We are excited to announce that Eva Jellison has joined W & N. Attorney Jellison is a graduate of Stanford and Northeastern University School of Law where she interned with a highly-regarded criminal defense firm, SJC (soon-to-be Chief) Justice Gants and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Upon graduation, she served as a clerk to Chief Justice Dana Fabe of the Alaska Supreme Court.
Tale of Exoneration
Colleague and blogger Sejal Patel recently published an article in The Champion, the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The article tells the tale of the exoneration of Guy Randolph, with a mention of Attorney Nathanson's small role in the exoneration. Read the article here. While Sejal has left her criminal defense practice, we applaud her continuing commitment to justice - a passion we share deeply.
Commonwealth v. Lykus
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 v. Gonzales
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)."
Commonwealth v. Scott
Jordan v. United States
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.
Commonwealth v. Alebord
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.
Commonwealth v. Cohen
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.
Commonwealth v. Bonner
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.
Commonwealth v. Nicholas
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.
Commonwealth v. Murrell
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.
Commonwealth v. Aquino
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.
Smith v. Massachusetts
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.
Commonwealth v. Adjutant
443 Mass. 649 (2005) (manslaughter)
Jurors should hear evidence of the “victim’s” past history of violence because it could prove that the deceased was the aggressor and the defendant acted in self-defense. This was a radical change in the Massachusetts law of self-defense.
Commonwealth v. Gazzola
17 Mass. L. Rep. 308 (2004) (extortion)
A protestor’s extremely strident statements on a picket line were protected by the First Amendment and the indictment must be dismissed.
Commonwealth v. Faustrum
Commonwealth v. Vardinski
438 Mass. 444 (2003) (armed robbery)
Limitation on cross-examination of witness regarding whether his identification of was tainted violated the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.
Commonwealth v. Poitras
55 Mass. App. Ct. 691 (2002) (rape of a child)
The prosecution used a psychologist as an expert on the characteristics of sexually abused children. The testimony unfairly bolstered the complainant's credibility by improperly telling the jury that the defendant fit the "profile" of a likely child abuser. The conviction was reversed and the Commonwealth dropped the charges.
Pagano v. Allard
218 F. Supp. 2d 26 (2002) (masked armed robbery)
The prosecutor’s outrageous conduct in closing argument, calling himself a choirboy and saying the defendant did not get the presumption of innocence, infected the trial with unfairness.
Commonwealth v. Poggi
53 Mass.App.Ct. 685 (2002) (armed robbery)
The defendant was entitled to display his tattoos to the jury to show that he had been misidentified. Because the judge refused to allow this, he was entitled to a new trial.