Recently in Criminal Defense Category

March 10, 2014

A Long Time Coming...

This blog has been very very good to me and helped build my business when I left Boston four years ago, but alas, it has been long ignored. Not by intent but merely because we have been too busy during an exceptional period of growth. Starting today, however, I vow to return to the multiple postings per week that generated a lot of buzz and helped bring in many of my clients.

Here are just a few of the things we have been up to in the few months since my last post:

Be sure to call with any personal injury and criminal defense questions and we will be happy to assist you. The initial consultation is always free!
March 5, 2013

Number of Expungements Up and Attorney General is Pushing for More

Expungement allows a person with a criminal record, under certain circumstances, to have his or her criminal record permanently deleted. This is an incredible tool and is useful for someone applying for college, applying for new jobs, looking to join the army or other branch of the military, or who just wants to keep the public out of their past. An article in the Providence Journal yesterday reported that the number of criminal records expunged jumped 36 percent in 2012. Last year, 269 felonies and 3,929 misdemeanors were expunged and erased from the public record. This was a jump from 3,091 total expungements completed in 2011.

Today, it is reported that Attorney General Kilmartin is proposing newer easier restrictions to allow for more expungements. His proposal asks that any person who has never committed a felony and has stayed out of trouble be allowed to expunge up to five misdemeanors as opposed to the current one misdemeanor allowed. The law would not apply to domestic violence crimes or DUIs. Rhode Island law, as it stands, has a "one bite at the apple" approach. A single misdemeanor can be expunged after five years without further offense and a single felony can be expunged after ten years without further arrest. The increased opportunity for expungement is meant to assist those who made bad decisions or indiscretions in their youth but have since changed and improved their life for the better.

If you have waited the appropriate amount of time after your previous crime and the conviction was not for an act of violence, you may qualify for an expungement. My office will file the paperwork and appear at the motion on your behalf. The total fee for this service is only $500 which includes the $100 fee payable to the Courts if your expungement is approved. It is a small price to pay to permanently remove your criminal record as you seek a new job or a new life position.

My office has handled many expungements and it is a rather quick and easy process. If you would like more information about expungement or if you are interested in pursuing this step, contact my office for a free consultation.

December 7, 2012

Good Week in Criminal Court

I don't use this forum to discuss criminal cases too often, but after an exceptional week in Court, I want to share some good results. This week I secured the dismissal of a DUI case and the dismissal of a domestic assault charge. My approach to my client's case whether personal injury or criminal is to aggressively pursue the matter and prepare every case as if we are going to trial. I never assume an injury case is going to settle and I never assume that a criminal case is going to result in a plea... this approach is the most effective way I know to ensure great results for my clients. This week was a good one in the criminal courts.

My first client was arrested for DUI following an auto accident with significant property damage and injuries. Although it was the first offense, the prosecution was looking for severe penalties because of the accident. After aggressively fighting this case, the DUI was dismissed for lack of evidence and my client was left to face only civil penalties.

The second charge dismissed this week was for domestic assault. In this case, the client had a prior record which was resolved by a criminal filing. His year for the criminal filing had not yet passed and the new domestic assault charge also meant that he would be violated on the filing charge. After a full hearing in front of the Judge, the violation was dismissed. This was a major victory for a client who was facing jail time should he be found in violation.

If you or a friend or family member has been arrested in Rhode Island or Massachusetts, contact my office right away for a free consultation. Make sure you hire an attorney with a plan and commitment to go the distance. I don't take shortcuts or take the easy way out.

April 2, 2012

Law Office of Joseph Lamy Celebrating 3 Awesome Years!!

I am so grateful to all of my family, friends, past and future clients for helping to make my law practice such a success. Today marks 3 years since I opened my own doors in Providence and I can hardly believe it. I've been so fortunate to meet so many great people throughout Rhode Island and Massachusetts (and in the case of entertainment law, people all over the country!) and I feel blessed to have the opportunity to help with their legal needs.

The last year was the best yet with a record number of new clients and cases and some terrific results for my clients in personal injury, entertainment law and criminal defense. I am proud to describe just a few of the great results and projects that I was involved in over the past year alone:

In Personal Injury:

  • $150,000 for a fractured femur following an auto accident;
  • $100,000 for a fractured ankle (my client was previously unrepresented and the insurance company made a high offer of $20k... within 6 months of my taking the case and filing suit, the insurance company paid the policy limits of $100k);
  • $100,000 for nerve damage to client's elbow following an auto accident.

In Entertainment Law

  • Worked as lead counsel on two films, one on a micro budget of $20k and another with a mid-range budget of $350,000;
  • Lead counsel on a reality television show currently in production in Rhode Island;
  • Secured synchronization rights for one of my artists songs on a nationwide television commercial;
  • Negotiated and secured a four album recording deal with a major record label;
  • Negotiated and secured the film option for a novel written by a New York Times bestselling author.

In Criminal Defense

  • Full dismissal of multiple DUI cases;
  • Full dismissal of two felony assault cases - one before trial and one by jury verdict;
  • Reduced 2 counts of Third Degree Sexual Assault to misdemeanor simple assault on the morning trial was scheduled to begin (Client was facing ten years in prison and instead plead to one year of probation);

These are just some of the highlights to a great year! In addition to these cases I have successfully helped hundreds of other clients in the past year in all three areas of law. I am so grateful to past and current clients who continue to tell their friends and family about my office aiding in my growth and success. I can never thank you enough. Here's to another thirty successful years!!!

December 7, 2011

Criminal Defense Lawyer Joseph Lamy Secures a Fantastic Result in 3rd Degree Sexual Assault Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Joseph Lamy has secured another great result for a criminal defendant. In just this past month we have successfully secured the dismissal of assault charges, two DUI cases, marijuana possession and this week we have obtained a fantastic result in a very serious case. My client was charged with two counts of third degree sexual assault (statutory rape) and there was a very large age gap between my client and the alleged victim which makes a statutory rape case that much more difficult. According to RIGL 11-37-6, a person is guilty of third degree sexual assault if:

he or she is over the age of eighteen (18) years and engaged in sexual penetration with another person over the age of fourteen (14) years and under the age of consent, sixteen (16) years of age.


My office worked this case for over a year, filing nearly a dozen motions, aggressively tackling discovery and working relentlessly with the prosecutor towards a positive outcome. We were ready for trial to begin this Monday but were able to avoid it because the prosecution made a fantastic offer to avoid trial. One count of third degree sexual assault was dismissed and my client plead nolo contendre to an amended charge of misdemeanor simple assault.

If found guilty at trial my client was facing ten years in prison but thanks to our aggressive efforts to identify and prove the weaknesses in the prosecution's case my client now has a non conviction with a mere one year probation. Sexual assault, of any degree, is a very serious crime that requires an aggressive trial ready attorney to ensure the best possible outcome. If you have been charged with sexual assault contact our office right away for a free consultation.

November 28, 2011

Attorney Joseph Lamy Secures Dismissal of Assault Charges

This morning in Kent County Courthouse, criminal defense attorney Joseph Lamy secured the dismissal of assault charges based on the defense that the accused was legally entitled to come to the aid of another person in danger.

The canon of law surrounding "self-defense" to assault or violent crime charges is large. It is abundantly clear that a person is entitled to use reasonable self-defense if he or she believes that they are under imminent physical harm. There is case law that supports an extension of this self-defense rule to a third party intervenor.

In the case at hand, my client witnessed one person strike another smaller person during a dispute. My client was behind the attacker and when the attacker motioned to strike the other person for a second time, my client brought him down to the ground. The police felt that excessive force may have been used and because the "victim" wanted to press charges, my client was arrested for simple assault. We argued from the onset that my client was intervening for the protection of someone in danger of imminent harm. Today we were successful and had the assault charges dismissed.

State v. Beeley, 653 A.2d 722 (RI 1995) has a detailed discussion of self defense under exactly these circumstances.

...three conditions must be met. First, the force must be such as the actor could use in defending himself or herself from the harm that he or she believes to be threatened to the third person. In other words, the actor may use the same amount of force that he or she could use to protect himself or herself. Second, the third person must be justified in using such protective force in the circumstances as the actor believes them to be. Thus, if the third person was resisting an arrest by a known police officer, he or she would have no defense and, if the circumstances were known to the actor, the actor would have no defense either. Finally, the actor must believe that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the third party.

Regarding the final factor, the Court will consider what the intervenor reasonably believed at the time of action. If the intervenor reasonably believes that the third party is danger of imminent harm then he is justified in using reasonable force to prevent the harm. My client met all of the criteria for this case and as such the matter was dismissed.

August 2, 2011

Criminal Defense Attorney Joseph Lamy Secures Dismissal of Driving to Endanger Charges

This morning in Taunton District Court, Massachusetts and Rhode Island criminal defense attorney Joseph Lamy secured the dismissal of misdemeanor charges for operating to endanger. In Massachusetts, negligent operation of a motor vehicle or driving to endanger, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 90, Section 24(1)(h)(2)(a), carries very serious penalties. My client was facing not only the suspension of his license but jail time ranging from a couple of weeks to two years! It may be surprising to know that a traffic violation can result in a criminal record with such serious penalties, but it is true in Massachusetts if you are charged with driving to endanger.

The language of the statute is somewhat ambiguous but you may be charged with this criminal vehicle violation if the police believe your driving was extremely reckless or so dangerous that you put the lives of others at risk. Some examples of this behavior include: racing vehicles, speeds in excess of 20mph over the limit, frequent and rapid lane changes, utter disregard for the safety of others, etc. Some police officers, as in this case with my client, are too quick to turn minor traffic violations into criminal offenses and for this reason, these charges should always be fought aggressively in Court by an attorney.

My client had not committed any of the violations that would make him subject to this charge and we were able to prove this to the district attorney resulting in a dismissal of all charges (including the speeding ticket!). This case arose out of an auto accident. My client was operating with the right of way when another driver took a left turn in front of my client, failing to yield the right of way. The impact was significant and substantial damage was caused to both vehicles. Based on the physical damages alone, and on some other questionable evidence, the officer charged my client with driving to endanger. The officer did not witness the accident. No accident reconstruction was completed and no engineer was brought to the scene to examine the vehicles. Despite the absence of any tangible evidence, the officer charged my client criminally with driving in excess of 20mph over the speed limit.

I was able to successfully convince the Taunton District Attorney that they could never reach their required standard of proof, namely, that my client was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We showed that the case was built on questionable evidence and located and interviewed independent witnesses who confirmed that my client was driving approximately 40-45 mph (the speed limit was 40). Finally, this morning we gained the judge's approval to dismiss all charges.

My office also represents this client for personal injuries sustained in this car accident. Not only did we successfully dismiss all of the criminal charges that my client is facing but we have convinced the other woman's insurance company to accept responsibility and pay for all of my client's damages.

Continue reading "Criminal Defense Attorney Joseph Lamy Secures Dismissal of Driving to Endanger Charges" »

July 7, 2011

What is a Criminal Filing in Rhode Island and How Does it Work?

In speaking with a potential client this morning, I suggested that her case might be eligible for a criminal filing. Most people, including my new client, are unfamiliar with the criminal filing and need an explanation. Here it is....

First time offenders who commit minor crimes might be eligible for a criminal filing in Rhode Island. A criminal filing is one of the lightest punishments available to a defendant. A filing is held for one year and if the defendant can stay out of trouble during that time, the case is eligible to be expunged at the end of the year. Therefore, if your criminal defense attorney negotiates a filing for your penalty, you are only required to stay out of trouble for one year and the case will be thrown out and expunged as if it never happened. It is a great alternative to probation or more serious penalties.

Furthermore, a filing entered with a plea of nolo contendre (further discussed in my blog post about no contest pleas) is not a conviction in the State of Rhode Island. If you are arrested again during the period of a filing, that disposition will be revoked and you will be back in court. Furthermore, you will now be facing penalties for the new charges.

If you have been arrested and would like to know more about criminal filings in Rhode Island or would like to know if you may be eligible for this sentence, contact our office right away for a free consultation.

Continue reading "What is a Criminal Filing in Rhode Island and How Does it Work?" »

June 23, 2011

Attorney Joseph Lamy Secures Dismissal of Cocaine Possession Charge

This morning in Rhode Island District Court, criminal defense attorney Joseph Lamy successfully obtained a dismissal of felony cocaine possession charges. In Rhode Island, cocaine is classified as a schedule I drug and possession charges come with very serious penalties. According to the statute, a non drug-addicted person caught with possession of a schedule I drug is facing up to a life sentence and fines of up to $500,000!

If you have been arrested on drug possession charges, contact our office right away for a free initial consultation. The earlier I enter the case, the better your chances of a positive outcome.

May 17, 2011

Supreme Court Rules with Police Again Causing Another Blow to Constitutional Rights

The United States Supreme Court once again sided with police as the increasingly conservative Supreme Court continues to weaken civil liberties. The case of Hollis King, a man arrested for drug possession in Kentucky, was brought before the US Supreme Court this week. King was convicted on drug possession charges but the Kentucky Appeals Court threw out the conviction based on improper evidence. The United States Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom, re-instated the conviction and determined there was nothing improper about the evidence or how it was discovered.

The Kentucky police were in an apartment building searching for a different man. While in the apartment building, they thought that they smelled pot coming from Mr. King's apartment and knocked on the door. Even though they did not have a warrant, the police burst into Mr. King's apartment because they thought they heard noises suggesting that the defendant was trying to get rid of evidence! What on Earth such noises could be is beyond me. Is it flushing a toilet? Is it the opening or closing of a garbage lid? Apparently you should be sure that no one uses the bathroom when a police officer might be in your apartment building! Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the only Justice to dissent) correctly points out that this ruling gives police free reign to enter any residence without a warrant, if they allege that the defendants were making suspicious noises.

Justice Alito, in his opinion stated that "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame." In other words, if Mr. King opened the door and told the police that they could not come in without a warrant, then the police would have no grounds to enter without said warrant. But if Mr. King fails to open his door and makes "suspicious noises" then it is OK for the police to kick down his door. Sound logic. Our Constitution is obviously in strong hands.

April 12, 2011

Attorney Joseph Lamy Secures Dismissal of DUI Charges!

Another criminal defense success story for the Law Office of Joseph Lamy. Today in Kent County Courthouse, Attorney Joseph Lamy secured a dismissal of drunk driving charges for his client.

The client was involved in an accident in Coventry, RI. At the scene, Coventry police detected a smell of alcohol and asked the client to submit to a field sobriety test, which she subsequently failed. The client refused to submit to the breathalyzer test, but a small bottle of water that contained vodka was found in the vehicle. After aggressively defending the case and showing the weaknesses in the State's case, the DUI charges were successfully dropped.

The client was facing possible jail time and a suspended license of up to one year in addition to fines and other additional penalties. Following today's result, the client avoided all such punishment and avoided any form of criminal record.

Continue reading "Attorney Joseph Lamy Secures Dismissal of DUI Charges!" »

March 9, 2011

Did You Know That You Can Refuse a Field Sobriety Test?

If you are pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, you may be aware that you are allowed to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take a breathalyzer test, you will be charged with refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test and will be subject to additional penalties, including a six month license suspension. The benefit of a refusal to submit is that the police will not be able to introduce chemical evidence of your intoxication.

Many people, however, fail to realize that even the field sobriety test is voluntary. You are under no obligation to submit to a field sobriety test when asked by the police. If you refuse, the police will be forced to make a decision whether to arrest you based on what little evidence that they have observed (i.e. slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, etc.)

Most people will submit to a field sobriety test because a) they think that they have to; or b) they feel that they can pass the test. As to part "A", I have already informed you that you do not have to submit to the test. As for part "B" - DO NOT ASSUME THAT YOU CAN PASS THE TEST!! Even someone who is completely sober or had a single drink can fail a field sobriety test because it is difficult. I know that if I were asked, even without drinking, that I would have a terribly tough time standing on one leg for thirty seconds without wobbling. In addition, the police officer will be making you nervous and this will make it more likely for you to make a mistake.

Furthermore, the field sobriety test is entirely subjective. There is no scientific basis for this test. Instead, police officers are given a number of signals to look for to identify a drunk individual. However, there is no magic number to the amount of mistakes that you can make and still pass the test. If you still do not believe me, ask a police officer friend of yours how many people suspected of drunk driving actually pass the field sobriety test.

Based on the way you were driving your vehicle, or based on your speech patterns and conduct, the police officer may still decide to arrest you if he feels that he has probable cause. However, by giving the police little additional evidence to support the arrest, you will put yourself, and your criminal defense attorney in a better position to win at trial.

Continue reading "Did You Know That You Can Refuse a Field Sobriety Test?" »

March 9, 2011

Did You Know That You Can Refuse a Field Sobriety Test?

If you are pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, you may be aware that you are allowed to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take a breathalyzer test, you will be charged with refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test and will be subject to additional penalties, including a six month license suspension. The benefit of a refusal to submit is that the police will not be able to introduce chemical evidence of your intoxication.

Many people, however, fail to realize that even the field sobriety test is voluntary. You are under no obligation to submit to a field sobriety test when asked by the police. If you refuse, the police will be forced to make a decision whether to arrest you based on what little evidence that they have observed (i.e. slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, etc.)

Most people will submit to a field sobriety test because a) they think that they have to; or b) they feel that they can pass the test. As to part "A", I have already informed you that you do not have to submit to the test. As for part "B" - DO NOT ASSUME THAT YOU CAN PASS THE TEST!! Even someone who is completely sober or had a single drink can fail a field sobriety test because it is difficult. I know that if I were asked, even without drinking, that I would have a terribly tough time standing on one leg for thirty seconds without wobbling. In addition, the police officer will be making you nervous and this will make it more likely for you to make a mistake.

Furthermore, the field sobriety test is entirely subjective. There is no scientific basis for this test. Instead, police officers are given a number of signals to look for to identify a drunk individual. However, there is no magic number to the amount of mistakes that you can make and still pass the test. If you still do not believe me, ask a police officer friend of yours how many people suspected of drunk driving actually pass the field sobriety test.

Based on the way you were driving your vehicle, or based on your speech patterns and conduct, the police officer may still decide to arrest you if he feels that he has probable cause. However, by giving the police little additional evidence to support the arrest, you will put yourself, and your criminal defense attorney in a better position to win at trial.

Continue reading "Did You Know That You Can Refuse a Field Sobriety Test?" »

March 1, 2011

What is the United States Supreme Court Doing to the Confrontation Clause?

A criminal defendant has the Constitutional Right to confront his accusers in open court. This is referred to as the Confrontation Clause in the United States Constitution. The purpose of the clause, for one, is to prevent false accusations by requiring that the complaining witness appear in Court and testify against the accused. It also allows the defense an opportunity to show or demonstrate that the complaining witness is lying (if he is lying), or not credible.

The United States Supreme Court ruled today on Michigan v. Bryant, and may have complicated the Confrontation Clause. In this case a shot and dying man told police at the scene that he was shot by Richard Bryant. The victim died from his wounds before trial. The police testified as to what they were told, namely that the victim identified Richard Bryant as the shooter. Bryant was convicted at the trial, but the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the conviction stating that the judgment ran afoul of the Confrontation Clause. Today, the Supreme Court, in a 6-2 ruling, held that the conviction was valid and hearsay evidence (the testimony of the police) can be used when a victim of violent crime is unable to testify. The admission of the testimony has to do with the purpose of the statement. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said:

...the state court had made a mistake in considering Mr. Covington's statements to be "testimonial" and hence subject to the Confrontation Clause. Testimonial statements, she explained, are ones solemnly made to establish facts about past events.

The primary purpose of Mr. Covington's statement was something else, Justice Sotomayor wrote. It was to aid the police in addressing an "ongoing emergency," given that the person who shot Mr. Covington had a gun and was on the loose.

The testimony may have been allowed based on the "dying declaration" hearsay exception. A dying declaration will allow testimony that is otherwise hearsay, if:


  1. The declarant is unavailable;

  2. The declarant's statement is being offered in a criminal prosecution for murder, or in a civil action;

  3. The declarant's statement was made while under the belief that his death was imminent; and

  4. The declarant's statement must relate to the cause or circumstances of what he believed to be his impending death.

However, the prosecution never raised this issue, nor did the supreme Court in today's decision. So now the interplay between a dying declaration and the Confrontation Clause, are completely in turmoil.

Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent of the decision, and while I never believed that I would agree with Justice Scalia on anything, I believe he is correct here. There already exists an exception for such evidence to come into evidence. If the testimony is not properly entered, we should not be creating further exceptions and loopholes for the admission of tainted evidence. In the end, a conviction based on no more than the words of a police officer allegedly recanting the words of a dying man, who may or may not have been delirious from pain or loss of blood, is troubling.

February 24, 2011

Lawmaker Proposing Stricter Racial Profiling Laws

Rhode Island enacted the Racial Profiling Prevention Act in 2004 (under R.I.G.L. 31-21.1) in response to similar statutes passed in most States. The unfortunate reality is that racial profiling exists and happens everyday, everywhere. The racial disparity in the number of traffic stops, arrests, convictions, and length of sentence between whites and all other races can not be ignored. Some statistics from Amnesty International are hard to be ignored:

Racial profiling is a proven failure in the 'War on Drugs.' Statistics show that using racial profiling to interdict highway-bound drug couriers is not just wrong, but ineffective. A survey by the Department of Justice in 1999 reveled that while officers disproportionately focused on African American and Latino drivers, they found drugs more often when they searched whites (17%) than when they searched African Americans (8%). A similar survey in New Jersey found that although people of color were searched more frequently, state troopers found drugs in vehicles driven by whites 25% of the time, by African Americans 13%, and by Latinos 5%. According to a study of the US Customs Service's practice by Lamberth Consulting, when Customs agents stopped using racial profiling to target potential smugglers and began focusing on race-neutral factors such as behavior, they increased the rate of productive searches by more than 300%.

The Rhode Island General Assembly admitted that racial profiling existed in R.I.G.L. 31-21-2.2 (c) "In many communities nonwhite drivers in Rhode Island, subjected to discretionary searches, are twice as likely as whites to be searched." They also admit that racial profiling causes fear, anxiety, humiliation, and resentment among people unjustifiably treated as criminal suspects and can result in a loss of confidence and public trust in the police and criminal justice system.

The new proposed laws look to take an even tougher stance to combat racial profiling. Some of the suggested components include:

  • requiring officers to document in writing their probable cause for conducting a search during a traffic stop
  • bar police from requesting documentation other than license and registration without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
  • bar officers for asking passengers for identification without probable cause
  • restrict searches on juveniles

While probable cause for search and seizure always plays a role in a criminal defense case, those who feel they have been subjected to racial profiling are also allowed to sue for damages in civil court.