Wakefield, MA Criminal Defense Attorney

Possible 5^th Offense OUI Charge in Wakefield, Massachusetts

Anytime someone is believed to be 1) operating a motor vehicle 2) on a Public way and 3) under the influence of alcohol such that it affect their ability to drive the vehicle safely—they are charged with OUI---Or operating under the influence of alcohol. And if someone has been charged and convicted prior to that---they become a repeat offender.

According to the Wakefield Patch, Wakefield Police arrested a four-time OUI offender for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol in Wakefield, making this his alleged fifth offense - and found an open beer can stashed inside his pocket, according to police.

Scott Bergholtz, 48 of Rockport, MA was pulled over on Audubon Road after Wakefield Police received a call from a Salem Street gas station reporting a man who seemed intoxicated had just filled up his tank and drove away in a gray Mercury. A be on the lookout call was put out to all Wakefield police, and officers located the vehicle on Audubon Road in Wakefield. 

Police administered field sobriety tests and determined that Bergholtz was intoxicated, according to the report. During the arrest, police also noticed an open can of beer sticking out of Bergholtz's pocket, they said. He will appear in Malden District Court to face the charge of a fifth offense of OUI, a conviction of which carries a minimum of two years in jail and lifetime loss of license. He will also be charged with possessing an open container of alcohol in his motor vehicle. 


If you are facing criminal charges related to an OUI arrest, contact criminal defense attorney William Barabino by calling his Wakefield, Massachusetts, law office at 781-245-5900. You may also complete his online contact form.

SEX CRIMES and the INTERNET--- SKYPE

A nightmare scenario for any parent is to find out that there son or daughter has been charged with a sex crime. Sex crimes can come in all different forms. With the advent of technology such as SKYPE, FACEBOOK.com and MYSPACE.com. Young adults can find themselves discussing sexual acts and/or acting out sexual acts without thinking through the consequences. They have the privacy of their bedroom and often times don’t think that it is “wrong”. Many of those accused act knowing they haven’t “touched” anyone so they feel that it not criminal or improper.

According to the Boston Globe, Raymond W. McAllister, 20, appeared in Woburn District Court today where he pleaded not guilty to disseminating material harmful to a minor, enticement of a child, and charges of posing a child in a state of nudity. State Police allege that he routinely contacted teenage boys over the Internet and then engaged in mutual sexual activity using a webcam.

The globe reported that, after the arraignment, McAllister’s father spoke with reporters and expressed astonishment at the allegations made against his son. Obviously this type of charge can shatter a family along with the individual. “He’s always been a good kid, he’s got a great heart. To see something like this happen, it’s just terrible,’’ said Wayne McAllister. “I’m broken, broken. It’s clearly upsetting. My wife can’t even deal with it. It’s terrible.”

Salem Mom Accused of Hitting Girl on Bus

When a local mother was concerned about her young child being mistreated at school she did something she now regrets, but she also did something very smart. According to the Salem Evening News, Dominique Hans told reporters before her court appearance yesterday that she "touched her chin and turned her head and told her 'I do not want you to hit him again,'" after the girl started crying and looking out the window when approached. Hans insisted she never hit the girl.The smart thing that did was Ms. Han did was give her own version of facts to the media that came directly from her. When you hear her version of events appears to involve a lapse in judgment, a lot of passion and emotion—yet in the end, according to Ms. Hans simply touched the girls chin.

Hans said the little girl had hit her 6-year-old son earlier in the week, leaving a scratch on his face, and said school officials failed to follow up on her complaint. Often criminal defense lawyers will tell their client to say nothing and it is always the correct advice---unless it is a unique situation. Clearly, Ms. Hans cannot say she wasn’t on the bus---since she was. But when there is a lot of media attention to something that was something that wasn’t---a statement like hers can take the steam out of the interest in the story.  Also, nowhere does it mention that Ms. Hans has any prior criminal offenses of any kind. Often in cases like these if the defendant has criminal history it would be mentioned since the prosecution would use it to request the higher bail request. In this case, there is no mention of it.Hans said the little girl had hit her 6-year-old son earlier in the week, leaving a scratch on his face, and said school officials failed to follow up on her complaint. A police report paints a very different picture, however, of a "crazed and determined" mother marching onto a school bus, screaming at the driver, and then yelling at and slapping the kindergartner.

ARMED ROBBERY SUSPECT IN Wakefield—Joint Venture Liability

If you are involved with someone who commits a crime they can take you down with them. It called “Joint Venture” which is “like” conspiracy but easier to convict. According to the Wakefield Patch, Ashley Mazac was a victim of such an allegation. But it doesn’t mean she is guilty---it means they can try and find her guilty. Under the theory of “Joint Venture” the jury would be told…

"A defendant knowingly participates in the commission of an offense if he [she] intentionally participates in some meaningful way in the commission of the offense, with the intent required to commit the offense. Such participation may take any of several forms. It may take the form of personally committing the acts that constitute the crime, or of aiding or assisting another in those acts. It may take the form of asking or encouraging another person to commit the crime, or helping to plan the commission of the crime. Alternatively, it may take the form of agreeing to stand by at, or near, the scene of the crime to act as a lookout, or to provide aid or assistance in committing the crime, or in escaping, if such help becomes necessary. The agreement to help if needed does not need to be made through a formal or explicit written or oral advance plan or agreement; it is enough consciously to act together before or during the crime with the intent of making the crime succeed.

"The Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime charged [identify the crime charged if needed to avoid confusion], he [she] had or shared the intent required for that crime. You are permitted, but not required, to infer the defendant's mental state or intent from his [her] knowledge of the circumstances or any subsequent participation in the crime. The inferences you draw must be reasonable, and you may rely on your experience and common sense in determining the defendant's knowledge and intent.

"Mere knowledge that a crime is to be committed is not sufficient to convict the defendant. The Commonwealth must also prove more than mere association with the perpetrator of the crime, either before or after its commission. It must also prove more than a failure to take appropriate steps to prevent the commission of the crime.

"Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to find a defendant guilty. Presence alone does not establish a defendant's knowing participation in the crime, even if a person knew about the intended crime in advance and took no steps to prevent it. To find a defendant guilty, there must be proof that the defendant intentionally participated in some fashion in committing that particular crime and had or shared the intent required to commit the crime. It is not enough to show that the defendant simply was present when the crime was committed or that he [she] knew about it in advance." COMMONWEALTH vs. TIMOTHY L. ZANETTI (2009)

According to the Wakefield Patch, Wakefield Police detectives have officially charged Michael Gallella, 30, as the man responsible for robbing the Salem Variety Store in Wakefield at knifepoint on January 17.

The Patch stated that Gallella, who lists an address in Malden, was arrested for allegedly robbing Harrigan’s Liquor Store in Hamilton at knifepoint on Saturday. In addition to the Wakefield and Hamilton robberies, he is also suspected to be responsible for a number of other robberies in the area, including Marblehead, Reading, and Saugus.

"Hamilton arrested him, and according to the photos they released, it seemed to match our guy," said Wakefield Lieutenant Craig Calabrese. "So we conducted futher investigation over the last couple of days and we’ve determined this is the suspect from the Salem Street robbery."

Hamilton Police have also charged Ashley Mazac, 24, Gallella's girlfriend, as his alleged accomplice. The pair was arraigned on Monday at Ipswich District Court in Newburyport. Each faces a charge of armed robbery and a total of six other charges in connection to the robbery at 1:15 p.m. on Saturday. Judge Alan Swan ordered both of them held without bail and scheduled a dangerousness hearing for Thursday.

Wakefield Police will not be charging Marzac for the armed robbery in Wakefield, as there is not enough evidence at this time to tie her into the crime.

Police said that according to witnesses and surveillance footage, Gallella entered the Salem Variety Store at 5:20 p.m. on Jan. 17, immediately walked behind the counter. Holding a knife to the side of the clerk's head, he allegedly demanded money from the register.

The victim emptied the drawer, and the Gallella allegedly ran out the door with an undetermined amount of cash.

Often times the Defendant is described (and sometimes more than accurate) as a sinister, cold and calculating robber – yet when the person is examined there is often mental illness, drug addiction and other factors that do not excuse the crime, but put it in perspective. Experts hired by his defense attorney to determine what disposition is fair, appropriate and reasonable given their possible findings, IF he doesn’t go to trial will likely be one helpful area.

As for Ms. Marzac, her potential for a better resolution is much greater. Besides having little “evidence” against her, it is likely the District Attorney will seek to have her testify against the young man--- leaving her immune from prosecution. That is one possible resolution. There are many and a qualified defense attorney can only speculate as to which direction this case will take at this very early stage. If you are facing criminal charges or are currently under investigation, contact Boston criminal defense attorney William Barabino by calling his Wakefield, Massachusetts, law office at 781-245-5900.

Libya was on the UNITED NATIONS Human Rights Commission up to 2011. Libya and the Secret Killing of the Gaddafi Family. 

Libya was on the UNITED NATIONS Human Rights Commission up to 2011. Yet, the world says he was actually a brutal dictator. But when asked specifically about the allegations they give sparse details and inflated assumptions.

So, what happened from the time Libya was kicked off the United Nations Human Rights Commission until the invasion? I know the news media said Gaddafi was evil, my government said he was evil. But specifically, what were the actions that required the overthrow and death of Libyan civilians and soldiers. What is so draconian that America must kill the people and invade this land. I am not satisfied.

According to the Boston Herald, a man who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for seriously injuring his son nearly 8 years ago- is facing charges AGAIN for the same crime. The Stoneham man is Brian Saucier. Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said that 41-year-old Brian Saucier was indicted Thursday by a Middlesex County grand jury on one count of murder. According to authorities, Stoneham police found Saucier holding his then 6-week-old son in September 2002. The baby had stopped breathing and was later diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. Police said the boy went through several months of treatment and then lived in a "vegetative state" with his mother until he died in May of this year.

The result? He is now charged with 1st Degree Murder. After a person gets over the outrage of how a father could do something like this to any child, especially their own—they may ask? Isn’t It Double Jeopardy to charge him twice for the same conduct? No, because the Government can arrest, charge and convict you (a second or more) for the same conduct as long as the newer charge is not the same or lesser charge. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

According to the Boston Globe, three men emerged from the darkness on a New Jersey side street Tuesday night, he said, screaming “terrorists’’ at the young couple out for a stroll with their toddler. They killed his young wife with a bullet in the heart and shot him, too, once in the shoulder and once in the ankle. But yesterday Kashif Parvaiz admitted to police that his story was a lie. Police investigating the execution-style killing of Nazish Noorani, 27, in the small town of Boonton, N.J., 30 miles from Manhattan, said yesterday that he was carrying out a plot to kill his wife, with the help of a Billerica woman, in a crime eerily reminiscent of the infamous Charles Stuart murder case that rocked Boston more than two decades ago. Parvaiz, who had been living in East Boston, was charged yesterday with the murder of his wife in a conspiracy with Antionette Stephen, 26, of Billerica. “Within hours of this crime, it was obvious to investigators that this was sadly the alleged handiwork of the victim’s husband who allegedly did the unthinkable and plotted to murder his wife, after a religious celebration,’’ said Robert A. Bianchi, the prosecutor from Morris County, in a statement. “That this matter was so well thought out, planned, plotted, and orchestrated is chilling to say the least,’’ he said.The case has similarities to the case of Stuart, who shot his pregnant wife, Carol, to death after they left childbirth classes at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in October 1989 and shot himself as part of his cover story.