Military and Criminal Defense

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Conspiracy Charges in Rhode Island

Conspiracy can be a broad and complex crime, but is generally defined as an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act. In some cases such an act may not be considered illegal when there is only one individual involved, but becomes a crime when there are more. Federal conspiracy crimes include conspiracy to engage in criminal activity such as money laundering, conspiracy to manufacture drugs, conspiracy to violate federal laws, or conspiracy to manufacture weapons.

In Rhode Island, and most other states conspiracy is governed by a statute in the Federal court and most State courts. Before being codified in State and Federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was little more than an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intentions of carrying it out. Although many people are not aware of it, conspiracy is considered a separate criminal activity from any crime to which it is attached. For example, if two people plan on kidnapping an individual and follow through with the crime, they may be found guilty of both conspiracy, and kidnapping.

Sentences for conspiracy start with the federal maximum penalty of five years in prison, and can be compounded by any other State and Federal violations. Conspiracy charges can be prosecuted by different entities such as The Department of Justice, the FBI, or even state and local law agencies.

If you or someone you know has been charged with conspiracy, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at the Law Office of Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.


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

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.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Cocaine Use: Finding of No Misonduct and Retained for Future Military Service

If you need a Military Criminal Defense Attorney, contact John L. Calcagni, III now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

A U.S. Army National Guard Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) tested positive for cocaine use during a unit-wide urinalysis for unlawful drug use.

The NCO, a female of Latin-American decent, consumed a Latin herbal tea made partially with coca leaves, a major component to cocaine, several hours before the urinalysis. The NCO’s family member offered her the tea as a home remedy for an upset stomach. The NCO consumed the tea without realizing it was of the type made with cocoa leaves and thereafter attended her scheduled monthly battle drill.

While there, she participated in a urinalysis that detected the cocaine metabolite in her system. In accordance with army regulations, the NCO was both flagged from favorable personnel actions and processed for administrative separation from military service. The NCO was in the zone at the time for re-enlistment and promotion with plans to attend both Air Assault and Officer Candidate School.

She was also a leading candidate for a full-time AGR position with the National Guard. Because of the positive urinalysis and resulting flagging action, all of these plans were placed on hold. Needless to day, the NCO had a lot on the line and much to lose with the pending separation action, to include her military career.

The NCO was represented by Attorney John L. Calcagni III for purposes of her separation hearing board. Attorney Calcagni worked hand-in-hand with his client to prepare an ironclad defense at the hearing. Attorney Calcagni’s defense employed a two-part strategy. First, Attorney Calcagni sought to highlight for the board members the NCO’s impeccable service record.

This female had nearly ten (10) years of military service at the time. She had previously deployed to Iraq. She was also highly regarded among her peers and by her chain of command, to include both her Battalion Commander and Battalion Sergeant Major. Similarly, her Company Commander and First Sergeant gave her stellar reviews.

She also had countless certificates, achievements and awards in her service record. Attorney Calcagni marshaled this information before the board members in the form of both live and recorded witness testimony as well as documents from the NCO’s personnel files.

The second prong of Attorney Calcagni’s defense was to demonstrate that the NCO innocently ingested the cocoa tea without knowing of its chemical make-up. Part of this defense prong was to establish the small amount of cocaine base in each tea bag, and how that small amount ingested close in time to a urinalysis could yield results equal or similar to that of the NCO.

Lastly, Attorney Calcagni sought to show that this small amount of cocaine base, if ingested into the body, would not produce any psychological or physiological effects that would give notice to an ingested illicit substance. To obtain and present this evidence, Attorney Calcagni underwent a nationwide search for toxicologists with Department of Defense (DOD) and/or military backgrounds. He located such an expert with extensive experience performing urinalysis testing for the U.S. Army.

Attorney Calcagni then employed an investigator to go into the local community to purchase the cocoa tea in question, which is available for sale in inner city Hispanic markets. The investigator acquired the type and brand tea consumed by the NCO. He also acquired more potent samples from the local market place.

A sample of the type and brand of tea consumed by the NCO was then shipped to a laboratory, at the toxicologist’s instruction, for chemical testing. This testing confirmed Attorney Calcagni’s theory – that someone of the NCO’s height and weight, who consumed one standard cup of the brewed cocoa tea within hours of a urinalysis, would test positive for the presence of cocaine as did this unlucky Soldier.

The toxicologist completed a report of the laboratory’s findings and set forth his opinion, which was that one bag of the tea contained enough cocaine base such that if consumed within hours of the urinalysis, would yield test results for the presence of cocaine in a similar quantity as the NCO. He further opined that the NCO would not have experienced any effects from the substance and therefore, could have innocently ingested it. The report was presented for the board members’ consideration.

In closing argument, Attorney Calcagni argued that the NCO was the epitome of an American Soldier who lived and breathed the Army values. He also argued that she was the antithesis of a drug user. Because of her ethnic background, her family member provided her a substance that though comprised partially of the cocoa leaf, is apparently lawful in the United States given its availability for purchase in the local community.

Lastly, he argued that her character and reputation in the National Guard buttressed and supported her innocent ingestion, which was scientifically proven by the toxicologist’s report. As a result of these efforts, the board members voted unanimously that the NCO committed no misconduct. The members further voted for the NCO to be retained for future service, and be immediately reinstated to duty and for all other service-related benefits.

Congratulations to this NCO, who has since become a Commissioned Officer, for this outstanding result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Friday, February 17, 2012

U.S. Army Recruiter Retained Following Administrative Separation Board

If you need a Military Defense Attorney or Criminal Defense Lawyer contact John L. Calcagni, III now at (401) 351-5100.

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Recruiter, with 17 years of service, was referred for administrative separation from military service. The Recruiter was alleged to have engaged in an inappropriate and unlawful relationship with a female recruit. The Recruiter's Commander initiated an investigation into specific allegations the Recruiter unlawfully took the female recruit to parties; invited her to his home; spent time working out with her at a local civilian gym; and engaged in romantic relations together. Once the recruit shipped off to basic training, the Recruiter allegedly maintained contact with her; assisted her with going AWOL; and stating lies and falsified documents to conceal the alleged misconduct.

The Commander's investigation yielded sufficient evidence, in the investigator's opinion, to substantive charges against the Recruiter for fraternizing with the recruit, making false official statements, and falsifying a leave/pass form. The Recruiter was referred for Non-Judicial Punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Recruiter's Brigade Commander served as the Article 15 Hearing Officer. After reviewing evidence presented by the government related to the charges, and "allegedly" reviewing exculpatory evidence submitted by the Recruiter in his behalf, the Article 15 Officer found the Recruiter guilty of all charges and specifications. Thereafter, the Commander relieved the Recruiter from his recruiting position and referred him for administrative separation from the U.S. Army with a recommendation that his military service be characterized as Other Than Honorable (OTH). The Recruiter demanded his right to an administrative separation board and hired Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent him at this proceeding.

At the hearing, the government relied upon both the recruiter's Article 15 convictions and related evidence to support the government’s request that the Recruiter be discharged from military service with an OTH. Attorney Calcagni delicately cross-examined each of three government witnesses, all whom testified that the Recruiter had committed inexcusable misconduct and therefore, should be separated from future military service. However, each witness conceded on cross-examination that their opinions and recommendations were based in whole on the Recruiter’s Article 15 convictions.

In the Recruiter's defense, Attorney Calcagni and his military defense counsel counterpart, Captain Jason S. Ballard – with whom Calcagni has a longstanding working relationship and proven track record – called two character witnesses. Both witnesses, former members of the Recruiter's chain of command, testified that the Recruiter was a flawless Non-Commissioned Officer, exceptional asset to the U.S. Army and recruiting community, and should be retained without question for future military service. One character witness further testified that decisions to refer the Recruiter for both an Article 15 and administrative separation may have been product of a biased command climate.

Attorney Calcagni presented further evidence that challenged the integrity of the Recruiter's Article 15 hearing, as well as the reliability of government’s evidence relied upon by the Article 15 officer, especially when compared to overwhelming evidence that exculpated the Recruiter from any wrongdoing. Attorney Calcagni – in a bold and brave manner – also challenged the credibility and veracity of the Recruiter’s chain of command, many of whom had made prejudicial remarks to recruiter before and during the Article 15 hearing; testified inconsistently with the evidence presented; and apparently engaged in coercion or other inappropriate actions during the course of investigation leading up to and following the Article 15 hearing.

After sworn testimony from the Recruiter himself, and a passionate and compelling closing argument by Attorney Calcagni claiming that "perception is not realty," "members in uniform are not impervious to human weaknesses of misrepresentation, bias, prejudice and self-interest,” and that the Recruiter was “entitled to a fair shake” both at the Article 15 hearing and at his separation hearing, the separation board members voted that the Recruiter did not engage in the thrust of the charged misconduct and should be retained for further military service in his recruiting capacity. Congratulations to this Soldier!


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

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.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Disorderly Conduct Charges Filed Against Post Super Bowl Fighters on UMASS Campus

If you have been charged with a criminal offense in MA or RI, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald now for a free consultation at (401) 421-1440.

14 arrested in post-Super Bowl fracas on UMass-Amherst campus; DA vows to ‘vigorously prosecute’ all suspects
By Colin A. Young, Globe Correspondent

A disturbance on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus following the New England Patriots’ Super Bowl loss Sunday night ended with the arrests of 13 students and one non-student. The students will face school sanctions as well as criminal charges, officials said.

UMass Amherst police said about 1,500 people gathered in the Southwest residential area of the campus when the Super Bowl ended around 10 p.m. Police said in a statement that officers told the growing crowd to disperse at 10:08 p.m., after “the crowd became unruly and a number of fights broke out.”

The 14 arrested will face charges of failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and, in some cases, rioting. They are to be arraigned Tuesdsay in Eastern Hampshire District Court.

“Our office intends to vigorously prosecute all individuals who were part of the riots on the University of Massachusetts campus,” Northwestern District Attorney David E. Sullivan said in a statement. “This behavior diminishes the image of the university and created a public safety hazard for the community.”

In a statement, UMass Amherst officials said the students will also face school discipline.

“Dean Enku Gelaye will review the cases under the code of student conduct, with students facing potential sanctions that can range up to suspension or expulsion,” the statement said.

University spokesman Daniel Fitzgibbons said there were no reports of injuries or damage stemming from the incident.

Friday, February 10, 2012

MA Peeping Tom Indicted by Grand Jury

If you have been charged with a sex crime in MA, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

Child pornography, wiretapping, and photographing an unsuspecting nude person were the charges brought against a Somerville MA man by a grand jury yesterday. Ryan Perez is accused of video-taping several women in a YMCA locker room.


Somerville man indicted on videotaping women at YMCA
February 7, 2012
By Matt Byrne, Town Correspondent

A Somerville man was indicted by a Middlesex County grand jury today on multiple charges after he allegedly filmed multiple women in a YMCA locker room, authorities said.

Ryan A. Perez, 24, was indicted by on four counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude person, three counts of possession of child pornography, and wiretapping, according to the office of Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone.

According to authorities, Perez was discovered by a Somerville Y patron in the women's locker room Nov. 1 about 9:30 a.m. recording video of partially clothed women with a cellphone from underneath a bathroom stall.

Police searched the phone and found six videos created that day in roughly an hour, in addition to 23 images of child pornography.

Perez was initially arraigned the same day in Somerville District Court on lesser charges and was released on the condition he stay away from the YMCA.

No arraignment date has been set for the new charges, Leone's office said.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Choosing the Best Criminal Defense Attorney for Your Needs

Now that you have a better understand of the types of legal fees (link to first post), the question remains: how much does it cost to hire an attorney. The answer is still “it depends.” Legal fees vary by geographic area; the type and nature of the case involved; and the particular attorney you choose to hire. Clients are often under the mistaken belief that all attorneys are the same – one size fits all. This could not be further from the truth.


Attorneys, even those who practice in the same geographic area and work on the same types of cases, are not alike. Each attorney has his or her own unique experience and background. For instance, some lawyers have a lot of trial experience and some do not. Researching an attorney’s true experience and background can be difficult. With the legalization of advertising for attorneys, many try to dazzle potential clients with fancy websites and colorful language regarding their skills and abilities. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Meet with the attorney in person; ask around about his or her reputation; and request examples of cases they have worked on in the past.

Aside from experience, lawyers also have different values and personalities. Some lawyers are more hardworking and dedicated to client needs and concerns than others. For instance, how many times have you heard the complaint that “my lawyer never returns phone calls” or “my lawyer is always out of the office.” These complaints do not describe all lawyers equally. Some lawyers return client calls the very same day the client leaves the message. Others work nights and weekends to be available to clients who otherwise work during the day and cannot meet with their lawyer during normal business hours.

The bottom line is that when it comes to lawyers, just like restaurants, automobiles and other consumer goods, the old adage holds true: you get what you pay for. If you prefer a lawyer who charges discount prices, you will certainly find one. However, if you choose to hire such a lawyer, do not be surprised if their representation has the same 'discount' quality. Perhaps you prefer higher quality and competence over discount prices.

Whatever your needs may be, take the time to find a lawyer who is right for you. When it comes to legal representation, choose an attorney who is qualified, competent, experienced, caring and devoted to your case. After all, what price is too high to pay for your rights and your future?

If you are in need of quality and experienced legal representation, and you want a lawyer who is responsive to your needs; returns phone calls; is available to you anytime and anywhere; knows the law; and will fight for your rights, call Attorney John L. Calcagni III today for a free consultation. Contact us now at 401-351-5100 or jc@calcagnilaw.com.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Domestic Assault Case Results

If you have been charged with a domestic assault or an assault and battery crime in RI, MA, or on a Federal level, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Domestic Assault: Dismissed
November 2011
Two brothers had a physical altercation in their parents’ home.  The incident began with the two brothers spending the day drinking.  Some time thereafter, the two got into a verbal disagreement.  The agreement escalated when the younger brother picked up a chair and threw it at his older brother in their family home.  The two then engaged in a fight, which prompted the older brother to contact 9-1-1 and notify the police that he had been assaulted.  The younger brother was placed under arrest and a no-contact order was imposed preventing him from having any contact with his brother.  The younger brother retained Attorney Calcagni to represent him in this matter.  Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated at a pretrial conference for the dismissal of this charge.  The case and its charge were dismissed and the younger brother will not sustain a criminal record from this incident.