Law Offices of Calcagni is Moving!

On October 31, 2011, Attorney John L. Calcagni, III will move his Clifford Street Criminal Defense Law Office location to One Custom House Street in Downtown Providence.

The move will provide Attorney Calcagni and his clients with an exclusive office location in Providence’s financial district, and most importantly, only steps from all three courthouses: RI District Court; RI Superior Court; and U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (i.e. Federal Court). The building, commonly referred to as 'The Equitable Building', is a period-correct Historic renovation built in 1872 and one of the first buildings in Providence to use 'cast iron' for its facade. It boasts a very convenient location to restaurants, banks, the RI Attorney General’s Office; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; U.S. Probation Office; and the courthouses.

Attorney Calcagni will move officially on October 31, 2011 and will keep his current phone number of (401) 351-5100. To learn more about Attorney Calcagni, please visit www.CalcagniLaw.com or call him today.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Attempted Abduction and Firearm Suspect Released to Mother in Stonington CT

 

If you have been charged with a crime involving a firearm or other dangerous weapon, contact RI Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100, by email at jc@calcagnilaw.com or HERE for more information

R.I. judge orders man, charged with attempted abduction, to stay in mother's Stonington home

By Joe Wojtas

Stonington — A local man, who was arrested Saturday by Narragansett, R.I., police in connection with the attempted abduction of a young woman while she was jogging, was released on $20,000 bail today and ordered by a Rhode Island judge to stay with his mother at her home on Lord's Point.

The South County Independent newspaper and other Rhode Island media outlets reported that Matthew B. Klotz, 27, posted $2,000 in cash to secure the bonds. Judge Mary McCaffrey, who set a felony screening for Nov. 29, agreed to let Klotz leave Rhode Island as long as he stayed with his mother at 33 Hopkins St.

He cannot have any contact with the victim and can not possess any firearms. Meanwhile, police in Rhode Island said they are investigating whether Klotz has been stalking other females in Rhode Island over the past year.

Word of his release began to spread through Lord's Point and among local police this afternoon.

Lord's Point is the place where police said, in 2000, that the then-16-year-old Klotz broke into the home of an 88-year-old neighbor in the middle of the night and attempted to sexually assault her.

While Klotz denied the charge, he pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and received a suspended seven-year prison term and four years probation.

In last weekend's incident, Klotz, 27, was charged with kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon while committing a crime of violence.

Police said a 20-year-old woman was near the entrance to the Point Judith (R.I) Country Club around 4 p.m. Friday when a man holding a dark colored firearm, grabbed her from behind and ordered her into his truck.

Narragansett police released the man's description and the next day, an off duty state trooper spotted the truck parked along the side of the road and saw Klotz walking toward it. When the trooper identified himself, Klotz drove off. The trooper followed and called South Kingstown police, who were able to pull over and apprehend Klotz.

Federal Criminal Attorney Defends Cocaine Trafficking Case in RI

If you are being charged with a Federal Criminal Offense, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100

Federal Defendant Receives Below-Guidelines Range Sentence in Cocaine Trafficking Case.

Local police, in conjunction with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, conducted a long term undercover investigation into a local cocaine trafficking organization. The investigation transpired over the course of several months and relied primarily upon surveillance; confidential informants; and a series of controlled narcotics purchases. Investigators learned that the organization had two main members: the leader and his designated deliveryman.

Investigators further learned that the men worked from two stash houses and utilized designated motor vehicles with secret compartments to hide and transport cocaine from their supplier; to and from the stash houses; and ultimately to the organization's customers. After a few months into the investigation, law enforcement officers received credible information to believe that the drug trafficking organization was going to receive a large cocaine shipment. Based on this information, investigators stepped up their investigative efforts and ultimately arrested the organization's leader and deliveryman, raided their homes and executed search warrants on thereon as well as the two stash houses.

The leader was arrested inside his home. A subsequent search of his apartment led to the discovery of a safe containing a .45 caliber pistol, nearly $14,000.00 in cash and a drug ledger. The stash home from which the leader operated yielded the discovery of approximately 1.2 kilograms of cocaine contained in various-sized individually wrapped bags and miscellaneous cocaine trafficking materials such as mixing agents, grinders, gloves, strainers, masks and cut-off plastic bags. The deliveryman was also arrested following a traffic stop.

A subsequent search of his vehicle led to the discovery of a secret compartment that contained quantities of cocaine and cash. The cocaine was comprised of 61 individually wrapped bags totaling approximately 183 grams. Both men were arrested without incident and subsequently charged with drug-related offenses. The men were thereafter charged federally by the U.S. Attorney's Office with forming a cocaine distribution conspiracy, as well as possessing with the intent to deliver cocaine.

Attorney Calcagni represented the deliveryman who was charged with two-count information that alleged: conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and actual possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The deliveryman had no prior arrest record. This was his first offense. However, the evidence against him regarding these charges was overwhelming.

Investigators conducted a series of controlled drug purchases from the deliveryman as well as extensive surveillance. The crimes charged carried a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 5 years and a maximum potential sentence of 40 years. Based on the strength of the government’s evidence and potential punishment if convicted at trial, the deliveryman chose to plead guilty.

When a defendant in the federal criminal justice system decides to plead guilty, his lawyer's focus turns away from defending against the charged offenses and to minimizing the sentence to be imposed. Unlike the state system where defendants agree to plead guilty in exchange for a known sentence, there are no such guarantees in Federal court. In the federal system, sentences are a function of two main factors: the minimum and maximum penalties set forth by the criminal statute the defendant has violated, and an elaborate points system referred to as the sentencing guidelines. The sentencing guidelines factor in a defendant's criminal history and seriousness and nature of his offense to assign the defendant a numerical value or number of points which correlates to an advisory sentencing guidelines range. This range is considered by the federal courts, along with a defendant's personal characteristics and purposes for punishment set forth by the law, when imposing sentence.

In the case of Attorney Calcagni's deliveryman client, the defendant had no criminal history. He also pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiring to do the same involving cocaine quantities of more than 500 grams, but less than 2 kilograms. These facts gave him a sentencing guidelines range of 37 to 46 months in jail. In an effort to further reduce the man's sentence, Attorney Calcagni interviewed his client's family both in the United States and the Dominican Republic where the man was born and raised. Attorney Calcagni specifically traveled to the DR to meet his client's mother, wife and children, as well as his other relatives.

This trip enabled Attorney Calcagni to document the family's poverty stricken living conditions, as well as to come face to face with the deliveryman's loved ones whom he struggled to financially support. Attorney Calcagni documented his efforts with photographs and handwritten statements from his client's family that he presented to the court for consideration at the deliveryman's sentencing. Attorney Calcagni also focused on his client's legal U.S. Residency at the time of his offenses, and how after serving his jail sentence, the client faced deportation as a collateral consequence of his crimes, and would be forever barred from visiting or otherwise returning to the United States.

At sentencing, Attorney Calcagni argued that his client be afforded a second chance. He highlighted that the deliveryman was both a first time and last time offender who had already learned harsh lessons from his criminal behavior. He further argued that his client, a college educated, smart man, made a very stupid decision to traffic in drugs. However, though inexcusable, his actions were motivated, not by greed, but by survival for himself and his extended family, both here and abroad who suffered under poverty stricken circumstances, because the deliveryman, who after immigrating to the United States, had found little to no job opportunities due, in part, to his lack of job skills and inability to speak English.

Based on these collective factors, Attorney Calcagni successfully persuaded the Court to deviate from the advisory guidelines range of 37 to 46 months by sentencing the man to 30 months. This outcome is considered a great victory for the defense, which includes both Attorney Calcagni and his grateful client.

Wrongful Conviction Reform Essay

 

In the wake of the execution of Troy Davis under what appear to be questionable evidentiary circumstances, the following essay discusses the idea that changes can be made to decrease the incidence of wrongful convictions.

If you have been charged with a crime in RI or MA, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 or use the contact form HERE for more information.

Thomas on Avoiding Conviction of Innocents

George C. Thomas III (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - School of Law-Newark) has posted Two Windows into Innocence (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 7, p. 575, Spring 2010) on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Stories about innocent defendants who serve many years in prison before they are conclusively exonerated by DNA testing are by now sadly familiar. Although the reaction of policy makers has so far been strangely muted, there are concrete steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions at an acceptable cost. This essay examines two relatively modest but important changes that some states have made and recommends that they be made more broadly. According to the Cardozo Innocence Project, the single most common cause of wrongful convictions is mistaken eyewitness identifications. States like New Jersey and North Carolina have implemented fundamental changes in eyewitness procedures that include keeping records of the procedure and requiring the eyewitness to indicate the degree of certainty. The essay recommends these and other reforms that will help protect innocent defendants. The other “window into innocence” is to permit criminal defendants to discover the State’s case in much the same manner as civil litigants are permitted to discover the other party’s case. Florida has had a liberal criminal discovery policy since 1972 without evidence of undue burdens on victims or costs to administer the process. Ten other states permit criminal discovery either as a matter of right or by leave of the court. Though liberal criminal discovery does potentially burden victims, there are ways of ameliorating that burden. One can argue that all defendants have a right to discover the State’s case but that argument has particular cogency when the defendant is factually innocent of the crime charged when defendants. When defendants make a threshold showing of innocence, the paper argues, the State should pay the defense lawyer’s time to take depositions of the State’s witnesses.

Military Abortion Policy Unjust

If you have been charged with a military crime or need help with a military board hearing, contact Military Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni for assistance now at (401) 351-5100 or use the contact form HERE for more information.

ACLU Lens: Chicago Sun-Times Weighs in on Indefensible Military Abortion Policy

September 22, 2011
Amanda Simon

The Chicago Sun-Times today has a terrific editorial on a thoroughly unfair military policy regarding servicewomen who are the victims of rape.

As it stands now, the military provides health insurance for members of the Armed Forces and their families but, by federal statute, the Department of Defense is barred from providing coverage for abortion care except where a pregnant woman's life is endangered. Despite the fact that other federal bans on abortion coverage provide an exception for cases of rape and incest, the military does not.

Currently, there are more than 400,000 women serving our country in our Armed Forces. Each one of them faces a disturbingly higher rate than their civilian counterparts that they will be sexual assaulted. Denying them the same medical care that is available to the civilians they protect is shameful.

The Sun-Times says:

    It's time to reverse this absurd policy and, at a minimum, give servicewomen the same rights as any other woman covered by the federal government. That's why we're enthusiastically backing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow for a rape and incest exception. The amendment is expected to be offered in the U.S. Senate soon. We urge Illinois' two senators to support this basic act of fairness.

This policy is unjust and unfair. The National Defense Authorization Act should be coming to the Senate floor in the coming weeks and the ACLU will continue its push to see this ban repealed.