Recent Firearms Cases
Commonwealth v. E.C-A (Fall River Superior Court, March, 2024). PLEA.
FIREARMS CASE REDUCED RESULTING IN PLEA ON DAY OF TRIAL
Attorney Caramanica obtained a favorable disposition in a superior court firearms case where his client was charged with firearms offenses, attempted assault and battery with a firearm, and malicious damage to a motor vehicle. The client was charged with shooting at a person in another vehicle that was parked in a parking lot. The client was identified by a person that was with the client in the same vehicle. The client faced a potential penalty of up to 15 years in state prison, and a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months to the house of corrections. The client was offered a plea of 3-5 years to state prison prior to trial, and had been held awaiting trial for almost 16 months. On the date of trial, recognizing that there were issues with the identification of the defendant from the Commonwealth’s main witness, the defendant made an unagreed plea to the Court, which was accepted, calling for the defendant to be on probation for a period of time after completing the balance of an 18 month mandatory sentence.
Commonwealth v. CC (Taunton Dist. Court, September, 2022)
CC and 3 other persons were charged with gun and drug offenses resulting from the execution of a search warrant on a commercial property. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress, challenging that there was not probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Attorney Caramanica argued on behalf of all the defendants at the motion to suppress hearing. The motion to suppress was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against CC and the other defendants.
Commonwealth v. M.G. (Attleboro Dist. Court, October, 2021)
MG was charged with 1 count of improper storage of a firearm and 3 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm and large capacity firearm/ammunition. The firearms were found when the police entered the home during a domestic incident. One firearm was observed in plain view and unsecured, resulting in the improper storage charge. The large capacity firearm charges resulted from the police making an warrantless search of a safe where the large capacity firearm and ammunition were stored. Attorney Caramanica filed a motion to suppress the evidence. After a hearing, the court allowed the motion to suppress the firearms and ammunition found in the safe, but not the shot gun found in plain view. The 3 counts resulting from the warrantless search of the safe were dismissed. The improper storage charge resulted in a continuance without a finding for 1 year, eventually to be dismissed.
Commonwealth v. D.P., (Brockton District Court, Sept. 2016)
DP was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm based on police observations that DP allegedly was seen throwing an item, later determined to be a firearm, from the passenger side of a vehicle he was travelling within. Attorney Caramanica’s defense included the introduction of photographic evidence of the vehicles involved and cross-examination of the police officer to demonstrate that the police officer could not have observed what he claimed to have observed and that it was most likely the firearm was thrown across the front seat and outside of the window by the driver – who was not even charged. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all charges.
Commonwealth v. J.F. (Plymouth District Court, January, 2019)
JF was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon based on allegations that he discharged a firearm, found in a vehicle in which he was stopped, in the area of people. Attorney Caramanica successfully suppressed evidence that the item found was a gun because the prosecution failed to timely provide a ballistic certificate. At trial, there was insufficient evidence to identify the item as a firearm. JF was found not guilty after a jury waived trial.
Commonwealth v. M.B. (Fall River District Court, Sept. 2009)
MB was present at a home during the execution of a search warrant. He was charged with unlawful possession of Class B substance and unlawful possession of a firearm. At trial, Attorney Caramanica focused on the inconsistent police testimony as to MB’s behavior, as well as the lack of forensic evidence linking MB to any of the items. After a 2 day jury trial, the Class B possession was dismissed at trial and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the firearms charge.
