Comm. V. S.H. (Plymouth Superior Court, January, 2018). Defendant was 1 of 3 men charged with aggravated rape, assault and battery on a disabled person, kidnapping, and witness intimidation. The defendants were all in jail at the time of the alleged offenses. The charges stemmed from allegations that they pushed another inmate into a cell, stripped him, and searched him looking for suboxone - a drug the alleged victim smuggled into the jail. Despite the fact that much of the encounter was on video, up to the time the inmate was brought into the cell, Attorney Caramanica secured a not guilty verdict on all counts for his client after a lengthy jury trial. The alleged victim's story was contradicted on many accounts and Attorney Caramanica pointed out that the investigation was inadequate and forensic testing that was done did not support the allegations.
Commonwealth v. J.R. (Plymouth Superior Court, Nov. 2017). Defendant was charged with trafficking in heroin when her car was stopped for not having an inspection sticker. When the car was stopped, the police claimed to have observed pills in plain view in the defendant's pocketbook and a discarded knotted baggie on the rear floor of the car. The defendant and driver were ordered out of the car. A search uncovered a large quantity of drugs and case. The defendant's car and over $9,000 were seized. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress - challenged both the stop and the following exit order and search. The motion to suppress was allowed. The Commonwealth dismissed the case. The defendant's car and cash were returned.
Commonwealth v. A.R. (Attleboro District Court, Nov 2017). Defendant was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (knife). The alleged victim contended the defendant came into her apartment and threatened her, holding a knife to her throat. The matter was put on for trial and it was dismissed with the alleged victim did not appear
Commonwealth v. A.O. (2017, Attleboro District Court). A.O. was charged with OUI.
A.O.'s vehicle operation was captured on police cruiser video, showing the car crossed a double yellow line 2 times before it was pulled over. The initial police interaction with the defendant was video and audio recorded. After a short period of time the officer returned to his cruiser to run a vehicle inquiry. Upon returning to approach A.O. to make further inquiry, the officer turned off his audio recorder. A.O. then took field sobriety tests. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to dismiss the OUI charge on the grounds that the destruction of evidence deprived A.O. of critical exculpatory evidence and in effect would compel A.O. to have to testify at trial to contradict the officer's testimony. The judge allowed the motion and the OUI was dismissed.
Commonwealth v. J.P. (2017, Plymouth Superior Court). J.P. Was one of nine defendants charged with multiple counts of armed home invasion, armed robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Attorney Caramanica quickly moved to separate J.P.'s case from the co-defendants and moved for trial. The Commonwealth moved to continue the trial over Attorney Caramanica's objection, to join J.P.'s case with some of the other co-defendants. The Commonwealth's motion to join was denied and the case set down for trial. In the meantime, the Commonwealth entered into agreements with 3 cooperating witnesses to testify against J.P. The case was dismissed on the day of trial when the Commonwealth could not get one of the witnesses to the trial to testify under immunity. Without that testimony, the testimony of the other two cooperating witnesses was not admissible. The case was dismissed by the trial judge after Attorney Caramanica successfully argued that any continuance would violate J.P.'s right to a speedy trial.
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.
Comm. V. D.W. (Brockton District Court, September, 2018). Defendant was charged with OUI, 2nd offense, and negligent operation after he was pulled over by town police for erratic operation of his motor vehicle. The Defendant started to perform field sobriety tests but stopped. Police claim the partial performance was poor, but cross examination demonstrated performance was satisfactory. The defense played about 15 minutes of the 1 hour booking video, which showed the Defendant's demeanor and appearance were normal and evidence no signs of alcohol impairment. Defendant was found not guilty after trial. A post-trial motion for restoration of the Defendant's license was allowed - ending a 3 year suspension for refusing to take the breathalyzer.
Comm. V. B.B. (Attleboro District Court, August, 2018). Defendant was charged with assault and battery and assault and battery on a family/household member. The alleged victim had made a number of similar complaints against the Defendant, her boyfriend. The alleged victim did not appear for trial. The Commonwealth proceeded at trial and attempted to prove the case with so-called admissions made by the Defendant. The Defendant was found not guilty after trial.
CONVICTION OVERTURNED: Comm. V. Curtis Combs, (July 5, 2018). Attorney Caramanica represented the Defendant in this 2011 trial, as 1 of 2 defendants tried separately for first degree murder. The defense at trial was that, at best, the co-defendant committed a murder of the alleged victim in Connecticut, drove the alleged victim to Springfield, MA, where he sought the aid of the Defendant in disposing the body. Essentially, the defense was that (i) there was no evidence the murder was committed in Massachusetts so there was no jurisdiction over the charge, and (ii) the Defendant, at worst, simply was forced to aid the co-defendant after the fact. The SJC noted the case against the Defendant was circumstantial evidence and inferences to be drawn from that evidence. But, the SJC pointed out that there was insufficient evidence that the murder occurred in Massachusetts and, without such facts, the jury was left to guess whether the victim was killed in Connecticut or Massachusetts.
CONVICTION OVERTURNED: Comm. V. Jeffrey Anitus, 93 Mass.App.Ct. 104 (April 6, 2018). Attorney Caramanica represented the defendant at trial, where the Defendant was convicted of armed robbery while masked, of a 2013 robbery of a Burger King in Easton, MA. Defense at trial focused on an alibi the Defendant asserted, corroborated by three witnesses - including a police officer, and challenges to DNA (a mixture of the Defendant's and other unknown contributors) on a bandana found at the scene which was discarded by one of the perpetrators. The appeals court concluded the DNA evidence found on a movable object at the scene did not provide sufficient information to determine when the DNA was deposited on the objects, such that DNA evidence alone or in combination with the other attenuated evidence presented by the Commonwealth, was not sufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction. The appeals attorney was quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly cited Attorney Caramanica's expensive cross examination of the Commonwealth's DNA expert as aiding the appeal.
Comm. V. J.A. (Attleboro District Court, February, 2018). Defendant, a corrections office, was charged with assault and battery and related charges on his soon to be ex-wife. The alleged victim applied for a restraining order. Cross examination at the restraining order hearing resulted in the order not being issued as applied for. Preparation at trial resulted in another hearing, with a cross-complaint being issued against the alleged victim. The charges against the Defendant were dismissed on the date of trial when the alleged victim exercised her 5th amendment privilege not to testify.
Comm. V. Z.Z. (Plymouth Superior Court, January, 2018). Defendant was one of several women initially charged with sex trafficking and related charges due to "John" stops made by local police, with the aid of the U.S. State Department, at massage parlors. A defense motion to suppress critical evidence seized from areas of the massage parlor that were beyond the scope of the search warrant was allowed. This lead to a successful plea negotiation where the Defendant was put on probation for just 6 months, and a substantial amount of cash seized was returned to the Defendant.
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.