Commonwealth v. J.C. Attleboro District Court (2016) Defendant, who was very well known to the police, was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on an invalid search and seizure of the defendant as he was leaving a car that was stopped by the police. The motion to suppress was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the charges.
Commonwealth v. D.P. Brockton District Court (2016). Defendant was a passenger in a car that was stopped as a result of 2 witnesses claiming the Defendant had threatened them with a gun. At trial, Attorney Caramanica successfully challenged the police officer's claims that he saw the Defendant throw the gun from the passenger window during a stop of the vehicle. Attorney Caramanica used photos of a similar vehicle and crime scene photos obtained from his investigator to successfully argue the officer could not have seen what he claimed to have seen. The Defendant was found not guilty after a 2 day trial.
Commonwealth v. R.C. Taunton District Court (2016). The Defendant was charged with indecent assault and battery (reduced from rape) upon his daughter. The Defendant was found not guilty after a 3 day jury trial.
Commonwealth v. R.R. Fall River District Court (2015). The Defendant was charged with OUI and negligent operation of a motor vehicle after being observed and pursued by the state police. After a 2 day jury trial, the Defendant was found not guilty of the OUI and guilty on the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The Defendant was sentenced to probation.
Commonwealth v. H.L. Attleboro District Court (2015). The Defendant was charged with 2nd offense OUI and negligent operation of a motor vehicle after going off the road and onto a yard. The Defendant was found not guilty after a 2 day jury trial.
Commonwealth v. M.M., Fall River Superior Court (2014). The defendant was charged in district court with firearm offenses and attempted murder based on an alleged gang related drive-by shooting. The prosecution moved to have the defendant held without bail as dangerous person. The motion was denied in Superior Court. The defendant was eventually indicted to superior court. Attorney Caramanica investigated the alleged crime scene and located alibi witnesses for the defendant. The dangerousness hearing also uncovered substantial inconsistencies in the stories of the prosecutions key witness. The prosecution dismissed the case on the day trial was to begin when the key witness failed to appear or cooperate.
Commonwealth v. J.B, Attleboro District Court (2014). The defendant was walking at about 2 a.m. near the downtown area of Attleboro when he was stopped by the police. The police claimed there had been over 70 motor vehicle break-ins in the recent months. After being ordered to sit on the sidewalk and cross his legs, the police learned the defendant had outstanding warrants. A later search of the defendant uncovered items that were allegedly stolen from a motor vehicle and the defendant was charged with knowingly receiving stolen property. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress all evidence based on a warrantless search and seizure. After hearing, the motion was allowed and all evidence was suppressed. The case was then dismissed.
Commonwealth v. T.E., Attleboro District Court (2014). The defendant was charged with rape of two nieces in a complaint that was filed over 7 years after the alleged incidents. The charges were reduced to indecent assault and battery to remain in district court. Prior to trial, the prosecution dismissed the complaint of one of the alleged victims. At trial, Attorney Caramanica successfully prevented the prosecution from offering its intended "first complaint" evidence. The defendant was found not guilty after a one day trial.
Commonwealth v. J.C., Fall River Superior Court (2014). The defendant was a passenger in a motor vehicle stopped by the police in the town in which he lives. The defendant was subsequently charged with trafficking in cocaine. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress the evidence and challenged the stop of the defendant. After a hearing, the motion to suppress was allowed and the stop was found to be unlawful. The charge against the defendant was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. E.M. (2014). The defendant was charged with breaking and entering and conspiracy after the vehicle she was operating was stopped by the police when an off-duty police officer saw an unknown young man leave a home, get into the defendant's car, and speed away. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the stop was unlawful. After a hearing, the motion to suppress was allowed and the charges against the defendant were dismissed.
Commonwealth v. J.S., Fall River Superior Court (2013). The defendant, a 20 year military man that was going through a divorce, was charged with attempted murder, rape, witness intimidation, and aggravated assault and battery by his estranged wife. She claimed that the acts took place at their home in the morning after the kids left for school. She presented with significant facial bruising and was treated at 3 hospitals. The defense was that the case simply involved an argument between divorcing spouses wherein the defendant acted in self-defense from a wife that became crazed during a discussion about finances. Defense investigation uncovered the wife had cheated with her former brother-in-law less than 1 month before her claims against the defendant. After a several day trial, the jury returned verdicts of NOT GUILTY on the charges of rape and the wife was making up the allegations of rape, attempted murder, and witness intimidation.
Commonwealth v. D.T., Nantucket Superior Court (2013). The defendant, a mother of a 4 year old child, was charged with 2nd degree murder in the death of her child. The defendant raised the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. After a 3 day trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY due to lack of criminal responsibility.
Commonwealth v. S.M., Brockton Superior Court (2013). The defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder, 3 counts of assault and battery, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon for allegedly attacking his then girlfriend. Defendant's witnesses included an expert that testified that injuries the alleged victim had were not consistent with her version of the events. After a 3 day jury trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY of all counts.
Commonwealth v. C.E., Supreme Judicial Court (2013). The defendant was charged with trafficking in heroin and cocaine. Before trial, Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to have the prosecution disclose the identity of it's so-called confidential informant. The prosecution appealed the trial judge's decision to confirm or deny the identity of the informant to the Supreme Judicial Court. Attorney Caramanica argued before the SJC that disclosure was warranted. The SJC affirmed the trial judge's ruling and ordered the prosecution to confirm or deny the believed identity of the informant. This was a major victory for the defense as such a decision is infrequent from the SJC.
Commonwealth v. A.D., Fall River Superior Court (2012). The defendant was on pre-trial conditions of release that put him on home confinement with electronic monitoring. The defendant was to be released for medical appointments only or court appointments. The district attorney's office notified the defendant's probation officer that letters to the probation officer that allowed the defendant to be released were forged. The defendant was then charged under the witness intimidation statute for interfering with or misleading a probation officer in a court proceeding. The prosecution presented a nurse practitioner and probation officer to testify about the forged letters. The trial judge allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss the case at the end of the prosecution's case and the CASE WAS DISMISSED.
Commonwealth v. F.A., Attleboro District Court (2011). The defendant and alleged victim shared an apartment. The defendant was accused of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (reduced from assault to murder) for allegedly stabbing his roommate in a fight at their apartment. After a 1 day jury trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. C.B., Waltham District Court (2011). The defendant was charged with possession of a class D substance with intent to distribute, a school zone offense, and other drug offenses when 32 marijuana plants were found in his rented apartment during the execution of a search warrant. The prosecution witnesses included the landlord, detectives conducting the search, and a "drug" expert. The jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY after a 2 day trial.
Commonwealth v. W.S., Brockton Superior Court (2010). The defendant, a grandfather, was accused of raping his teenage granddaughter. The incident supposedly happened 2 years before it was reported. The prosecution witnesses included the granddaughter, her father - a police officer, and the defendant's recorded interview. After a 4 day jury trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. L.J., Taunton Superior Court (2010). The defendant was charged with armed assault to rob in a dwelling, assault with a dangerous weapon, armed assault to rob, and other offenses. It was alleged that the defendant entered the home of a person to buy drugs and beat the person with a gun in an effort to rip-off the drugs. After a 3 day jury trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. E.J., New Bedford Superior Court (2010). The defendant was charged under the witness intimidation statute for lying to the police during a murder investigation. After a 2 day jury trial, the judge allowed a motion to dismiss the case at the end of the prosecution's case. The case WAS DISMISSED.
Commonwealth v. M.M., Brockton Superior Court (2010). The defendant was previously convicted of assault and battery on a corrections officer, and other offenses, while he was in jail on another matter. The case was overturned on appeal and the defendant got a new trial, now represented by Attorney Caramanica. During the defense, Attorney Caramanica demonstrated several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and established there was no physical evidence the attack ever occurred and the evidence had been destroyed or lost. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY after a several day jury trial.
Commonwealth v. K.H., Plymouth Superior Court (2010). The defendant was charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery. It was alleged that the defendant was a drug dealer and kidnapped an associate of his that owed him money. It was also alleged that the defendant tried to kill this person. After a several day jury trial, the defendant as found NOT GUILTY of attempted murder and assault and battery. The kidnapping charge was dismissed. The jury only returned a guilty verdict on the assault and battery with dangerous weapon charge.
Commonwealth v. A.J., Attleboro District Court (2010). Defendant was charged with OUI and driving negligently after being stopped by the police. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Commonwealth v. K.S., Taunton District Court (2010). Defendant was originally charged with rape but it was reduced to indecent assault and battery and witness intimidation. The prosecution's case included the testimony of the alleged victim, police officers, and a DNA expert. The defense DNA expert refuted the prosecution's DNA expert and testified that there was another unknown DNA source on the alleged victim. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. W.B., New Bedford Superior Court (2009). The defendant was accused of raping this much younger female high school student. The prosecution witnesses included a "first complaint' witness. During the several day jury trial, Attorney Caramanica discredited much of the alleged victim's statement through a number of statements she made to other people and there was no corroborating evidence of any physical injuries. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Attorney Caramanica has also successfully argued a number of cases that were dismissed before trial on motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause or as a result of successful motions to suppress evidence.