Boston Criminal Defense Law Blog

The proliferation of cellphones and other portable devices that can take and transmit photographs has given rise to a new form of child pornography -- the taking and transmitting of photographs of minor children via the Internet. A selfie, as most people in Massachusetts know, is a self-portrait photograph taken with a cellphone. The growing use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Pinterest and Twitter, has led to the widespread distribution of selfies and other photos taken with cellphone cameras. Unfortunately, some people have chosen to exploit the use of cellphones to create and circulate pornographic photos of minor children.

Every state and the federal government has laws forbidding the creation of child pornography and penalizing the creation and sale of child pornography. The precise definition of the crime may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor. Massachusetts added participation with lascivious intent to its definition of child pornography.

Massachusetts is known for its numerous quality establishments of higher education. College is supposed to be a time of learning and making lifelong decisions for the future. Such growth into adulthood often involves making mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes these errors in judgment can cross the line into criminal activity.

When this happens, students may face both criminal charges from the government and disciplinary action from the schools they attend. Most people understand the need for a lawyer and defense plan for the first situation, but just as important is representation and preparation for the second. Otherwise, potential consequences include loss of housing, financial aid, scholarships, leadership positions and student status.

The phrase "Miranda warning" is known to most residents of Massachusetts, but the exact meaning of the phrase is often unclear. The phrase refers to the title of a famous United States Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, decided in 1966. The case turned on whether local police properly and clearly informed Mr. Miranda of his right to remain silent during a police interrogation for allegedly committing a felony.

The right of a criminal defendant to remain silent when questioned by police has been recognized for about 800 years, since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. In Miranda, the Court held that the police were constitutionally required to advise the suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to be represented by counsel. Not every person questioned by police is entitled to a Miranda warning. A person questioned as a witness and not for purposes of imposing custody is not entitled to receive the warning. People being questioned in connection with a traffic stop are not entitled to the privilege during preliminary questioning.

Police in Massachusetts use many different techniques to gather evidence in a criminal investigation. One of the most frequently used techniques is the pre-arranged transaction, such as the sale and purchase of illegal drugs. To execute the scheme, a police officer will offer to sell (or purchase) illegal drugs from the suspect, and the suspect will be arrested as soon as the transaction is complete. Many people wonder how a person can be convicted of a felony when the police played an active role in commission of the crime itself. The ability of the police to use such a technique to gather evidence is sharply limited by the "entrapment defense."

A person cannot be convicted of a crime when the intent to engage criminal conduct was induced by the police. A person asserting the entrapment defense must show that he or she had no intention of engaging in criminal conduct before the police took actions to persuade the person to commit the crime in question. In other words, a person who had formed an intent to commit a crime before the police acted cannot rely on the entrapment defense.