Championing the Casualties of the War on Drugs
The Mahoney Criminal Defense Group has successfully defended those accused of drug crimes, including simple possession, cocaine trafficking, heroin distribution, Oxycontin distribution, and marijuana cultivation and trafficking, for more than 20 years. We regularly represent clients in the courts of Boston, Cambridge, Woburn, Lowell, Salem, Somerville, Waltham, and eastern Massachusetts. If you are looking for lawyers with courage, cross-examination skills, top-notch research skills, and street smarts, contact us at 617-492-0055.
Choosing a Lawyer to Defend You
If you have been charged with a drug offense, consider carefully which criminal defense lawyer will be best able to maximize your chances of successfully petitioning the Court to dismiss the charges outright or suppress the evidence against you as the fruits of an unconstitutional search, or winning your trial if derailing the charges is not possible. Representing an individual charged with a drug offense requires a particular skill set – investigatory, research, writing and cross-examination skills. In perhaps no other type of case is drafting a comprehensive, well-written, thoroughly researched and persuasive motion so important. In the vast majority of serious drug cases, the Motion to Suppress represents a defendant’s best, and perhaps only, chance to beat the charges. Cambridge Drug Crimes Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney has successfully defended hundreds of individuals accused of drug offenses, including simple possession, possession with intent to distribute, and drug trafficking in courts throughout Massachusetts.
Writing & Research Skills
Attorney Mahoney honed his meticulous research and formidable writing skills by serving as a Symposium Editor on the New England Law Review, a Judicial Law Clerk to the Connecticut Superior Court, as an Assistant District Attorney assigned to the Appeals & Training Bureau of the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office and by writing his first book, Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination. As an Assistant District Attorney, Mahoney drafted appellate briefs and represented the Commonwealth before the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court on appeals from felony convictions, including numerous appeals from drug trafficking and murder convictions.
As a Cambridge drug crimes lawyer, he has succeeded in overturning convictions of first-degree murder, drug trafficking, armed assault in a dwelling, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In numerous cases, he has persuaded District and Superior Court judges to suppress evidence against his clients, resulting in the dismissals of all the charges. Mahoney has also sharpened his writing as a published author.
Mahoney’s Inside View
The government is using the War on Drugs as an excuse to curtail our individual liberties, undermine our constitutional protections, and undercut our freedom of personal choice. Those targeted and prosecuted by law enforcement are the victims of this war. We are determined to champion these victims by insisting that courts uphold our constitution and suppress the fruits of unconstitutional searches and seizures.
Decisively challenging drug seizures as unconstitutional requires more than legal acumen, superior research and exceptional writing – it requires a genuine understanding of the investigatory methods employed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.), the Massachusetts State Police, and area municipal police department narcotics units. As an Assistant District Attorney, Mahoney worked with and trained members of the State Police and the Cambridge Police Department in proper “search and seizure” law. As a member of the “Search Warrant Team,” he assisted State and municipal detectives in drafting affidavits in support of applications for search warrants. Working so closely with detectives investigating drug crimes provided Mahoney with a rare insider’s view of real-life police investigative techniques.
The Hearing on the Motion to Suppress
Every viable motion to suppress is resolved by an evidentiary hearing before the Court where the Assistant District Attorney calls police officers and/or detectives to testify about the “facts” that provided them with the requisite “probable cause” that justified the search or the arrest. “Probable cause” requires the police to identify the articulable facts from which they reasonably inferred the presence of drugs on the person they search. At these hearings, it is not uncommon for the police to “bend” or fabricate “facts.” These officers can be discredited with aggressive, methodical and savvy cross-examination based on a painstaking review of the police reports, lengthy meetings with the client, a visual comparison “scene of the crime” to the representations of the police, an understanding of the unsavory investigatory techniques police employ to circumvent the constitutional protections and, when obtainable, transcripts of the officers’ testimony in other cases. Attorney Mahoney has devoted an entire chapter of his best-selling book, Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination, to teaching criminal defense lawyers how to cross-examine narcotics detectives, snitches, and prison informants.
Winning the Motion to Suppress
To win a motion to suppress, Massachusetts Drug Crimes Lawyer Attorney Mahoney couples an effective cross-examination strategy with the relevant case law to force the judge to appreciate the unconstitutionality the search and that he is required to suppress the evidence. Because many judges are loathe to suppress evidence, they will search for any exception, any legal loophole, or any interpretation of the “facts” which will allow them to uphold the search. Mahoney strives to cut off every avenue of escape – tying the judge up like a rodeo steer.
Winning the Trial
While winning the motion to suppress is the top priority, cross-examination of the officers and the detectives at the hearing represents an opportunity to essentially “marry” them to a set of “facts,” and to develop both external and internal inconsistencies that can be used to discredit them at trial.
Available defenses at trial may include:
- The government failed to prove by reliable toxicology testing that the substance was a controlled substance;
- The government possesses insufficient proof that the drugs belonged to the defendant;
- The drugs belonged to the defendant, but the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug amount seized is inconsistent with personal use;
- The government proved that the amount of drugs seized is consistent only with distribution, but failed to prove that the client was seized within a 1000 feet of a school zone.
Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney has won each and every drug possession/distribution case he has brought to trial with a well-researched, compellingly written Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty. In short, not one of these cases reached the jury.
In its case-in-chief, the prosecution must introduce sufficient evidence to meet the minimum legal standard of proof. While this legal hurdle is low enough for even the weakest cases to clear, oftentimes prosecutors fail to appreciate the well-defined elements of the crime and, therefore, to identify the legal shortcomings of their cases. It is here, time and again, that Mahoney has pounced.
Call us at 617-492-0055 to schedule a free in-office consultation. We are not satisfied with our best effort, we are satisfied with winning.
Commonwealth vs. C.A., Woburn Superior Court
Trafficking in Cocaine – Dismissed
To secure his release, a confidential informant called the Defendant’s boyfriend to arrange to buy a kilo of cocaine at a Somerville Dunkin’ Donuts. Once the Defendant and her boyfriend arrived, the Somerville Police surrounded them and 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. Boston Criminal Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to enter the vehicle without a search warrant. During a two-day hearing, Mahoney thoroughly cross-examined the police, exposing their lies. The Court allowed the motion to suppress. The District Attorney’s Office was forced to drop the charges.
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. 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 accurate.
Commonwealth vs. D.R., Cambridge Superior Court
Uttering – Not Guilty
Obtaining Narcotics – Not Guilty
Obtaining Narcotics (7 counts) – Hung Jury
Uttering (6 counts) – Hung Jury
Receiving Stolen Property¨(a prescription pad) – Guilty
The co-defendant testified that the Defendant was the ring leader of a group obtaining and passing prescriptions, 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 essentially forced them to return verdicts.
Commonwealth vs. W.T., Malden District Court
Possession of Marijuana – Not Guilty
The arresting police officer testified that he smelled an overpowering odor of marijuana emanating from within the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant was seated in passenger seat, beneath which the officer found the marijuana.
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, 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. Boston Drug Crimes Lawyer Mahoney filed a motion to suppress, successfully petitioning the Court to declare 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 Attorney Mahoney’s motion, suppressing all the drugs. The drug charges, which carried a minimum mandatory sentence of 2 years in prison, were Dismissed.
Call a Cambridge, MA Drug Crimes Lawyer at 617-492-0055 to schedule a free in-office consultation.