Recent Murder Case Results
Commonwealth v. W.H. (Worcester Superior Court, June, 2022)
WH was charged with first degree murder, witness intimidation, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition stemming from the 2015 murder of his close friend. Attorney Caramanica prepared the case fully for trial and litigated a number of motions to suppress, including statements made by WH. The motions to suppress were allowed in part – preventing some of the statements of WH from being used at trial. Negotiations between the prosecution and defense resulted in a plea to manslaughter, reduced from first degree murder, as well as to other charges. This enabled WH to avoid a life without parole sentence, and be eligible for parole on his sentences on the charges.
Commonwealth v. D.B. (Fall River Superior Court, Sept. 2019)
DB was charged as a joint venturer in a 2010 murder. DB was not charged until 2015. The charges stemmed from cooperation given by DB’s uncle – in exchange for a reduced federal prison sentence. Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination of the cooperating witness demonstrated the witness had lied to the police on a number of instances relating to this case, including his whereabouts after the murder, and that the police did not even follow up on his story when Attorney Caramanica demonstrated to the police – well before trial – that the cooperating witness was not truthful. Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination of the prosecutions DNA and fingerprint witnesses also demonstrated the police investigation was below standard and that there was no forensic evidence linking DB the crimes. After a jury trial over 2 weeks, the jury returned not guilty verdicts in under 4 hours.
Commonwealth v. D.L. (Fall River Superior Court, February, 2020)
DL, a juvenile, was charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of the ex-boyfriend of his sister, in the driveway of DL’s home. The shooting was captured on video. Attorney Caramanica retained experts to develop information on DL’s background and history. Recognizing the case involved a self-defense claim as well, Attorney Caramanica was able to persuade the prosecution to reduce the charge to manslaughter and offer DL a favorable sentence.
Commonwealth v. J.S. (Fall River Superior Court, March, 2019)
JS, a juvenile, was charged with first degree murder resulting from a shooting partially caught on video. Attorney Caramanica successfully suppressed the only identification made of JS by a witness as the shooting scene. As a result, the prosecution agreed to reduce the charge to manslaughter and JS agreed to a favorable sentence.
Commonwealth v. E.P. (Fall River Superior Court, March, 2016)
EP was charged with first degree murder under the theory that he shot and killed a rival gang member in retaliation for a gang incident. The prosecution was to be supported by 2 cooperating witnesses, who claimed to have followed the decedent from a club and informed EP of his location prior to the shooting. EP had confessed to the shooting but Attorney Caramanica had the confession suppressed and it was not admitted into evidence at trial. After less than 2 days of trial, the Commonwealth recognized that Attorney Caramanica was successfully challenging the strength of the prosecution witnesses – including a supposed identification witness. The prosecution offered EP a plea to a manslaughter charge, which was accepted by EP.
Commonwealth v. C.C. (Springfield Superior Court, Nov., 2013)
CONVICTION VACATED, JULY, 2018). CC and DW were charged with the murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and the robbery of a friend of DW’s. The prosecution theory was that CC and DW lured the alleged victim to CC’s home in Springfield, MA and murdered him in Springfield, before discarding the alleged victim’s body in Connecticut. The cases were trial separately. CC’s defense was that CC did not commit the murder, or any act charged, and that there was not even evidence the murder happened in MA. CC was convicted of first degree murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (not guilty of robbery) but Attorney Caramanica filed an appeal of the conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Attorney Caramanica, finding essentially that there was no evidence the murder happened in MA so MA did not have jurisdiction. As a result, the conviction was vacated and CC was not prosecuted further for the murder.
Commonwealth v. D.T. (Nantucket Superior Court, May, 2013)
DT was charged with 2nd degree murder in the death of her 4 year old daughter. DT raised the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. All 3 forensic experts that examined DT agreed she suffered from a severe psychotic break at the time of the incident. After a three day trial, DT was found not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.
