In February 2019, thanks to Attorney Wood's quick intervention, a Boston area university agreed to lift a temporary suspension and not to initiate Title IX proceedings against his client, a college senior in the U.S. on a student visa who had been charged with a misdemeanor in a local court. This decision allows the client to graduate on time.
In January 2019, Attorney Wood, assisted by Attorney Jellison, successfully convinced a trial court to dismiss felony drug distribution charges against a client prior to trial by proving that the Commonwealth had allowed the destruction of relevant evidence and that the Commonwealth's so-called "drug expert" was not qualified to given an opinion and therefore his testimony would be excluded.
Attorney Malm persuaded the Massachusetts Appeals Court to uphold a decision of the Bristol County Superior Court allowing his client's motion to suppress items seized as the result of a motor vehicle stop by police without reasonable suspicion.
On January 5, 2017, Attorney Nathanson convinced a judge to vacate our client's guilty pleas to drug trafficking because his trial attorney failed to advise him that a plea to drug distribution would make him automatically deportable under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). Attention to immigration consequences is essential in defending a criminal case.
On December 19, 2016, Attorney Nathanson and Attorney Shih secured the release of our client who had been serving a 15 year federal sentence for possession of a machine gun. Using the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the client’s sentence was reduced to time served with probation. They were able to convince the judge that, given the client's exemplary progress in prison and family support, he should be allowed to go directly home instead of a halfway house. Attorneys Nathanson and Shih helped the client create and practice what the judge called "one of the best allocutions I've ever heard."
On August 12, 2016, Attorney Wood convinced a Superior Court judge to grant a new trial in Commonwealth v. Celester, after the Supreme Judicial Court sent the case back for further hearings. The judge agreed with Attorney Wood that Mr. Celester's first attorney had provided ineffective assistance by advising his client to make a statement to the police.
Worcester Superior Court (2016)
Attorney Wood, assisted by Attorney Malm, convinced a Superior Court judge to grant a new trial 16 years after our client's conviction because new evidence showed the unreliability of eyewitness identifications.
Supreme Judicial Court (2016)
Attorney Wood convinced the Supreme Judicial Court that the ethical rules governing attorneys permit attorneys to contact jurors after trial to investigate claims that jurors had been exposed to prejudicial information ("extraneous influences").
Supreme Judicial Court (2016)
Attorney Wood convinced the Supreme Judicial Court that the defendant's attorney provided ineffective assistance in advising the defendant to make a statement to the police.
Plymouth Superior Court (2015)
Attorney Wood convinced a judge to order the testing of a a 42 year old stamp for DNA under GL Ch. 278A in a 42 year old murder case. This is one of the first times a judge agreed to order testing of old evidence under this new law.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2013)
"Since the jury did not find a specific cocaine quantity above 500 grams, defendant's sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)."
Plymouth Superior Court (2013) (first degree murder)
New trial motion granted. Trial judge gave erroneous felony murder instruction.
662 F.3d 18 (2011) (distribution of cocaine)
Exclusion of the defendant’s friends and family likely violated his right to a public trial. The defendant was entitled to a new hearing where he could prove this because he was denied an attorney at the prior hearing.
80 Mass.App.Ct. 43 (2011) (second degree murder)
Exclusion of the defendant’s friends and family during jury selection violated the defendant’s right to a public trial.
456 Mass. 94 (2010) (extortion)
Our amicus (friend of the court) brief helped persuade the Supreme Judicial Court that the exclusion of spectators during jury selection violated the right to a public trial. This is a landmark case on the right to a public trial in Massachusetts.
75 Mass.App.Ct. 1112 (2009) (distribution of cocaine)
Admission of a “drug certificate” violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.
74 Mass.App.Ct. 16 (2009) (contempt)
The trial judge could not hold the defendant in contempt because she did not personally see him make threatening gestures in the courtroom.
Norfolk Superior Court (2008) (first degree murder)
The motion for a new trial was allowed because the prosecutor's closing argument gave unsworn testimony that went to a critical issue in the case, improperly vouched for a key Commonwealth witness, and improperly argued that a witness feared testifying against the defendant.
445 Mass. 446 (2005) (violation of probation)
Our amicus brief helped persuade the Supreme Judicial Court that the judge had no power to extend the defendant’s probation because it had already expired.
543 U.S. 462 (2005) (possession of a firearm)
The United States Supreme Court ruled that once a trial judge has ruled that the defendant is not guilty, even before the case goes to the jury, the trial judge cannot reconsider the not guilty finding. That violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.