GSCF attorneys have succeeded in protecting our clients’ interests by obtaining acquittals after trials; the avoidance and dismissal of complaints, indictments before trial; reversals of convictions after appeals and postconviction motions; lenient sentences; and successful outcomes in university disciplinary, scientific misconduct, and Title IX proceedings.
The client was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine distribution, and was facing a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. The government’s cooperating witness testified at trial to our client’s participation, some of which was audiotaped and video-recorded. The theory of defense was that the client was romantically interested in the government witness and wished to protect her by accompanying her when she was procuring drugs from the codefendant. The client testified and was acquitted of all charges.
The client was facing a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. The defense was that the client’s cousin possessed and discharged the firearm and that the police mistakenly identified the client as the man with the gun. The client’s cousin testified that the gun was indeed his and not the client’s. The client also testified and was acquitted after a jury trial.
Our client, the former Chief Operating Officer of a major international technology company, was charged with violations of federal securities laws for revenue recognition fraud. After a four-week trial, the jury acquitted our client on one count and hung on the other counts. We ultimately prevented the re-prosecution of our client by obtaining dismissal of the remaining counts on double jeopardy grounds.
Our client was arrested and charged shortly after the victim of a stabbing was found bleeding and near death on a street in Dorchester. Witnesses identified our client as having been involved in an altercation with the victim, and a bloody knife was found in our client’s possession. Despite these facts, we were able to demonstrate through cross-examination and DNA and blood pattern evidence that our client was innocent, and that an uncharged third person involved in the fight was the likely culprit. After a ten-day trial, our client was acquitted.
Our client, charged with aggravated rape and witness intimidation, was facing a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. The theory of defense was that the entire incident was fabricated by a sibling who sought to have the client expelled from the family home. After a jury trial, the client was acquitted and the witness intimidation charge was dropped.
Our client was arrested and charged with robbery after he walked into a convenience store, and the clerk identified him as the perpetrator of a prior robbery. Although the clerk was convinced that our client was the perpetrator, we used surveillance footage from the robbery and computer-generated three-dimensional modeling to demonstrate that our client was, in fact, at least four inches taller than the perpetrator. Our client was acquitted after a jury trial.
Our client was one of two people charged in a serious stabbing that occurred during a fracas that erupted at an outdoor gathering in Gardner, Massachusetts. Although several witnesses familiar with our client identified him at trial as the stabber, we were able to demonstrate several inconsistencies and weaknesses in their accounts, and our client was acquitted of all charges, except for a single simple assault-and-battery charge.
Our client was arrested and charged with an armed robbery that occurred at a convenience store one week earlier. Through cross-examination of the complaining witness, we were able to demonstrate that her identification of our client was unreliable, and the jury acquitted our client of all charges.
Our client was accused of assault to rape and multiple other counts, but after trial was convicted of a single count of indecent assault and battery.
Our client was identified, arrested, and charged several weeks after a woman was assaulted at knife point late at night in downtown Boston and forced to drive to an isolated location. At trial, our cross-examination showed that the police identification procedures were deeply flawed and likely led to a misidentification. We also presented testimony from a credible source corroborating our client’s alibi. A jury acquitted our client of all charges.
Our client was a young man accused of a robbery at knife point. Our investigation and cross-examination of the complainant showed that he and his friends initiated the altercation and that the robbery claim was likely fabricated. Our client was acquitted of all charges.
Our client was charged with first-degree murder in the stabbing death of a college football player. After our client’s conviction was reversed by the Supreme Judicial Court because the prosecutor had unlawfully exercised peremptory challenges in a manner that excluded multiple trial jurors from serving on the basis of their race, a GSCF lawyer obtained our client’s acquittal after a months’ long re-trial.
Our client, an employee of a company that provided adhesive components used to build the ceiling of the Ted Williams Tunnel, was one of the subjects of a federal investigation into the ceiling collapse that killed a woman. After more than a year of investigation and advocacy, we presented evidence showing that the contractor for the tunnel had known about improper installation of the ceiling panels and testing that showed that the anchors had not been installed properly. The government declined to prosecute our client.
Our college-student client engaged in consensual sex with another student who later accused our client of forcible rape. Our investigation, which involved interviewing more than a dozen witnesses and the gathering of other evidence, showed that our client was innocent and that the allegations and charges against our client had been fabricated by the accuser. Advocacy with the district attorney’s office and with the college resulted in the dismissal of charges against our client and our client’s good standing at school was restored.
Our client was indicted for kidnapping, threatening, and intimidating a witness based on allegations made by a man with whom his wife was having an affair. Our client vehemently denied the allegations. We engaged in substantial pre-trial investigation and litigation of various evidentiary issues that showed the prosecutor that the Commonwealth’s witness had lied to the authorities because he was in love with our client’s wife and wanted him out of the way. The District Attorney’s Office dismissed the charges three days before trial was scheduled to begin.
Our client, a college student, was investigated by the State Police for motor vehicle homicide after his car hit a pedestrian on a dark and rainy night. The State Police falsely asserted that our client’s defroster in his car was not working at the time of the accident. Our investigation revealed that the defroster in the car was working that night, and that the pedestrian had run out into the street between two parked cars such that our client could not have seen him in time to avoid hitting him. We presented our evidence to the District Attorney’s Office, which agreed that no charges should be filed.
Our client was charged with motor vehicle homicide for the death of a passenger in another car that made a left-hand turn in front of him and crashed into his car. The District Attorney’s office contended that our client had been driving recklessly and over the speed limit, based on a crush damage analysis performed by the State Police. With the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert, our investigation showed that the amount of crush damage was consistent with our client having operated his car below the speed limit and that the car in which the decedent was driving had unexpectedly turned in front of him. Our deposition of the State Police investigator and our presentation of the new evidence persuaded the District Attorney’s office to drop the charges.
Our client was accused of having been a participant in a barroom fight in which another patron suffered severe facial injuries from a broken glass mug. We investigated the case and found witnesses who corroborated our client’s account that he was not the party who caused the injuries. Based on our advocacy with co-counsel, the Clerk-Magistrate declined to issue charges against our client.
Our client was charged with criminal harassment for sending a series of electronic tweets critical of the complaining witnesses, as well as of city officials and law enforcement. We were able to put an early end to the prosecution by filing and litigating a motion to dismiss on grounds that the charges violated the client’s First Amendment rights and failed to meet the statutory definition of harassment. The court ultimately dismissed all charges.
Our client was charged with indecent assault and battery in District Court. We successfully moved to dismiss the complaint and to remand the case for a hearing before the clerk-magistrate to determine whether a complaint should issue. After a hearing, the clerk declined to reissue a new criminal complaint, holding the matter in abeyance for one year.
We routinely represent clients facing possible criminal charges at probable cause hearings before clerk-magistrates. In a number of cases — including cases where a client got into a fight with a rental car company employee at the airport; a client who sent allegedly threatening texts to her ex-boyfriend; a juvenile client who possessed drugs; as well as cases involving charges of assault and battery, indecent assault and battery, possession of ammunition, maiming and disfigurement, negligent operation of watercraft, and criminal motor vehicle offenses — we have persuaded clerk-magistrates not to issue criminal charges.
We have persuaded the courts not to issue restraining orders in many situations, including where our client’s ex-boyfriend kicked her out of her own apartment and then moved for a restraining order against her when she returned for her belongings, and in another case, after extensive litigation, a woman who had wrongly accused our client of abuse, terminated her falsely-obtained restraining order.
Our client and a co-defendant were convicted at trial of first-degree murder for the stabbing death of a young woman. Our post-trial DNA testing showed that someone other than the defendants had likely killed the victim, and the Supreme Judicial Court reversed their convictions.
Our client was convicted at trial of first-degree murder for the death of his infant son. We hired forensic DNA experts to conduct mitochondrial DNA testing and a forensic crime scene reconstructionist who provided information showing that the prosecution had presented a false picture of the evidence to the trial jury and that the trial prosecutor had engaged in misconduct. Based on this evidence and other trial errors the Supreme Judicial Court declared that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, and reversed our client’s conviction.
Our client was convicted at trial of first-degree murder and armed burglary for the killing of a neighbor. On appeal, after filing a new trial motion, we argued that the trial judge wrongly kept from the jury evidence that another person had a pattern of sexually aggressive acts against women as well as a motive and opportunity to commit the crime. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, and our client’s convictions were reversed.
Our client was convicted of second-degree murder at trial for failing to obtain timely medical care for her dying two-year old daughter. On appeal, we established that our client had nothing to do with her daughter’s tragic death. The Supreme Judicial Court overturned our client’s murder conviction, and she was released from prison.
Our client was serving a life sentence for having allegedly shot another person in the head during a confrontation on the street. On appeal, we argued that the judge’s jury instructions unfairly placed a burden on our client to prove that the killing had been provoked. Our client’s conviction was reversed, and on retrial, a jury acquitted him and he walked out of the court room to rejoin his family.
Our client was convicted at trial under the child sexual enticement statute of luring a girl into a car with the unlawful intent to commit a sexual offense. On appeal, we argued that the judge’s interpretation of the statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, and reversed the client’s conviction, and our client was released from prison.
Our clients were two parents who were convicted of multiple counts of rape involving another family’s children. On appeal, we argued that the evidence showed that our clients had been smeared with inadmissible evidence and that there was substantial evidence showing that the children’s mother had fabricated and coached her children to make the false allegations. Our clients’ convictions were reversed.
Our client was a union member in a local public welfare office who was supporting a candidate running for union local president. Before becoming a client, he had been found responsible for intimidating a political opponent by publishing an inflammatory doctored photograph of her. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed with GSCF attorneys that the act of publication did not amount to an act of intimidation.
Our client was convicted of armed home invasion and armed robbery of an elderly victim. We persuaded the Massachusetts Appeals Court that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge of the only available black juror in the jury array was improper because of the prosecutor’s inadequate justification for what appeared to be a race-based challenge to the juror.
Our client had been convicted of multiple armed bank robberies. While serving a lengthy sentence, prison authorities accused our client of planning a prison escape. At a parole hearing conducted at the Supermax facility in Florence, Colorado, we presented evidence that the client’s drawings were the unrealistic doodlings of someone with mental health issues. The U.S. Parole Commission agreed and ordered the client paroled earlier than his expected release date.
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to sentence juveniles convicted of murder to life without parole. Many of these “juvenile lifers,” who spent decades in prison without hope of ever seeing the outside world, were given a chance at parole. We have represented several clients in this position before the state Parole Board, and secured parole for two of them.
Our client had appeared before the Parole Board, but his parole application was denied even though a majority of the Board’s members voted in favor of parole. We appealed this ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court. The SJC agreed that the Board’s action was unconstitutional, and our client was granted parole.
Several of our clients who had been paroled after serving lengthy sentences, had their parole revoked, often for technical violations of their parole conditions. We have worked with these clients and managed to persuade the Parole Board to re-parole these clients.
Our client had been convicted of enticing a minor, and the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) initially classified him as a level 2 offender, which would have required public dissemination of information about him. At a hearing on our appeal before the SORB, we produced numerous witnesses, including two expert forensic risk assessment evaluators, and demonstrated that our client posed little risk of reoffending. The Board then reduced the client’s classification to level 1, thereby preventing the public dissemination of his personal information.
Our client was a Chinese businessman accused of violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the US Munitions List (USML). A GSCF lawyer, working with Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, argued on appeal that the US State Department’s decision to regulate the items after they were exported violated our client’s constitutional right to fair notice and against ex post facto rulemaking. Based on our arguments, the First Circuit reversed our client’s most serious conviction, leading to a substantial reduction in his sentence.
Our client, a regulatory compliance manager, was indicted for conspiracy and other substantive felony violations of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) involving allegations that our client and others had intentionally distributed adulterated medical devices (heart catheters) that were used in patients without obtaining necessary FDA approval. The case was tried before a federal jury where our client and several others were convicted. On appeal, the conviction was reversed and the case was later resolved by a plea to a misdemeanor offense.
Our client was a college student accused of conspiracy to commit wire fraud by using a computer bulletin board to facilitate copying of copyrighted computer software. In an effort to outlaw computer-related activity that Congress had not criminalized, the federal government engaged in an unsupported interpretation of the wire fraud statute. The District Court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the government failed to allege conduct that constituted a crime. The ruling was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In response, Congress amended the criminal copyright statute to criminalize the conduct.
In a case that had enormous impact on federal sentencing practice in the District of Massachusetts, one of our attorneys challenged the validity of the categorical use of Massachusetts assault and battery convictions as predicates for enhanced sentences under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act on the theory that assault and battery was a “violent felony” for federal sentencing purposes. On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that assault and battery was not categorically a violent felony, and that prosecutors would be required to prove that a defendant had been previously convicted of a violent form of the crime before it could seek enhancement of the defendant’s sentence on an ensuing conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Entire classes of federal defendants had their sentences for gun cases, drug trafficking cases, and violent crimes such as robbery drastically reduced as a result of this litigation, which took years and two trips to the First Circuit to complete.
Our clients were the principals of a real estate development firm who had hired a certified public accountant as its Chief Financial Officer. The accountant turned out to be a criminal who embezzled money from the firm and committed other criminal acts. After GSCF attorneys exposed the accountant, the prosecutor declined to prosecute our clients and we recovered the money stolen by the accountant.
Our client, the chief engineer of a cruise line ship, was accused of oil-contaminated discharges at sea in violation of the federal Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) and the International Convention to Prevent Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). After GSCF attorneys conducted an investigation, our client was not prosecuted, and the cruise line entered into a civil settlement with the government.
Our client, the Chief Scientific Officer for an international medical device company, along with other employees, was subjected to a federal grand jury investigation for the alleged sale of adulterated medical devices in violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). GSCF attorneys, working with the corporation’s outside counsel, conducted an investigation, and with the assistance of technical experts, demonstrated to the government that the devices at issue were not adulterated. The government declined to prosecute our client.
Our client, the head of marketing at an international pharmaceutical company, was the subject of an investigation based on allegations of off-label marketing of a prescription drug in violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) and FDA regulations. GSCF lawyers worked with corporate counsel to develop a defense to the allegations and prevented any charges from being lodged against our client.
GSCF lawyers obtained favorable sentencing outcomes for two executives convicted of violating the Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations for exporting equipment to India that the government claimed was dual-use equipment that could be used in the manufacture of advanced ballistic missile materials. The court accepted our argument that the equipment was standard industrial-grade equipment that did not have the sophisticated uses the government ascribed to it.
GSCF attorneys represented undergraduate students accused, along with over 100 other undergraduate students, in collaborating on a final take-home examination in an introductory government class. While the university imposed probationary periods and suspensions on many students, we worked with other attorneys to reveal how the university’s practices and the professor’s mixed signals to the students contributed to the problem.
We have represented dozens of students at law schools, business schools, graduate schools and colleges who were accused of plagiarism, cheating on take-home and in-class exams, or improper collaboration on engineering, math, organic chemistry and computer science problem sets. In some of these cases, we have persuaded school disciplinary boards or honor councils that formal, career-damaging sanctions should not be imposed.
Over a dozen law students were charged by a local law school with violating the school’s rules governing the serving of alcohol at public events. We argued that the school’s rules were insufficiently clear and were selectively enforced. Due to our work, the students were ultimately cleared of all charges.
Our client was an Ivy League undergraduate who was wrongly accused of sexual misconduct on campus. GSCF attorneys counseled the student and helped him present a strong case to the university’s dispute resolution office. After an exhaustive investigation, the university agreed that the accusations were unfounded and took no action on the case.
Our client was found responsible by a local university of various acts of sexual assault and harassment, despite flimsy evidence and a thoroughly unfair university investigative process. GSCF attorneys worked with an out-of-state law firm to prepare a federal lawsuit against the university for its flawed hearing process. The federal court issued a stinging decision faulting the university and, implicitly, the US Department of Education for a process that violated “basic fairness.” The case was dismissed at the request of both parties.
Our client was two weeks away from graduation when he was accused of having raped a fellow student. We investigated the matter by interviewing numerous witnesses who were not going to be interviewed by the college’s investigators. When we presented our evidence, the charges against our client were dropped and he obtained his diploma on schedule.
Our client was a biomedical researcher at a prominent medical school who was accused of fabricating images published in a high-impact journal. We prepared a careful analysis showing that the reported anomalies in the data were subject to different interpretations and were likely the result of honest error. As a result, the university panel exonerated the researcher.
Our client was a prominent medical school professor who was accused by a postdoctoral student of fabricating data. A GSCF attorney helped our client show that the postdoc was motivated to fabricate the accusations and that the accusations were contradicted by the data. The medical school panel agreed with our assessment and exonerated the professor.
Our client was a prominent research professor who was found responsible by a university panel of falsifying and fabricating data. A GSCF attorney made extensive presentations to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and to federal agencies showing that any mistakes were not made with criminal intent, and as a result, no criminal charges were brought and the matter was satisfactorily resolved with the federal agencies.
Our client was an out-of-state graduate student accused of falsifying and fabricating data. We helped the student establish that if there were any problems with the data, they were likely the product of undue pressure by the head of the lab. We negotiated with the Office of Research Integrity at the National Institute of Health and were able to prevent any formal agency findings against him.
Our client was a professor of engineering at a local university who was accused of plagiarism on her grant applications. We helped the professor show that the overlapping language was the result of inadvertence and a lack of detailed understanding of certain rules. The university panel agreed and found that any mistakes were reckless and not intentional. We then helped the professor negotiate a successful outcome with the National Science Foundation.
Our client was an international researcher who had been contacted by the editors of a high-impact journal and accused of falsifying and fabricating data. The journal threatened our client with a career-damaging retraction. We worked with the researcher and the journal to resolve the matter without a retraction.
Our client, a taxi leasing and management company, was sued in a class action suit by taxi drivers who claimed that they were entitled to millions of dollars in damages because they were “employees” under the Massachusetts Independent Contract Statute, M.G.L.c. 149, § 148B. We appealed the case to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which held that the drivers were independent contractors.
After years of battle, GSCF attorneys reached a favorable resolution for our client, who was accused of revenue recognition fraud, in which he was not required to admit any wrongdoing and was not subject to any disgorgement order.
Our client was sued by his neighbors when he attempted to improve a right-of-way that traversed the neighbor’s land. We conducted a lengthy investigation that required tracking down and interviewing several prior owners of the land, and at trial, we succeeded in re-affirming our client’s right to the easement, defeating the neighbor’s claims that the right of way had been abandoned or extinguished.
Our client was charged with criminal harassment for sending a series of electronic tweets critical of the complaining witnesses, as well as of city officials and law enforcement. We put an early end to the prosecution by filing and litigating a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the charges violated the client’s First Amendment rights and failed to meet the statutory definition of harassment. The court ultimately dismissed all charges.
Over the years, the government has sought to gag or sanction criminal defense attorneys who have spoken publicly to the media about their clients’ cases. We have successfully defended against such attempts by prosecutors to gain a tactical advantage over the defense by depriving them of their ability to speak to the public and press about their client’s case.
Our client was convicted at trial under the child sexual enticement statute of luring a girl into a car with the unlawful intent to commit a sexual offense. On appeal, we argued that the judge’s interpretation of the statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and reversed the client’s conviction, and our client was released from prison.
Our client was a college student who had written a newspaper editorial accusing the college bureaucracy of insensitivity to students’ financial needs and opined that the school should be burned down. We argued that the student was not actually intending to burn down the school, that his utterances were not “true threats,” and that his speech, even if overheated, was fully protected by the First Amendment. The judge dismissed the charges against our client.
Our client was a union member in a local public welfare office who was supporting a candidate running for union local president. Before becoming a client, he had been found responsible for intimidating a political opponent by publishing an inflammatory doctored photograph of her as part of his candidate’s campaign materials. On appeal, we argued that the opposition candidate had made herself a public figure for the purposes of the union election, and that distribution of the photograph was protected First Amendment speech. The Supreme Judicial Court ultimately agreed that the act of publication did not amount to an act of intimidation.
GSCF attorneys have represented many political dissidents, immigrants, Muslims, and members of other religious minorities whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies have sought to interrogate and investigate.