If you are under investigation or have been charged with a drug offense a good legal team can make all the difference.
The war on drugs has been a national failure since the beginning. National and state legislatures have given in to law enforcement and the moral majority to over-criminalize drug offenses for decades. Even for small amounts of drugs people can be facing school zone offenses, lengthy mandatory minimum sentences and ridiculous collateral consequences.
A generation of fathers have been put behind bars. Countless others have incurred non-violent drug convictions that haunt them forever, keeping them from getting good jobs long after the case is closed.
Scully & Lagos have successfully defended hundreds of clients charged with drug offenses ranging from mere possession to trafficking in kilos. Often the key to winning a drug case is to get the drugs thrown out of court (suppressed) before trial based on the unconstitutional misconduct of law enforcement. Scully & Lagos will review your case and identify every possible constitutional violation and every legal loophole to use to your advantage. Should your case end up as a trial Scully & Lagos will attack law enforcement techniques and expose their investigative biases. If your case involves a confidential informant or cooperating witness, Scully & Lagos will fully investigate that person and relentlessly cross examine them on their treachery. Do not let yourself become another victim of the government’s senseless war on drugs.
Below is a survey of recent cases successfully defended by Scully & Lagos
Below is a survey of recent cases successfully defended
Trafficking in Heroin: Not Guilty
Commonwealth v. John Doe, PCR20016-00152
Client was investigated by a drug task force led by members of the Rockland Police Department. According to Rockland, Client was dealing heroin out of his apartment. Police obtained a search warrant which when executed turned up over 36 grams of heroin, alleged cutting agents, cell phones, baggies, money, and documentation establishing Client lived in the apartment. However, at trial the Commonwealth could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one responsible for the drugs or that he was in fact involved in distribution. There was at least one other person living in the apartment and the heroin was found hidden in her dresser, not his. The Police failed to identify the supposed cutting agent. Additionally, the crime lab technician who had originally weighed the drugs had relocated to California by the time of trial and was not available to testify. Although the Court permitted a substitute chemist to testify that the drugs were in fact heroin, that chemist was not permitted to re-weigh the drugs at the last minute and therefore could not testify to the trafficking weight. A lucky break for the defendant contributing to a Not Guilty verdict. Instead of serving a three year mandatory minimum sentence, client walked out the door.
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 15-CR-3651
Client was pulled over by Holbrook police officer for allegedly operating his motor vehicle with an excessively loud muffler in violation of Mass G. L. c. 90 sec. 7. According to the police they could smell a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the car. They ordered the client out of the car, handcuffed him, and brought a k-9 to the scene to search. They allegedly recovered approximately 2 ounces of marijuana and a sum of cash alleged to be drug proceeds. The defense filed a motion to suppress relying on Commonwealth v. Sheridan, 470 Mass. 752 (2015) which holds that the smell of marijuana does not constitute probable cause for a search a motor vehicle. Ultimately, the prosecution admitted as much in court and agreed to dismiss the case rather than litigate the motion to suppress which the defense was about to win
POSSESSION OF COCAINE: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 149CR1887
Client was pulled over by police because he allegedly failed to stop at a stop sign. The officer knew the client and believed him to be involved in the distribution of narcotics. After the stop, the officer searched the car and found a small amount of cocaine but no evidence of distribution. After a successful motion to suppress and arguments by Attorney Scully, the case was dismissed because the search of the vehicle violated client’s constitutional rights.
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA: DISMISSED
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1459CR00301
Client was pulled over for an expired Inspection Sticker and failure to stop properly for the police. The officer felt that the client was extremely nervous when he handed him his license. The officer asked the client: “Is there anything in this car that I should know about?” and claimed that the client looked directly away from him in a suspicious way instead of answering the question. As a result the officer asked the client to step out of the car. Upon searching the vehicle the officer found marijuana, a scale and plastic bags. The client was arrested for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of over an ounce of marijuana. Attorney Scully won dismissal of both counts after winning a motion to suppress because the officer did not have probable cause to search client’s car.
BREAKING AND ENTERING: DISMISSED
POSSESION OF A CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1414CR3345
Client was accused of breaking and entering into two separate homes, and of carrying cocaine after a later strip search. Counsel successfully argued a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress, resulting in dismissal of charges.
OUI, 1ST OFFENSE: DISMISSED
POSSESION OF DRUGS: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1203CR580
Client accused of driving under the influence of heroin. Counsel successfully argued to the court that the Commonwealth could not prove their case and prevailed on the trial date.
POSSESION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE HEROIN: DISMISSED
SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATION: DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe, 1210CR001616
Client was charged with selling drugs out of her apartment. Police arranged controlled buys and obtained a search warrant which produced a small amount of drugs and paraphernalia allegedly consistent with distribution. Defense discovered that the the school zone calculation was inaccurate and won a dismissal on that count, eliminating a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 2 years. The dismissal of the school zone charge cleared the way for the other counts to be dismissed pursuant to the Valour Act because client was a veteran of the Iraq War and had no prior criminal record.
DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS A SUBSTANCE: CONVICTION VACATED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1101CR0070
Client was violated on his probation after having pled to drug distribution charges. Given his immigration status, deportation proceedings had begun against client. Two motions for a new trial were filed and argued, based on an improper plea colloquy and faulty drug evidence. Client prevailed, was released from jail, and saved from deportation.
TRAFFICKING HEROIN AND COCAINE: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 2011-CR-1809
Client was charged in Plymouth District Court with trafficking heroin and cocaine and facing a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three years. However, a careful review of the search and seizure that led to a discovery of key evidence against Client showed that the police violated Client’s Fourth Amendment Rights. Facing a weaker case, the prosecutor did not indict Client and the case remained in district court. The case was dismissed after the Court allowed a motion to suppress.
TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. John Doe, PLCR2007-00363
Client in this case was on parole for another offense when the police searched his house. He was found sitting on a couch that had ten thousand dollars under the cushion and substantial quantity of cocaine was found the bedroom. The defendant was found not guilty because the prosecution could not prove that he knew about the money or that the drugs actually belonged to him.
TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1159CR001809
Police conducted a lengthy investigation into drug dealing from a particular residence that client was associated with. Eventually they obtained a search warrant and raided the house. I won a motion to suppress which led to the dismissal of charges.
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. John Doe, MICR2006-00266
After a lengthy investigation that included numerous controlled buys, the police raided client’s house and charged him with dealing drugs found in a common area of the multi family home. He was found not guilty because the police failed to prove that my client was the one who had been selling the drugs.
DISTRIBUTION OF HEROIN: NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 99-CR7822
Client was found not guilty of a street level, drug transaction that allegedly occurred in a school zone despite police testimony that they saw it happen and recovered drugs from the alleged buyer.
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA: NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 0511CR006796
According to police, client was a drug dealer. Police saw him driving around and attempted to pull him over for a routine traffic violation. According to police, client took off, eventually abandoning the car that was found to have a substantial quantity of marijuana. The defendant was later arrested and charged with a host of crimes relating to the incident. He was found not guilty of all charges because the prosecutor couldn’t prove he was the one driving the car.
DISTRIBUTION OF HEROIN AND COCAINE: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1159CR01809
Client’s girlfriend’s house was raided after a lengthy investigation. A successful motion to suppress took care of the most incriminating evidence and the prosecution was unable to prove client was connected to the alleged drug activity.
TRAFFICKING IN OXYCONTIN: DISMISSED
Commonwealth v. John Doe, 0511CR006796
This trafficking case carrying a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence was dismissed because of corruption at the Massachusetts crime lab.
TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
Commonwealth v. John Doe
Client’s house was raided and two distinct quantities of cocaine were discovered. He was acquitted of the trafficking based on the defense of personal use.
Drug Trafficking is a very serious offense and the police and the prosecutors aggressively prosecute these cases. However, the Commonwealth must prove the following in order to for the courts to find you guilty:
- That you actually possessed, for distribution purposes, a controlled substance for the sole purpose of providing or selling a perceptible amount of the controlled substance to one or more people.
- That you knew or intended to do this
- That the amount or weight of the drugs exceeded the legal limit for personal use
- Should you be charged with trafficking in illegally obtained prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin, then the Commonwealth will need to prove that you do not have a legal right to possess the drug.
If you have been arrested on drug trafficking charges in the Boston, MA area you should contact Attorney Liam D. Scully as soon after your arrest as possible. It is imperative that your attorney gets started on your case as soon as possible. Depending on the circumstances surrounding your case, Attorney Scully will do the following:
- Call into question the legality of any search conducted by the police
- Investigate the circumstances to determine if you might be an innocent bystander
- Request a reasonable bail amount so that you will spend as little time in jail as possible
If you are charged with drug trafficking in a school zone, the penalties upon conviction are even stiffer. The law states that it is not necessary for you to know that you were within 300 feet of a school. All that matters in court is that you were within 300 feet of a school and in possession of the drugs.
A growing problem is the trafficking of illegally obtained prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin. Your attorney will need to …
Attorney Scully is a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys and the Massachusetts Bar Association. His 15 years of criminal defense experience allow him to provide his clients with the best possible defense. His vast knowledge the criminal and motor vehicle laws in Massachusetts allows him to isolate the evidence necessary to obtain the best possible result for his clients.