Time Is Of The Essence. Call Us Now To Get Started (508) 503-6440

Law Office Of James M. Caramanica, P.C.

Commonwealth v. G.J. (Fall River District Court, March, 2020)
GS was charged with multiple counts of indecent assault and battery on a person over 14 as a result of allegations stemming from a house party. Attorney Caramanica pressed the Commonwealth to produce cell phone records and text messages that were alleged to exist relating to the allegations. Attorney Caramanica objected to each continuance needed by the Commonwealthto produce the documentation. Ultimately, Attorney Caramanica had the case dismissed as a result of the Commonwealth’s failure to provide the discovery.

Commonwealth v. D.W. (Taunton District Court, Sept., 2019)
DW was charged with indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 for allegedly sexually assaulting his son’s friend in allegations that were over 15 years old. Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination of the alleged victim demonstrated he was not credible and he told multiple different versions of the story. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts after a 2 day trial.

Commonwealth v. G.S. (Fall River Superior Court, August, 2019)
GS was charged with child enticement and lewd and lascivious conduct for acts allegedly committed on a young boy during an encounter after dinner at a food shelter. Cross-examination of the alleged victim, and the friends that were with him at the time, show the stories were inconsistent and not credible. Testimony was also introduced that the story was motivated as a result of GS not selling the alleged victim bicycle parts at a discount. Attorney Caramanica also introduced evidence that the police did not obtain video surveillance evidence that would have covered the area that the alleged interaction occurred at. The jury returned not guilty verdicts after a 3 day trial.

Commonwealth v. C.S. (Fall River Superior Court, April, 2019)
CS was charged with indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 and rape of child. The allegations were that CS sexually assaulted the grandchild of a female friend of CS when they woud allegedly visit him at his home on a Saturday during a specific period of time. Methodical cross-examination by Attorney Caramanica demonstrated the alleged victim, who was an admitted Law and Order Special Victim’s Unit fan, told a story that was inconsistent and simply not plausible. Evidence of CS’s work records showed he worked Saturday’s and witness testimony demonstrated CS was not alone with the alleged victim. Testimony was introduced that the alleged victim was very upset with CS terminated a romantic relationship with the alleged victim and got married shortly before the allegations were made.

Commonwealth v. Z.Z. (Plymouth Superior Court, Feb. 2018)
ZZ was charged with sex trafficking as a result of the execution of a search warrant at a massage parlor. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress identification evidence and a motion to suppress evidence based on the improper execution of the search warrant. The prosecution agreed to the motion to suppress identification. The motion to suppress evidence was allowed. As a result, the prosecution reduced the charge to keeping a noisy house and ZZ was given 6 months of probation and all cash seized from the improper execution of the search warrant was returned.

Commonwealth v. S.H. (Plymouth Superior Court, Jan. 2018)
SH was charged with rape, kidnapping, witness intimidation, aggravate assault and battery upon another inmate at the Plymouth County House of Corrections. It was alleged that SH and 2 other defendants committed the offenses upon another inmate when the alleged victim refused to sell them suboxone. Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination of the alleged victim demonstrated the alleged victim was simply not credible. In one instance, the alleged victim claimed to be helpless, yet Attorney Caramanica confronted him with his recent experience as an MMA fighter. Attorney Caramanica also demonstrated that the prosecution’s forensic experts produced no evidence linking SH to the alleged offenses. The jury returned not guilty verdicts after a trial that last over 1 week.

Commonwealth v. Ryan Chaperon (Taunton District Court, November, 2016)
RC was charged with indecent assault and battery on his daughter, a child over 14. Cross-examination of the alleged victim and her mother shows their stories were inconsistent and not credible. Testimony was introduced that the stories were made in retaliation for CW’s discipline imposed upon the alleged victim, and ending the relationship with the alleged victim’s mother. The jury returned not guilty verdicts after a 2 day trial.

Commonwealth v. W.A. (Plymouth District Court, Nov., 2015)
WA was charged with assault to rape and indecent assault and battery upon a neighbor. Attorney Caramanica’s investigation revealed the alleged victim was a distributor of sexual toys and the defense was that the alleged victim made up the allegations in response to WA rejecting her advances. The case was dismissed when the alleged victim failed to appear at trial.

Commonwealth v. W.S. (Brockton Superior Court, Aug. 2010)
WS was charged with rape of a child (2 counts), indecent assault and battery on person under 14 (2 counts) on his granddaughter. Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination revealed that the alleged victim had a history of fabricating stories to get the attention of her father, with whom she did not live. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts after 3 days of trial.

Commonwealth v. K.S. (Taunton District Court, Mar. 2010)
KS was charged with indecent assault and battery (reduced from rape) on a child over 14, intimidation of a witness. The alleged victim claimed the KS sexually assaulted him in the laundry room of an apartment complex. Cross-examination by Attorney Caramanica demonstrated the alleged victim’s story was simply not credible. Further, Attorney Caramanica’s DNA expert presented evidence that there was another male contributor of DNA on the alleged victim. After a several day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts.

Commonwealth v. W.B. (New Bedford Superior Court, Feb. 2009)
WB was charged with rape of a child by force, statutory rape, and indecent assault and battery on a child over 14. The defense focused on the alleged victim’s inconsistent statements and the lack of physical evidence, as well as the denials in WB’s statements to the police. After a several day jury trial, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts.

Commonwealth v. J.P. (New Bedford Superior Court, April, 2009)
JP was charged with Rape, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. At trial, Attorney Caramanica focused on the alleged victim’s inconsistent stories and her behavior before and after the alleged incident. After a 4 day jury trial, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all charges.

James Caramanica

Time Is Of The Essence.
Call Us Now To Get Started
(508) 503-6440