Heroin Trafficking Criminal Case Results

Heroin Trafficker: Probation for 24 Months.

The Commonwealth indicted a known drug trafficker with charges of Heroin Trafficking; Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin; and Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. These charges stemmed from discovery of illegal narcotics and drug trafficking paraphernalia in the man’s apartment upon execution of a search warrant.

After nearly two years of pretrial conferences and motions, Attorney Calcagni successfully had all charges dismissed, except that pertaining to marijuana, for which the man received a sentence of probation.

In the fall of 2011, police secured a search warrant for the second floor apartment of a multi-family or three-family dwelling. The warrant was issued solely on the basis of information provided to police from a confidential informant who relayed that he purchased heroin on a number of occasions from the apartment’s occupant. The occupant, a young man, was a known drug trafficker with a history of drug offenses on his criminal record. The man resided in the second floor apartment of this home with his common-law spouse and three daughters. Based on this information, police secured a warrant to search the residence.

Multiple officers visited the occupants’ home early one morning. They entered the building and ascended to the second floor apartment. Officers then forcefully entered the home and secured the known trafficker and his family members. Officers then proceeded to search the interior of the apartment. In the apartment itself, police located and seized a total of nearly two ounces or 55.7 grams of marijuana. These drugs were packaged in different bags and stored in different locations within the kitchen. Police also discovered clear plastic baggies and a digital scale, two items believed to be tools of the drug trade. Officers also located and seized approximately $8,800.00 in U.S. currency from inside the master bedroom. No additional drugs or drug-related paraphernalia was located inside the apartment. 

While searching the apartment, one of the officers participating in the warrant execution located an old-fashioned skeleton key. The officer surmised that the key would unlock a door located somewhere inside the multi-family dwelling. Based on this hunch, the officer ascended to the third floor platform of the house and located a door adjacent to the third-floor apartment. Due to the officer’s familiarity with this standard style multi-family dwelling home, the officer believed the doorway led to an upstairs attic. The officer tried the door, but discovered that it was locked and secured. He then inserted the skeleton key that he found in the trafficker’s apartment. The key successfully unlocked the door. The officer then ascended upstairs into the attic without the knowledge or consent of the trafficker, a resident of that multifamily dwelling, or any other person. He enlisted the assistance of another fellow officer. The two thoroughly searched the attic, which led to the discovery of 146.6 grams of marijuana hidden inside a hole in the wall along the attic stairway. Officers also located 17.6 grams of heroin stored inside a hidden zipper compartment located on the back of a stuffed animal that was found co-located with other children’s toys.

Based on the items discovered from the search, the known trafficker was taken into police custody and charged with a series of narcotics offenses. Weeks later, the Commonwealth indicted the man for Heroin Trafficking; Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin; and Possession with the Intent to Distribute Marijuana. The known trafficker had prior drug convictions on his record. If convicted of these indicted offenses, the Heroin Trafficking charge alone carried a mandatory minimum jail sentence of three years in jail with a maximum potential sentence of fifteen (15) years. The other charges, Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana carried potential jail sentences of five (5) to fifteen (15) years and one (1) to two and one half (2 1Ž2) years, respectively. The known trafficker and his family hired Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent and defend him against these serious drug charges.

Attorney Calcagni’s first line of attack on this case was to challenge and call into question the police conduct and the search warrant execution. The defense filed a motion to suppress challenging the scope of the search as unlawful in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Specifically, the defense motion alleged that the police conduct ran afoul of the limitations to search set forth within the four corners of the search warrant. The warrant specifically provided the police with lawful authority to search the man’s second floor apartment of the multi-dwelling home where he and his family resided. The warrant did not provide police with authority to search any other aspect of the premises to include the attic. Notwithstanding this limitation, the police took it upon themselves to seize a skeleton key that was located within the man’s apartment; ascend to the third floor landing of the multi-family dwelling; use the key to unlock a locked attic door; ascend up one additional flight of stairs into the attic; and unilaterally expand the scope of the search. The Commonwealth objected to the defense motion, arguing that the locked attic was a natural extension of the known trafficker’s apartment.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the motion to suppress. At the hearing, the Commonwealth carried the heavy burden of proving that the police acted lawfully when executing a search warrant at the man’s apartment. In an effort to meet this burden, the Commonwealth presented two law officers who participated in the warrant execution. On cross-examination by Attorney Calcagni, the officers admitted that their warrant limited the search to the man’s second floor apartment and did not contain permission to ascend into or search inside the upstairs attic. The officers also conceded that the attic itself was located two flights above the man’s second floor apartment and was locked at the time officers arrived to the third floor landing where the attic door is located. It was only with the key seized from the man’s apartment that officers were able to gain access to the attic.

After the officers testified, Attorney Calcagni called the landlord of the multi-dwelling home to testify. She indicated that though she is the landlord, she also resides in the first floor apartment and in the fall of 2011, when the warrant at issue was executed, her daughter resided on the third floor above the known trafficker. She also relayed to the Court that only the tenants of the home had access to the attic, which remained under lock and key at all times and was not considered a common area open or viewable to the public. Each tenant was issued a key to the attic upon moving into the home and the practice was for the attic to remain locked at all times unless being accessed by one of the tenants. Based on this collective evidence, the Court agreed with Attorney Calcagni’s analysis and argument that the police, when executing the warrant, exceeded their authority. The Court further agreed with Attorney Calcagni that this incident violated the man’s constitutional rights, and therefore, granted the defense motion. The effect of this decision resulted in the Court ordering as suppressed all evidence seized from the attic of the man’s home, including the quantities of marijuana and heroin.

Following the Court’s favorable ruling for the defense, the Commonwealth had no additional evidence to move forward with its prosecution of the known trafficker on the most serious charges of Heroin Trafficking and Possession with Intent to Deliver Heroin. As a result, the prosecutor voluntarily motioned to dismiss them, which the Court approved. With the most serious charges no longer pending, the man solely faced one remaining charge of Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. 

Attorney Calcagni next successfully negotiated with the prosecutor that no jail time or suspended jail time be imposed. Instead, he and the prosecutor reached an agreement that in exchange for the man’s admission of guilt to the remaining marijuana charge, he would receive a sentence of two years of probation. Based on this joint agreement and recommendation, the man offered his guilty plea to Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana to the Court. The Court accepted the man’s plea and adopted the parties’ sentencing recommendation of probation. Attorney Calcagni’s efforts reduced what was otherwise a mandatory jail case involving serious drug trafficking felonies to a less serious marijuana distribution charge with a probation sentence.

Congratulations to this client.

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

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 , Assault and Battery and all criminal matters.

As a Criminal and Military Defense Attorney and former prosecutor with the US Army JAG Corps, John Calcagni, is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as the state and federal courts in Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Florida and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Phone Evidence Not Allowed to be Used in NJ Drug Trafficking Case

Phone conversations and text messages captured by wiring tapping in a drug trafficking case in New Jersey will not be allowed as evidence, ruled a state appellate court recently. The accused drug traffickers are a married couple that allegedly ran a drug distribution network. The recorded conversations were ruled by an appellate judge to be privileged communications between a husband and wife, and thus not admissible as evidence in the trial.

Click the link below to read more on this case, and the prosecutor’s reaction to the court’s decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57585564-504083/married-couple-protected-against-wiretaps-in-…

If you find yourself accused of a drug trafficking or narcotics offense, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III to learn about your options. Mr. Calcagni is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney serving New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Call his office at 401-351-5100 for a free telephone consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Large Scale Drug Trafficker Who Faced Possible 40-Year Sentence Released on Time Served After Spending 17 Months in Jail.

A man believed to be associated with an international drug trafficking organization was apprehended in connection with a seizure of more than 650 pounds of marijuana.  He was then charged by federal authorities for being part of a drug conspiracy.  The man faced a possible sentence of 40 years in jail.  However, after retaining Attorney John L. Calcagni III, he received a remarkable sentence of time served after spending only 17 months in jail. 

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force (TF) comprised of local and federal law enforcement agents conducted a long term investigation regarding a known drug trafficker (hereinafter “KDT”).  KDT was previously convicted of cocaine-related charges some time ago.  He served a jail sentence and had since been released.  TF agents began watching him closely again based on suspicions that he had returned to selling drugs.

In March 2011, agents conducted surveillance of KDT.  They followed him from his home to a mall in Providence, RI.  KDT traveled there in his personal vehicle accompanied by a second unidentified Hispanic male.  Upon arriving at the mall, agents observed a third unidentified man get into the known trafficker’s vehicle (hereinafter “Mr. X”).  The three men then returned to KDT’s apartment.  Sometime later, agents observed KDT depart from his apartment accompanied by two additional Hispanic males.  The three men traveled to a truck rental agency and rented a commercial box truck.  The men then returned to KDT’s apartment – KDT and one unidentified male were in KDT’s vehicle and the second unidentified male (third male in total) operated the box truck. 

Approximately one hour later, agents observed Mr. X emerge from KDT’s apartment and enter the box truck.  He proceeded onto the interstate highway and traveled several miles to a roadside hotel.  Mr. X exited the box truck and walked into the hotel.  Less than one hour later, Mr. X emerged from the hotel with two additional unidentified males (hereinafter “Mr. Y” and “Mr. Z”).  The three men entered the box truck with Mr. X as driver.  The three men proceeded back onto the interstate in the opposite direction from which Mr. X had come.  They got off the highway several miles away and drove into the parking lot of a Home Depot Store.  They then exited the truck and went into the store.   Once inside, agents observed Mr. X purchase two pairs of work gloves.  After this purchase, the men got back into the box truck, this time with Mr. Y driving, and drove down the roadway.  At this time, Mr. X sat in the middle and Mr. Z sat in the passenger seat.  About one mile down the road, the box truck came to a stop.  Mr. X exited the truck at an intersection and proceeded to walk into a nearby donut shop.  Mr. Y and Mr. Z drove off in the box truck and traveled several miles to a commercial shipping depot.  Upon arrival, the box truck proceeded into the shipping depot’s parking lot and drove around to the back of the warehouse, presumably to a loading dock.  Law enforcement agents performing surveillance of these events lost sight of the vehicle for approximately 15 minutes. 

After several minutes, the box truck emerged again and departed from the shipping depot.  Law enforcement agents on surveillance radioed for the assistance of uniformed patrol officers after concluding that the box truck had likely picked up a large shipment of drugs at the depot.  The lead agent of this investigation advised the patrol officers to find probable cause required to conduct  a traffic stop and to in fact stop the box truck.  The lead agent also radioed for the assistance of a K9 drug detection dog to come on scene after the truck was stopped.  Moments after leaving the shipping depot, and only a few miles down the road, a uniformed officer stopped the truck on the basis that it allegedly “failed to use a turn signal while turning.”  The truck pulled over without incident and into a residential driveway.

Once the truck came to a stop, the uniformed officer approached the driver’s side.  The driver, Mr. Y, emerged and encountered the patrol officer.  Mr. Z, who the uniformed officer did not notice at first, quietly exited the passenger side while the officer was tending to the driver.  He then ran several yards away from the scene and entered a gas station convenience store.  Undercover agents on surveillance observed Mr. Z’s actions and apprehended him in the gas station.  The patrol officer who stopped the vehicle ultimately placed Mr. Y under arrest, as he was operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license. 

While the box truck was secured and before the K9 arrived, TF agents located Mr. X who was sitting in the nearby donut shop while sipping coffee and eating a donut.  Agents then radioed for the assistance of additional uniformed officers, who they advised that Mr. X was wanted for questioning in connection with an ongoing investigation.   According to independent witnesses, the uniformed officers surrounded the donut shop and entered it with their weapons drawn.  As they stepped through the door, one of the officers loudly announced “put your hands up” and “don’t move.”  Another officer immediately proceeded to handcuff and detain Mr. X, who was then secured in the backseat of a police cruiser and whisked away to a nearby police station.

A K9 officer and his drug detection dog arrived on scene after all three men (Mr. X, Y and Z) were taken into custody.  The K9 officer released his dog and gave it a command to search for drugs in the rear compartment of the box truck.  The compartment contained two large pallets piled high with plastic crates that were wrapped in cellophane.  The pallets had shipping labels indicating they initiated from San Diego, CA.  The K9 dog entered the truck compartment and alerted to the presence of drugs inside the crates.    Officers then secured the truck and transported it to a nearby, secret evidence collection warehouse for further analysis.  The TF agents dismantled the pallets and opened the separate plastic crates stored thereon.  Each crate contained a cardboard box and two vacuumed sealed bundles of marijuana.  In total, the officers discovered 12 crates and boxes and 24 bundles of marijuana that weighed in total more than 655 pounds. 

The discovery of the marijuana formed the basis of federal criminal charges against the men, including Mr. X, for engaging in a drug conspiracy.  Specifically, the federal government through theU.S. Attorney’s office charged Mr. X with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Possess and Distribute More than 250 Kilograms of Marijuana, and Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 250 Kilograms of Marijuana.  These charges carried a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five (5) years and a potential maximum sentence of (40) years.  Mr. X was arraigned on these charges. Because of the nature of the drug charges and potential exposure on sentencing, he was held without bail. 

On the day of his arrest, Mr. X left his home and family, including his wife and then 8-month old daughter, in their San Diego, CA apartment.   He boarded a flight bound for Boston, MA and had every intention of returning within a few days.  To his surprise, he was arrested by federal authorities, charged with federal drug offenses, and held without bail.  When Mr. X’s wife learned of her husband’s circumstances, she immediately boarded a flight to the east coast.  Upon arrival, she began researching criminal defense lawyers who she thought could help her husband.  She sought an attorney who specialized in criminal defense, was well-known in the New England area, had extensive trial and federal court experience, and was honest, ethical and reliable.  She ultimately retained the services of Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent Mr. X.

Attorney Calcagni outlined a strategy to defend Mr. X that first involved filing a motion to challenge his arrest and to suppress items discovered on his person, including multiple cell phones and a plane ticket that showed he flew to Boston from San Diego – the same place from where the pallets of marijuana originated.  Attorney Calcagni filed the motion alleging the Mr. X was unlawfully arrested in the absence of probable cause – i.e. there was no factual basis to believe a crime had been committed.  The government objected to this motion and the Court held an evidentiary hearing.  Though the Court agreed with Attorney Calcagni’s assertion that Mr. X was arrested in the absence of probable cause, the Court upheld the arrest on alternative grounds, thereby saving the government’s case against Mr. X from dismissal.  Attorney Calcagni’s next step in defending Mr. X was to negotiate a pretrial agreement after his client decided to plead guilty.  Attorney Calcagni negotiated an agreement that permitted Mr. X to plead to one count of engaging in a drug conspiracy in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts regarding Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 250 Kilograms of Marijuana.  The pretrial agreement also enabled Attorney Calcagni to argue at sentencing for less than the mandatory minimum jail sentence of five (5) years.

After Mr. X’s guilty plea was accepted by the Court, Attorney Calcagni shifted focus to one area of federal criminal practice that he masters – sentencing preparation.  He began by traveling to Tijuana, Mexico, where Mr. X was born, in order to spend time with his client’s family.  Attorney Calcagni flew from Providence, RI to San Diego, CA and crossed the United States / Mexico border on foot to Tijuana.  He then traveled to the neighborhood where Mr. X’s family resides, including his wife and young daughter. After Mr. X’s arrest, his wife and daughter were forced to leave their San Diego apartment and reside with other relatives in poverty stricken Tijuana.  Attorney Calcagni met with and interviewed his client’s family members, obtaining character statements and letters of support from them on Mr. X’s behalf for the Court’s consideration at Mr. X’s sentencing. 

Attorney Calcagni documented with photographs their homes, living conditions, and the neighborhood along the border where Mr. X grew up as a child.  After returning from Mexico, Attorney Calcagni spent time preparing Mr. X for sentencing.  This included drafting a letter by Mr. X to the Court accepting responsibility for his actions and documenting his self-rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated awaiting sentencing, such as working in the prison kitchen, attending weekly classes in U.S. History, and going to mental health counseling.  Attorney Calcagni lastly memorialized all of his sentencing efforts by drafting and submitting to the Court an important legal document called a sentencing memorandum.  This important document is submitted to the Court by both the defense and the government, outlining their respective sentencing arguments and punishment requests.

The final stage of Attorney Calcagni’s representation of Mr. X was at his sentencing hearing.  The government recommended to the Court that Mr. X receive a prolonged jail sentence.  In support of its request, government lawyers emphasized the quantity of marijuana seized by TF agents, its high street value, and Mr. X’s membership in a sophisticated large drug trafficking organization that had the resources, knowledge and client base to coordinate the cross-country transportation of large quantities of marijuana.  In response, Attorney Calcagni retorted that a prolonged or further jail sentence of Mr. X was unnecessary.   He cited persuasive facts, such as that Mr. X was a first-time offender and he played a minimal role in the charged misconduct in that he was not even found to be in possession of the drugs or in the truck that contained them when it was stopped by police.  Attorney Calcagni also argued that Mr. X had accepted responsibility and had engaged in multiple self-rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated. 

Lastly, and perhaps most persuasively, he showed the Court Mr. X’s family.  Attorney Calcagni showed the Court the family’s dangerous and poverty stricken living conditions in Tijuana. He showed the Court how Mr. X came from those same conditions and will return to them once released.  Attorney Calcagni also showed the Court that, while incarcerated, Mr. X had missed 17 months of his now 2 year-old daughter’s life.  Attorney Calcagni emphasized that the collateral punishment of missing his young daughter’s two birthdays, multiple holidays and countless “first time moments” were more punitive to a father than any jail sentence the Court could impose.  At the end of the hearing, the Court sided with Attorney Calcagni by sentencing Mr. X to time served (17 months) and a period of supervised release.  Congratulations to Mr. X on this exceptional result.

Motion to Suppress Drugs Case Result

If you have been charged with a drug related offense in RI, MA or on a Federal level, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Motion to Suppress Drugs Granted and Case Dismissed 

October 2011

A man was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and a Drug School Zone Violation, which makes it unlawful to possess drugs within 1000 feet of a school or 100 feet of a park.  These charges stemmed from the search of the man’s car by police, which uncovered a substantial quantity of marijuana from inside the automobile.  An undercover police officer, driving an unmarked police cruiser, drove into the parking lot of a neighborhood park during the daytime.  The officer observed a man sitting alone inside his vehicle.  There was no one else present in the park.  The officer did not observe any drug or other unlawful activity.  The officer also did not recognize or otherwise know the man.  The officer used a pair of binoculars to get a closer look at the man.  He specifically observed the man sitting in the driver’s seat of his car looking into his lap.  He then saw what he believed to be the man licking a marijuana cigar or blunt.  The officer immediately drove his unmarked cruiser next to the man’s car so that the driver’s side doors of each car were aligned.  As the officer pulled up, he observed loose tobacco on the ground outside of the man’s car, which the officer, based upon his training and experience, understood to be from a lawful cigar the man had emptied in order to roll a marijuana cigar or blunt.  The officer made no other observations or detected the odor of marijuana.  Based on his limited observations, the officer unilaterally opened the man’s car door; grabbed the apparent cigar from the man’s hand; and physically removed from his vehicle.  The officer then proceeded to search inside the passenger compartment where he discovered multiple bags of marijuana of varying quantities.  The officer then arrested the man and charged him with various drug offenses.  Attorney Calcagni was tasked with representing the man, who was a first-time offender.

In defense of the man, Attorney Calcagni sought to challenge the legality of the police conduct by filing a suppression motion.  The motion challenged the officer’s conduct of opening the man’s car door; grabbing an object from the man’s hand; physically removed the man from his vehicle; and searching inside.  The thrust of this argument was that the police violated the man’s 4th amendment right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.  If successful, the motion asked the Court to suppress as evidence against the man the drugs discovered by police in his vehicle.  The Court conducted a hearing on the defense motion.  After the hearing, the Court agreed with Attorney Calcagni that the man’s rights were violated.  As a remedy for this violation, the Court suppressed the discovered marijuana.  As a result of this favorable pretrial ruling, all charges against the man will soon be dismissed for lack of evidence. Ultimately, this client avoided a mandatory jail sentence associated with the drug charges and will not sustain a criminal record from this incident.

Steroids Distributor Case Results

If you have been charged with a drug related offense, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Steroids Distributor Sentenced to Term of Probation. 

October 2011

Man was charged with Introducing Misbranded Drug into Interstate Commerce, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), and Possession of Anabolic Steroids with the Intent to Distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(E). These charges followed a long-term drug investigation whereby federal authorities determined that the man was an online host of several internet-based steroid discussion boards used in connection with both the distribution and use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.  As a host on these websites, the man promoted and offered for sale numerous steroids and other illicit drugs.  The man specifically promoted his product; received orders for the product from various customers through email; forwarded such orders to his overseas suppliers; and then received shipment thereof in the United States.  Upon receipt of the product, the man re-packaged the steroids and other drugs for reshipment to his customers throughout the United States.

Federal agents, after gathering sufficient evidence against the man, arrested him following a motor vehicle stop and thereafter executed a search warrant for his home and personal storage container.  The searches led to the discovery of a large quantity of steroids with an estimated wholesale value of nearly $250,000.00.  Agents also discovered a firearm co-located with illegal product.

 

Based on the weight of evidence against the man, he determined it was in his best interest to plead guilty to the charged offenses.  Attorney Calcagni was tasked with representing this man throughout the plea process in U.S. District Court, and more importantly, at his sentencing hearing.   Attorney Calcagni successfully argued that the man be granted pretrial release while awaiting sentence.  During this time, the man focused his efforts on obtaining lawful employment; caring for his sick spouse who suffers from fibromyalgia; tending to his stepchildren; and recovering from his narcotics addiction, namely, to steroids.  The man remained on pretrial release for nearly one year and during this time, accomplished all of the aforementioned goals.  Attorney Calcagni spent time with the man and his family; acquired statements of support on the man’s behalf for presentation to the Court at sentencing; and other materials to present on his behalf.  Thereafter, Attorney Calcagni prepared and submitted a written sentencing memorandum and made an oral presentation at the sentencing hearing, both of which highlighted the man’s accomplishments on pretrial probation; acceptance of responsibility for his offenses; and his lack of criminal history. 

Based upon these collective factors and Attorney Calcagni’s efforts, the Court granted the man leniency by sentencing him to a term of probation opposed to the standard jail sentence for narcotics offenses.   Overall, the Defense built its case around a request that the man be afforded a second chance.  That request was well received by the Court and ultimately granted.  Congratulations to this client.

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.

Heroin Conspiracy Case Decided

RI Criminal Attorney Calcagni secures the following sentence for heroin conspiracy client.

FACTS:

Man was charged in connection with an international heroin trafficking organization. The government charges multiple defendants with being part of this organization. The matter proceeded to a jury trial and all defendants who exercised their right to trial were convicted. The evidence established that a group of men were importing heroin from Guatemala using body couriers. The couriers would ingest or swallow large quantities of heroin in the form of small pellets and board commercial aircraft bound for the United States. Upon arrival, the body couriers were picked up from the airport and transported to a safe house where they would pass the pellets of heroin. The organization then cut the heroin, repackaged it for sale in distribution quantities and sold it to a customer base transcending different states. The government’s evidence at trial consisted of video and photographic surveillance; thousands of wiretapped telephone conversations among members of the drug trafficking organization and their customers; airline records; seized narcotics; seized automobiles with hidden compartments used for transporting drugs; seized cell phones; seized U.S. currency; and drug manufacturing/distribution paraphernalia.

POTENTIAL SENTENCE:

Mandatory Minimum Sentence Imposed

ARGUMENT:

Attorney Calcagni represented one of the alleged body couriers. This man was convicted at trial and faced a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 10 years and a possible maximum jail sentence of life. In preparation for the sentencing hearing, Attorney Calcagni traveled to Guatemala to meet his client’s family. He visited them in their homes located in Guatemala City, Guatemala. He interviewed the client’s wife, children, siblings and parents. He also visited the grave sites of various relatives who had passed away during his client’s incarceration. Attorney Calcagni’s main purpose for the trip was to capture on film and with photography the extreme poverty stricken and crime-ridden conditions where his client’s family resides. He also used the trip as an opportunity to come to better understand his client, such as his background, upraising and life circumstances. Attorney Calcagni used this experience and information he gained throughout his Guatemalan travels to advocate to the sentencing judge that his client receive no more punishment than the mandatory minimum allowable by law.

SENTENCE:

Attorney Calcagni’s plea to the Court was successful in that his client was ultimately sentenced to 121 months of incarceration – 1 month above the mandatory minimum of 120.

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni defends Drug Trafficking Organization Leader; Avoids Possible Life Sentence

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni recently defended a Drug Trafficking Organization Leader. Strong arguments at sentencing he helps client Avoid Possible Life Sentence. See the case details below. If you have questions on Criminal Defense please call (401) 351-5100 or visit www.CalcagniLaw.com to arrange for a free consultation about your case.

CHARGES: Man charged by the federal government as being a leader of a large-scale cocaine and crack cocaine drug trafficking organization.

CASE DETAILS: Man was apprehended following a long term investigating involving wiretapped cell phones and undercover confidential informants who participated in controlled purchases of large quantities of crack and powder cocaine.  Man was ultimately arrested in his home when police executed a warrant for his arrest.  At the time of his arrest, the man was discovered to be in possession of several hundred grams of cocaine and approximately $70,000.00 in cash.  The man ultimately pled guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, an offense carrying a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 10 years, and a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

RESULTS: Attorney Calcagni went to extreme measures to gather evidence for the man’s sentencing hearing.  This included traveling to the Dominican Republic, where the man is from, and interviewing his many family members who live under poverty stricken circumstances.  Attorney Calcagni obtained statements and photos from all of the man’s relatives in the DR, and with these materials, presented a compelling case at the man’s sentencing hearing.  As a result of these tremendous efforts, Attorney Calcagni convinced the Court to sentence the man to 124 months in prison – 4 months above the statutory mandatory minimum.  Admittedly still a stiff sentence and grim reality for the Defendant, however; another tremendous victory by Attorney Calcagni.



If you have questions on Criminal Defense please call (401) 351-5100 or visit www.CalcagniLaw.com to arrange for a free consultation about your case.



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

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.