordance with the “trafficking” conviction, he asked for the lowest sentence permissible under the statute).
Published Opinions Of The Appeals Court
Commonwealth vs. King, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 380 (1992)
2nd Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney convinced the Court that the trial judge was within his discretion in allowing gruesome photographs of victim into evidence.
Commonwealth vs. Meuse, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 772 (1995)
Armed Robbery Conviction overturned. See above.
Commonwealth vs. Munera, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 380 (1991)
Cocaine Trafficking – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney successfully countered the defense attorney’s contention that there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could have found the Defendant guilty.
*Out of regard for the privacy concerns of our clients, neither the clients’ names nor the dates of the cases/trials have been included in the summaries. The names of clients have been included only when an appellate court has issued a published an opinion on the appeal. Additionally, Attorney Mahoney includes as wins those cases in which the client was acquitted of the most serious charge or charges and found guilty of a lesser offense. See for example, Commonwealth vs. M.D. (who was acquitted of assault with intent to rape, but found guilty of simple assault and battery).
Contact Kevin J. Mahoney, a Cambridge criminal defense lawyer, to discuss your case.
