Archives

On February 4, 2015, Norman Zalkind argued before the Supreme Judicial Court that a murder charge pending against his client Timi Wallace should be dismissed because the Commonwealth violated his client’s right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment to the Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The argument can be viewed here. The briefs in the case, including an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Mr. Wallace by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, are available here.

The client was facing serious sexual assault charges that, if he had been convicted, could have resulted in prison time and his registration as a sex offender. Following a jury trial, the client was convicted of a single misdemeanor charge and received a short probationary sentence.

Zalkind Duncan and Bernstein is proud to announce that partner Inga Bernstein recently received Corporate LiveWire’s highest recognition with a Global Award in Civil Rights – Massachusetts. Last year, Corporate LiveWire also honored Inga as Lawyer of the Year 2014 for Civil Law – Boston, Massachusetts.

On December 22, 2014, Monica Shah won an appeal in the Single Justice Session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for a physician who was challenging the revocation of his medical license due to alleged false answers on his renewal application. The Court ordered a remand to the Board of Registration in Medicine because the Board failed to sufficiently explain the reasons for its sanction and why it departed from the typical sanction granted in such circumstances. The physician was granted a new hearing on sanctions and mitigating circumstances.

The ZDB attorneys will write weekly on criminal, employment, and academic issues. Check out their latest posts at http://bostonlawyerblog.com.

Naomi Shatz published an essay on the Huffington Post on October 29, 2014 discussing whether the current approach to campus sexual assault cases is good for, or compatible with, feminism. She argues that stripping men accused of sexual assault of all procedural protections and due process in order to ensure that they are found responsible for sexual misconduct and removed from their campuses does not further feminist goals or help victims of sexual assault. The full article can be read here.

In a case where the client was charged with trafficking marijuana, the Commonwealth “nolle prossed” (dropped) all charges after Norman Zalkind and Emma Quinn-Judge prevailed on a key discovery motion.

Harvey Silverglate, of counsel to ZDB, published an opinion article in the Boston Globe on October 9, 2014, regarding the heartbreaking case of his client Bernard Baran. Baran, an openly gay man, was convicted of child rape in 1985. Jurors were never shown unedited videotapes of interviews with the children in which they initially denied that Baran had done anything wrong, before being subjected to suggestive and discredited interview techniques. Baran was freed after the tapes surfaced, having served 22 years in prison, but passed away on September 1 this year. Mr. Silverglate argues that the Commonwealth must now conduct a searching and public investigation into the question of whether the prosecutors at trial, one of whom is now a sitting judge, intentionally withheld the tapes from the defense. Mr. Silverglate’s piece can be read here.

In an October 4, 2014 piece for Forbes magazine Attorney Harvey Silverglate, of counsel to ZDB, discusses the history of the necessity defense in Massachusetts, including in his own practice, in light of an unusual recent case in which activists charged criminally for blocking a shipping channel to prevent the delivery of coal planned to raise the necessity defense in court, arguing that the threat of climate change justified their actions. The piece is available here. And in a second column, dated October 5, 2014, Mr. Silverglate criticizes the decision by federal judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. to deny accused Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a change of venue for his trial, calling the decision “inexplicable . . . unless hubris is taken into consideration.” That article is available to read here.

David Russcol has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Appeals Court on behalf of the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association. Writing in support of the plaintiff in Brown v. Office of the Commissioner of Probation, he argued that government employees who prove that they have been illegally discriminated or retaliated against should collect interest until their claims are paid, just like private employees. The defendants have suggested that they are exempt from paying interest, in which case there would be no consequences to the government for delaying payment. David Russcol wrote in the brief that, under the strong Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, government employers should be held to the same standard as private companies, not a lower standard.