Over the last 18 years, Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney has compiled an impressive record, as an Assistant District Attorney for Middlesex County, a civil trial lawyer, an appellate attorney, and a criminal defense lawyer. Here is Attorney Mahoney's record. Before you hire a lawyer, ask him if you can take a look at his record.
Criminal Defense Trial Record: 42 wins*; 1 hung jury; 5 losses
Successful Motions to Suppress Requiring Dismissal of Charges: 10
Civil Trial Record: 5 wins; 0 losses
Largest Civil Judgment: $389,000.00
Appellate Record as an Assistant D.A.: 12 wins; 2 losses
Page Index
Trial Record As A Criminal Defense Lawyer
Trial Record As An Assistant District Attorney
Trial Record As A Criminal Defense Lawyer
Latest Result
Commonwealth vs. BM, Dedham Superior Court
04/17/08 – 04/23/08
Rape – Not Guilty
Alleged victim testified she went to defendant's apartment and had a beer or two with him, before going to a couple of bars. Returning to his apartment, they went into his bedroom where she claimed that she told him she would not have sex with him. She testified that the defendant disregarded what she said, forcibly raped her, held her hostage, and raped her repeatedly throughout the night. A nurse testified that the woman's cevix was red, swollen and abraded. The jury deliberated two hours.
Commonwealth vs. S.L., Framingham District Court
12/06/07 – 12/10/07
Motor Vehicle Homicide – Not Guilty
On the night of November 22, 2006, the Defendant was driving down a lonely, poorly lit road in Wayland. As she approached a crosswalk, she checked her speed, looked up, and saw an individual dressed in a yellow sweatshirt off to the right. Assured that the boy wasn’t entering the roadway, she returned her attention to the road; just then, another boy, dressed in dark clothing, ran out before her car. She could not avoid the boy and he died later that night from the injuries he sustained. The State Trooper who investigated the crash claimed that the Defendant should have seen the victim from 120 feet, and had she applied her brakes at all, the victim would have been able to clear the path of her car. The jury deliberated less than an hour.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Worcester Superior Court
11/30/06
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
In 2003, the Defendant was the prime suspect in a series of fires in the town of Clinton. On October 30, 2003, members of the Clinton Fire Department, Clinton Police Department, State Police, and Railroad Police descended upon the Defendant’s home armed with a search warrant. The police seized, destroyed or damaged the Defendant’s personal property. They attempted to question the Defendant, but he invoked his right to an attorney. However, when the police threatened to tear down the house and put his family on the street, the Defendant confessed to the setting the five fires. After a four month long hearing on Attorney Mahoney’s motion to suppress the Defendant’s confession, the judge ruled the confession inadmissible. On the day of trial, Mahoney filed a motion in limine, convincing the trial judge to rule that the prosecutor couldn’t introduce additional statements from the Defendant that had not been suppressed. The District Attorney’s Office was forced to dismiss all the charges.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Fitchburg District Court
05/26/05
Possession of an Incendiary Device – Dismissed
Disturbing the Peace – not guilty
Police, responding to Defendant’s home on complaint of loud explosions coming from the backyard, heard a huge explosion and saw a large fireball rise from behind the single story. They claimed they saw the Defendant holding some type of device in his hands. Running to the backyard, the police discovered a crater with a burm mark around its rim.
Commonwealth vs. D.D., Cambridge Superior Court
05/05/05 -- 05/12/05
kidnapping -- Not Guilty
aggravated rape -- Not Guilty
aggravated rape -- Not Guilty
aggravated rape -- Not Guilty
aggravated rape -- Not Guilty
aggravated rape -- Not Guilty
indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
Alleged victim testified that, following a work party, the defendant locked her in the basement of the office building, overpowered her, slammed her into a wall injuring her wrist and repeatedly raped and assaulted her. The District Attorney's Office called five witnesses. The defense called not one witness. The jury deliberated for two days.
Commonwealth vs. WT, Cambridge District Court
04/20/05-04/21/05
Possession of Class B (cocaine) -- Not Guilty
According to prosecution, once the Defendant observed a Mass State Police Cruiser, he attempted to evade the Trooper by driving behind a Burger King restaurant. When the Defendant finally drove away, the Trooper pulled him over. Inside the car, the Trooper discovered a bag of cocaine. A co-defendant informed the Trooper that she, the defendant, and the other two occupants had gone to Boston to purchase the cocaine. According to the State Trooper, the defendant conceded to him that what the co-defendant had said was true.
Commonwealth vs. JK, Attleboro District Court
06/15/04
Operating Under the Influence -- Not Guilty
State Trooper testified that he observed a BMW weaving in and out of its lane on 95 North in Attleboro. The Trooper testified that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the client's breath and that the client slurred and gave confusing answers to simple questions. Client admitted drinking four rum and cokes. According to the Trooper, the client failed the field sobriety tests known as the heel-to-toe and one-leg stand. Trooper admitted client passed the alphabet test.
Commonwealth vs. MPF, Cambridge Superior Court
05/24/04 - 05/28/04
Rape of Child -- Not Guilty
Rape of Child -- Not Guilty
Indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
Indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
Indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
A&B Dangerous Weapon -- Not Guilty
A&B Dangerous Weapon -- Not Guilty
A&B Dangerous Weapon -- Not Guilty
A&B -- Not Guilty
Dissemination of Pornographic Material -- Not Guilty
Defendant's daughter testified that between her 8th and 10th grades, the Defendant raped her twice a week for 2 years, beat her with an electrical cord and a police stick, broke plates over her head, punched her in the stomach, and forced her to watch pornography. The jury deliberated for 8 1/2 hrs.
Commonwealth vs. L.B., Suffolk County Superior Court
05/04/04 - 05/10/04
Aggravated Rape -- Not Guilty
Aggravated Rape -- Not Guilty
Indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
Indecent A&B -- Not Guilty
Alleged victim testified that she slept over Defendant's home as the guest of his step-daughter. The following morning, after the Defendant drove the step-daughter and his wife to work, he returned to the home. The alleged victim claimed that he entered the guest bedroom, took off his clothing, subdued her and twice raped her. Jury deliberated less than an hour.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Newburyport Superior Court,
03/15/04 - 03/23/04
Motor Vehicle Homicide -- Not Guilty
Operating Under the Influence -- Dismissed on first day of trial
According to the Commonwealth, the client was driving 89 mph down Rt. 95 in Topsfield when he rear-ended another vehicle, sending that vehicle out-of-control and rolling down the embankment. The occupants of the vehicle were ejected. The driver died within a few hours. Responding police, EMTs and firemen detected an odor of alcohol on the client's breath. Two witnesses described the client as intoxicated. Attorney Mahoney destroyed the Commonwealth's accident reconstructionist by exposing his inconsistencies, his perjury and his motives. After deliberating for three hours, the jury found the client not guilty.
Commonwealth vs. Matthew Lavoie, Cambridge Superior Court
11/18/03 - 12/16/03
1st Degree Murder -- Not Guilty
2nd Degree Murder -- Guilty
Possession of Firearm -- Not Guilty
On the morning of March 8, 2001, the still burning remains of an unidentified victim was discovered on a remote road in Fitchburg, not far from Matthew Lavoie's parents' home. The victim had been shot once in the head, twice in the chest, before being disgarded on the snow covered road, soaked with gasoline and set on fire. After identifying the victim, the police quickly settled on the home of Kevin Fuller as the likely murder scene. When, on March 9th, State Police Detectives conducting surveillance on Fuller's home saw individuals carrying items from the home to cars parked in the driveway, they decided to secure the residence. Bursting through the front door, State Troopers swiftly tackled Fuller and Lavoie to the floor, got them to their feet and hustled them out the door, dressed only in jeans and t-shirts, into a blizzard. Beginning at approximately midnight, two detectives relentlessly interrogated Lavoie. For the first 5 hours of the interrogation, Lavoie maintained that Kevin Fuller and Fuller's girlfriend, Samantha Litalien, had shot and killed the victim. Lavoie admitted that after the murder, and while the victim lay dead in a pool of blood just down the hall, he, Fuller and Litalien smoked the victim's cocaine. According to Lavoie, together, they wrapped the body in saran wrap, placed the body in Fuller's Jeep, drove to Fitchburg, and burned the body. At 05:00 a.m., Lavoie exhausted and.dope sick, confessed to executing the victim with a 9mm handgun provided by Fuller. The police recovered evidence of the murder in the trunk of Lavoie's car, money stolen from the victim in Lavoie's backpack, Lavoie's blood stained jeans from a dumpster, and the murder weapon from the home of Litalien's friend. The prosecutor indicted Lavoie for 1st degree murder as the shooter and Fuller and Litalien for 1st degree murder as "joint venturers" or accomplices. Getting the jury to disbelieve Lavoie's confession would be no small task. At trial, the prosecutor predictably claimed in his opening statement that Lavoie was the shooter. After Attorney Mahoney destroyed the credibility of the detectives who coerced Lavoie into confessing, the prosecutor persuaded the judge, over Mahoney's objection, to instruct the jury that they could find Lavoie guilty of murder as a "joint venturer" if they did not believe he shot the victim. Following three days of deliberations, the jury found Lavoie guilty of 2nd degree murder as a "joint-venturer," but acquitted him of being the shooter and, more importantly, of 1st degree murder. Lavoie will be eligible for parole in 12 years.
Commonwealth vs. T.W., Dedham District Court
10/20/03
Assault -- Not Guilty
Ex-wife claimed that after informing defendant that she would deny him scheduled visitation, he became enraged and swung at her, just missing her face. Later, he swung at her stomach. The prosecutor called four witnesses, including two neighbors and a police officer. The defense called but one witness. The jury deliberated 14 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. John Doe, Cambridge Superior Court
6/16/03-6/30/03
Assault with Intent to Rape -- Not Guilty
Indecent Assault & Battery -- Not Guilty
Indecent Assault & Battery -- Not Guilty
Indecent Assault & Battery -- Not Guilty
Open & Gross Lewdness -- Not Guilty
Open & Gross Lewdness -- Not Guilty
Open & Gross Lewdness -- Not Guilty
Assault & Battery -- Not Guilty
Assault & Battery -- Not Guilty
Assault & Battery -- Guilty
According to the Prosecutor, my client and two co-defendants, in the Boston area on a high school field trip, relentlessly sexually assaulted two classmates. At one point, the Prosecutor claimed, the defendants pinned one victim to the bed and attempted to force him to perform fellatio on one of the defendants. The jury deliberated 16 hours over 3 days. The co-defendants were found guilty of 23 of 32 indictments, including two counts of assault w/ intent to rape, which carries a prison term of up to 20 years. Sentencing hearing scheduled for this fall.
Commonwealth vs. J. M., Newton District Court
6/12/03
OUI -- Not Guilty
Officer, responding to scene of a motor vehicle accident, smelled strong odor of alcohol on defendant's breath. Gave defendant three field sobriety tests, two of which, the officer claimed, the defendant had failed badly. Jury deliberated approximately 1 1/2 hrs.
Commonwealth vs. Ming Chen, Dedham District Court
1/8/03
Assault & Battery -- Not Guilty
Defendant, who was delivery man for Dragon Chef, was accused of grabbing, holding, pushing and punching three female college students who had ordered Chinese food. Three students and a Brookline police officer testified against the Defendant. The defense called no witnesses. Jury deliberated 7 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. Herman Medeiros., Cambridge District Court
04/10/02-04/11/02
Assault & Battery w/ a Dangerous Weapon -- Not Guilty
Defendant was accused of striking his brother in the face with a milk crate, cutting the alleged victim's nose and drawing blood, threatening the alleged victim and his son with a crowbar, throwing punches at the alleged victim and his son, ripping an eight foot long nail ridden board from the porch and chasing the alleged victim and son with the board until the police arrived. Attorney Mahoney exposed the alleged victim as a liar over the course of two days of exhausting cross-examination. Jury deliberated 11 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. Doug W., Taunton District Court
11/27/01-11/28/01
OUI – Not Guilty
Driving to Endanger – Not Guilty
According to responding police, the client was standing outside driver's side door of a truck that had struck a wall. He was very drunk. The owner of the truck admitted driving the truck, but denied hitting the wall. The client's girlfriend, who was extremely intoxicated, covered in her own vomit denied being in the truck, but said that the client had driven the truck. After failing the field sobriety tests, the client claimed that his girlfriend had driven the truck. At trial, Attorney Mahoney persuaded the jury that the police had lied and that the now ex-girlfriend was the driver.
Commonwealth vs. Gregory W., Cambridge District Court
10/03/01
Operating Under the Influence – Not Guilty
At 03:45 a.m. on the Sunday morning following St. Patrick’s Day, the client almost collided with two cars as he ran a red light in Somerville. The client failed the alphabet, heel-to-toe, one-leg stand, and nystagmus eye field sobriety tests. He admitted that he had been drinking. He was unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot, glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol on his breath. The client took the breathalyzer, which recorded a blood alcohol content of .07 (presumption of intoxication at .08).
Commonwealth vs. Ed T., Brookline District Court
09/25/01-09/26/01
Operating Under the Influence -- Not Guilty
On way home from two Christmas parties, the client skidded to a stop at the intersection of Harvard Street and Beacon Street in Brookline. At the next intersection, he drove down the wrong side of the median, into oncoming traffic. The client was unable to say the alphabet in three attempts and failed the heel-to-toe and one-leg stand field sobriety tests. The breathalyzer recorded a .13 (legal limit .08). Three police officers testified for the prosecution. The jury deliberated only 20 minutes.
Commonwealth vs. John Merlino, Wrentham District Court
05/30/01-05/31/01
Disorderly Person -- Not Guilty
Resisting Arrest -- Not Guilty
Police-responding to altercation in parking lot outside Foxboro Stadium following a Patriots' game-handcuffed the client, mistaking him for one of the combatants. When he protested, another police officer instructed him to “shut the fuck up,” grabbed him, slammed him to the ground, twisted his arm, and threw him bodily into the patrol wagon. The police eventually identified the correct combatants. The four responding police officers still testified that the client had been one the combatants, that he had been drunk, abusive, threatening, and violent. They said that the client was only “placed” on the ground when he resisted their efforts to handcuff him. We will now be filing a civil lawsuit against the Foxboro Police Dept.
Commonwealth vs. Heriberto T., Westboro District Court
05/21/01
Possession of a Loaded Firearm While Intoxicated -- Not Guilty
The client was riding in the passenger seat of his car on Rt. 9 when he removed a handgun from a bag and held it to his head. Unable to talk the client out of killing himself, the driver fled the car. Responding police surrounded shut down Rt 9 and surrounded the client's car. The police ordered him to throw his weapon from the car. The police took him into custody. He had bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred his words, and was unsteady on his feet.
Commonwealth vs. Cheryl C., Superior Court
03/20/01-03/23/01
Accessory After Fact to Bank Robbery -- Not Guilty
A hispanic male robbed Stoneham Savings Bank by indicating he had gun beneath shirt. Fled bank with cash into getaway car, driven by the defendant. Dye pack exploded and he began throwing money out window of car. The client drove car away from scene. Eight days later police arrest the man on unrelated charge. The man implicates the client. Police arrest her five days later. She tells police she had no idea that the man planned to rob bank and that, following the robbery, he threatened to kill her if she "ran her mouth."
Commonwealth vs. Marianne S., District Court
12/07/00-12/08/00
OUI 2nd – Not Guilty
Resisting Arrest – Not Guilty
Defendant failed 3 of 5 field sobriety tests. Defendant submitted to portable breathalyzer with reading of .134 (legal limit .08). On booking video, Defendant slurring words, swearing and yelling at officers.
Commonwealth vs. Michael D., Superior Court
10/23/00-10/27/00
Assault w/ intent to Rape – Not Guilty
Indecent A & B (hand on vagina) – Hung (7 to 5 in favor of acquittal)
Indecent A & B (hand on breast) – Hung (11-1 in favor of acquittal)
A & B – Guilty (Def. received 2 – yrs straight probation)
Eleven year old victim testified that client, 18 year old male, gave her a piece of candy, followed her to mother’s truck, where he grabbed her, dragged her from car, jammed his hand down her shorts, grabbed her crotch, hit her repeatedly, fondled and squeezed her breast, and kissed her on the mouth.
Commonwealth vs. Deborah R., Superior Court
09/18/00-09/20/00
001-Uttering – Not Guilty 009-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
002-Uttering – Hung 010-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
003-Uttering – Hung 011-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
004-Uttering – Hung 012-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
005-Uttering – Hung 013-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
006-Uttering – Hung 014-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
007-Uttering – Hung 015-Obtaining Narcotics – Hung
008-Obtaining Narcotics– Not Guilty 016-21-Receiving Stolen Property
(a prescription pad) – Guilty
Co-defendant testified that client was ring leader of a group passing prescription drugs, who had beaten, threatened, kidnaped, and robbed her and had sold her drugs. Jury deliberated for 12 hours and repeatedly reported that they were hopelessly deadlocked, before judge forced them to return verdicts.
Commonwealth vs. Raymond H., District Court
09/13/00
Assault & Battery – Not Guilty
Assault & Battery w/ Dang. Weap. – Not Guilty
Driving to Endanger – Not Guilty
Police responded to 911 call of a woman beaten by man and thrown from a moving car. Ambulance summonsed. Woman taken to hospital and diagnosed with multiple contusions. Defendant was jury foreman on Commonwealth vs. Otto from Sept. 99
Commonwealth vs. George R., Superior Court
08/09/00
Armed Robbery – Not Guilty
Two eyewitnesses separately selected client’s photo from mug shot books. Witnesses positively identified Defendant in court. Cross-examined witnesses on descriptions they originally gave to police.
Commonwealth vs. William J. T., Malden District Court
08/01/00
Possession of Marijuana – Not Guilty
Arresting Officer testified that he smelled overpowering odor of marijuana emanating from defendant’s vehicle. Defendant seated in passenger seat. Officer found marijuana beneath passenger seat.
Commonwealth vs. James W., District Court
04/24/00
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Driving at 65 mph in a 35 mph zone, Defendant crossed double yellow line, forcing oncoming police cruiser off the road. Defendant reeked of odor of alcohol, had slurred speech, watery, bloodshot eyes and was very unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed all three field sobriety tests and admitted drinking 3 or 4 beers. Booking room video showed defendant unsteady, slurring, making contradictory statements and, at times, incoherent and engaged in bizarre behavior. Attorney Mahoney successfully moved to suppress the videotape.
Commonwealth vs. Heriberto T., Framingham District Court
03/10/00 - 03/13/00
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Defendant driving 58 mph in a 40 mph zone. Defendant admitted to drinking 4 - 5 beers and to being lost. Defendant refused breathalyzer. Video showed defendant failing field sobriety tests, slurring, stammering, refusing breathalyzer, and arguing with officer.
Commonwealth vs. Aldaberto O., District Court
09/28/99-09/30/99
OUI 4th – Not Guilty
Failure to Stop – Not Guilty
Defendant weaved all over road, refused to stop when signaled, almost struck curb when he finally stopped, staggered from his car and nearly fell down attempting both one-leg raise test and heel-to-toe. Defendant did not testify.
Commonwealth vs. Edwin M., District Court
05/18/99-05/20/99
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Defendant had odor alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, could not say alphabet and failed all field sobriety tests. So angry was State Trooper following cross-examination that he threatened Attorney Mahoney outside courthouse.
Commonwealth vs. Eliot M., Superior Court
03/18/99-03/21/99
Indecent A&B: Not Guilty
Indecent A&B: Not Guilty
See description below.
03/03/99-03/06/99
Indecent A&B: Hung
Indecent A&B: Hung
Defendant slept in room with daughter and her 9 year-old friend. Alleged victim testified that client had been molesting her for at least 6 months. She said when he started to rub her stomach that night, which had always been a prelude to him touching her vagina, she threw-up on herself. She told her mother next morning. Mother and Father confronted defendant that day.
Commonwealth vs. Robert R., District Court
11/22/98-11/23/98
OUI 1st – Guilty
According to police, defendant weaving wildly up Rt. 93 northbound. After stop, defendant pretended to be suffering from an asthma attack and then claimed to be having a heart attack. Defendant refused breathalyzer and to have hospital test his blood. Prosecutor used defendant’s prior drunk driving conviction to impeach defendant’s wife who claimed defendant had not had a drink in 27 years. Defendant testified that he had not had drink in 10 years.
Commonwealth vs. Michael K., District Court
04/12/98
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Defendant weaving all over Rt. 9. Failed field sobriety tests. Six empty beer bottles and an empty nip bottle of whisky found in car. Defendant takes breathalyzer and registers .06. Defendant taken to hospital at his request and there records a .30 blood serum level.
Commonwealth vs. Terry K., District Court
01/27/98
OUI 1st – Guilty
Defendant was driving northbound on southbound side of Rt. 93. Failed field sobriety tests. Defendant claimed he was lost. Defendant’s witness changed story on stand and exposed as liar.
Commonwealth vs. Gary B., Framingham District Court
10/27/97-10/30/97
Home Invasion – Dismissed
Home Invasion – Dismissed
B&E – Not Guilty
B&E – Not Guilty
A&B – Not Guilty
A&B – Not Guilty
Assault – Not Guilty
Malicious Destruction of Property – Not Guilty
Malicious Destruction of Property – Not Guilty
Threats – Not Guilty
Witnesses testified that defendant and co-defendant forced way into home #1 and threatened, struck residents and broke furniture. Defendant and co-defendant proceeded to home #2 where they again forced way into home, assaulted residents and destroyed furniture, lamps and a vacuum cleaner before leaving. Defendant and co-defendants arrested as they drove away.
Commonwealth vs. Andrew T., District Court
July 1997
Operating after Susp. 3rd Offense – Guilty
Defendant arrested for riding motorcycle on Rt. 93 for driving without license. Defendant claimed he was unaware that his license had been suspended. Attorney Mahoney argued that docket sheet, while sufficient to show license suspended, insufficient to show defendant advised of same.
Commonwealth vs. Mark W., District Court
June 1997
Oper. After Susp. 2nd Off. – Not Guilty
Defendant charged with operating after suspension, second offense. Prosecutor wanted 30 days committed. Attorney Mahoney argued the defendant did not receive notice.
Commonwealth vs. Gary S., Cambridge District Court
07/96
OUI 1st – Not Guilty
Police pulled defendant and friends over for speeding. Police testified defendant was drunk and failed all field sobriety tests. Vomit on Jeep.
Commonwealth v. Edwin O., District Court
June 1996
Assault & Battery – Guilty
Prosecutor showed defendant had attacked security guards of apartment. One guard had a scar from the altercation.
Drug Cases
Commonwealth vs. Corey M., West Roxbury District Court
12/6/01
Possession of Class B w/ Intent to Distribute (to wit: oxycontin) – Dismissed
minimum mandatory 2 1/2 years in prison
Officers Dentremont and O'Sullivan of the Boston Police Narcotics Squad observed what they believed to be a narcotics deal between the client and an unknown male in the parking lot of the Star Market on Hyde Park Avenue, Boston. With the assistance of a marked cruiser, they stopped the client as he drove away. After surrounding him, O'Sullivan reached into the client's pants, retrieving a Tic Tac box containing 27 oxycontin pills. At the evidentiary hearing on Attorney Mahoney's motion to suppress the drugs, Mahoney attacked the officer during cross-examination, exposing his shoddy investigatory tactics and deceit. The Court suppressed the drugs and the Assistant District Attorney was forced to dismiss the charges. O'Sullivan had bragged to Mahoney that, unless they got a "moronic" judge, Mahoney would never get the drugs suppressed.
Commonwealth vs. Dion D., District Court
10/23/01
Possession Class D – Dismissed
Possession Class D w/ intent to Distribute – Dismissed
Constable forces the client, who is driving a Ford Explorer, to stop for speeding and erratic driving. When the client appears to reach for a gun, the constable draws his gun on him, removes him from the Explorer, searched the vehicle and found three bags of marijuana. Mahoney filed a motion to suppress, successfully petitioning the Court to find the search unconstitutional.
Commonwealth vs. John B., District Court
09/21/01
Domestic A&B -- pled to straight probation
Possession Class D w/ intent to Distribute w/i School Zone– Dismissed
Possession Class C w/ intent to Distribute w/i School Zone– Dismissed
Possession Class E – Dismissed
The client's wife called 911 and accused her husband of assault & battery. The client fled the scene carrying a backpack. The police arrested him not far from his home and, searching his backpack, found a substantial amount of marijuana and approximately 200 methamphetamine tablets. Attorney Mahoney filed a motion suppress arguing that the drugs had been seized during an unconstitutional search of the backpack. After an evidentiary hearing, the Court allowed Attorney Mahoney’s motion and suppressing all the drugs. The drug charges, which carried a minimum mandatory sentence of 2 years in prison, were Dismissed.
Civil Trials
Ming's Import, Inc., et al. v. Stephen L., et al., Civ. No. 91-6498 (Suffolk Superior Court) Win
Major fire in downtown China Town (covered by T.V. show, 48 Hours), caused by defendant landlord's negligence, destroyed plaintiff's business. Following nine day trial, Judge Patti Saris awarded plaintiff verdict of $389,000.00. I represented the plaintiff.
Frederick L. v. E&T Auto, Inc., Civ. No. 95 SC 0346 (Cambridge Dist. Ct., Sprague, J.,presiding) Win
Plaintiff-Owner claimed E&T did substandard paint job on his car. Owner had received $1100.00 from small claims and appealed to jury session in attempt to increase award. Jury returned verdict of only $400.00 in favor of plaintiff, saving plaintiff $700.00.
Trial Record As An Assistant District Attorney
Tried approximately 30 cases as a Middlesex County Assistant District Attorney (1991–1993).
Appellate Record
Between early 1991 and December 1992, Attorney Mahoney compiled an appellate record of 12 wins and 2 losses as an assistant district attorney. Most appellate court decisions are not published.
Commonwealth vs. Michael S., Superior Court, No. 90030-32
When Attorney Mahoney agreed to represent him, the client had already been confined to MCI-Walpole for eight years. In 1992, a jury convicted him of assault & battery with a dangerous weapon and armed assault within a dwelling. The judge sentenced the client for a term of 18 to 30 years for the armed assault and a term of 5 to 10 years for the assault & battery with a dangerous weapon. In 1994, the client’s appellate attorney argued unsuccessfully to the Appeals Court that the trial judge had improperly abridged trial counsel’s right to fully cross-examine the alleged victim.
On 31 July 2001, Attorney Mahoney argued to Judge John Tierney that the trial judge’s instructions were so hopelessly flawed that there existed a substantial risk that the jury had in error convicted the client of armed assault. Judge Tierney agreed and overturned the conviction.
Published Opinions Of Supreme Judicial Court
As a Defense Attorney:
Commonwealth vs. Allard, 431 Mass. (2000)
1st Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. Court unpersuaded by Attorney Mahoney’s argument that trial judge’s instructions to jury on "reasonable doubt" was flawed. There was overwhelming evidence that, on the day the Defendant had planned to marry his fiancé, he had murdered the man who had stolen away his fiancé.
Commonwealth vs. Ashman, 430 Mass. 736 (2000)
1st Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. Court not receptive to Attorney Mahoney’s argument that where a defendant raises a "diminished capacity" defense, potential jurors should undergo same scrutiny that potential jurors do where defendant raises insanity defense. Court declined to reduce verdict to 2nd degree murder where defendant, who had been recently released from mental hospital, had stabbed his girlfriend to death.
Commonwealth vs. Martin, 427 Mass. 816 (1998)
1st Degree Murder – conviction overturned. Attorney Mahoney successfully argued on appeal that District Attorney’s Office withheld exculpatory toxicology evidence and that defendant’s trial attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge the cause-of-death evidence.
Commonwealth vs. Meuse, 423 Mass. 831 (1996)
Armed Robbery – conviction overturned. Attorney Mahoney persuaded Court that the prosecutor had improperly vouched for credibility of "snitch" who testified that the defendant and his accomplices had committed armed robbery.
As an Assistant District Attorney:
Commonwealth vs. Ward, 412 Mass. 395 (1992)
1st Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney persuasively countered defense attorney’s argument that juvenile – who had repeatedly stabbed homeless veteran to death and attempted to set him on fire – had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that the conviction should be reduced to 2nd degree murder. (It was my "victory" here that fueled my desire to defend people – rather than prosecute them).
Commonwealth vs. Sabetti, 411 Mass. 770 (1992)
Trafficking in Cocaine – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney successfully opposed defense counsel’s contention that State Trooper’s warrantless search of car was unconstitutional. Mahoney persuaded Court that trial judge had erred in reducing jury verdict of "trafficking" to "intent to distribute" – which carried substantially less mandatory prison time. (From the beginning, I thought the defendant was innocent. When it came time to re-sentence the defendant in accordance with "trafficking" conviction, I asked for the lowest sentence permissible under the statute).
Published Opinions Of The Appeals Court
Commonwealth vs. King, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 380 (1992)
2nd Degree Murder – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney convinced Court that trial judge was within his discretion in allowing gruesome photographs of victim into evidence.
Commonwealth vs. Meuse, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 772 (1995)
Armed Robbery Conviction overturned. See above.
Commonwealth vs. Munera, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 380 (1991)
Cocaine Trafficking – conviction affirmed. Assistant District Attorney Mahoney successfully countered defense attorney’s contention that there was insufficient evidence from which jury could have found the Defendant guilty.
*Out of regard for the privacy concerns of his clients, some last names have not been disclosed or the case, in its entirety, is omitted. Additionally, Attorney Mahoney includes as wins those cases in which the client was acquitted of the most serious charge or charges and found guilty of a lesser offense. See for example, Commonwealth vs. Michael D. (who was acquitted of assault with intent to rape, but found guilty of simple assault and battery).
If you're in need of legal representation, call the Law Offices of Kevin J. Mahoney, PC, at 617-492-0055
