On February 15, 2017, Attorney Wood and his client Nat Cosenza presented a joint lecture for the Committee for Public Counsel Services on the challenges of presenting a new trial motion based on expert eyewitness identification testimony rejected at trial and on direct appeal but later accepted as accurate information that jurors should have. Nat spoke about the factors that lead to a successful transition from a lengthy period of incarceration to a life of liberty.
Motion To Suppress Upheld by Appeals Court
Effective Brief Writing
On January 18, 2017, Attorney Wood lectured at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education's seminar "Effective Appellate Advocacy". Attorney Wood spoke on effective brief writing, urging counsel to pay attention to developing a theme in a brief, to effectively use headings, to write clearly, and to seek amicus support.
Amicus Brief: Particularity Required in Cell Phone Search Warrants
Attorney Wood and a team from Goodwin Procter drafted an amicus brief in Commonwealth v. Keown on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers advancing the cutting edge argument that, when seeking a warrant to search a cell phone, law enforcement must comply with the Fourth Amendment's requirement to "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Police should not have carte blanche to sift through people's digital lives. They must limit their searches to inquiries reasonably designed to discover specific evidence of a particular crime. Joining the brief were the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Read the brief on our website here or on the Supreme Judicial Court's website here.
Guilty Plea Vacated Due to Immigration Consequences
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.
Freedom in Federal Court
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."
New Trial Granted in Commonwealth v. Celester
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.
Investigation of Tainted Juries
On June 16, 2016, in Commonwealth v. Moore, the SJC unanimously affirmed the decision of the trial court that Attorney Wood should be permitted to contact jurors in a widely publicized murder case to investigate the possibility that their verdict was affected by extraneous influences. Attorney Wood had been the first attorney in Massachusetts to take advantage of a change in the rules of professional conduct permitting attorneys to contact jurors in an effort to uncover injustice. This decision is expected to have a wide impact on post-conviction investigation of criminal cases.
COMMONWEALTH V. COSENZA
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.
COMMONWEALTH V. MOORE
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").
COMMONWEALTH V. CELESTER
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.
New England Innocence Project
Model Homicide Instructions
Cell Site Location Information
Criminal Law Update
Courts Should Use Reasonable Juvenile Standard
On March 21, Attorney Jellison submitted an amicus brief in a manslaughter case on behalf of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the ACLU arguing that juvenile brain science should lead courts to evaluate juveniles' conduct under a reasonable juvenile standard. Read the brief here.
Habeas Corpus Lecture
Harvard Law School Lecture
Right to Counsel During Interrogation
In Commonwealth v. Celester, Attorney Wood, working with a team from Ropes & Gray, convinced the SJC that his client, charged with murder, had received ineffective assistance of counsel when his original attorney instructed him to give a statement to police without having done any investigation. Read the opinion.
Expanding the Right to Counsel
In a first-degree murder case, Attorney Wood convinced the Supreme Judicial Court that criminal defendants should have the right to effective assistance of counsel when making a statement to police, even before they are charged. Read the opinion here.