45 Walker Street
   Bishop House Offices
   Lenox, MA 01240
   Telephone (413) 637-2777    Facsimile (413) 637-1640
   Email:
   inquiries@pumphreylaw.com

Select & Sample Cases

Criminal Law

Commonwealth v. Coren, 437 Mass. 723 (2003). The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Defendant's conviction on both counts of first degree murder and unlawful possession of a fire arm. With respect to the first degree murder count, the SJC held that the prosecutor exceeded the scope of proper argument by misstating important aspects of the testimony in closing argument. The prosecutorial misconduct here, the Court concluded, did not go a collateral issue, but to the central issue of the case, which was whether the shooting was first degree murder or accidental. With respect to the fire arms charge, the SJC held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Defendant possessed the fire arm outside of the curtilage of his home. Therefore, "the jury were thus left with only conjecture and surmise on which to base their verdict on this charge."

Commonwealth v. Dempsey, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 247 (2000). The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the Defendant's conviction for murder in the second degree, holding that the trial court failed to adequately instruct the jury with respect to the burden of proof for voluntary manslaughter. The Appeals Court stated, "[O]ur reading of the judge's whole charge convinces us that the jury retired to consider the case under conflicting impressions regarding the Commonwealth's burden as to provocation." We argued, and the Appeals Court agreed, that the jury's confusion was borne out by the their return with two questions. In response to the jury questions, the judge gave supplemental instructions which included one correct and one incorrect statement of the burden of proof regarding provocation.

United States v. Geronimo, 330 F.3d. 67 (1st Cir. 2003). Notwithstanding that the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in this case, the Court held that the element of scienter applies to the crime of aiding and abetting importation. Aiding and abetting requires the government to show that a defendant participated in the venture and sought by his actions to make it succeed. This burden is fulfilled by a showing that the defendant consciously shared the principal's knowledge of the underlying criminal act, and intended to help the principal. If the "underlying criminal act" is importation of a controlled substance, the accused must have consciously shared the principal's knowledge of the importation to be found guilty of aiding and abetting.

Family Law

Custody of Kali, 439 Mass. 834 (2003). In this custody matter, the Supreme Judicial Court held that "best interests of the child" rather than the "substantial change of circumstances" was the appropriate standard. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Probate Court which awarded custody to the mother, holding that the trial court did not abuse discretion in determining which parent would promote the child's best interests and the trial court considered all of the requisite factors pursuant to G.L. c. 209C, § 10(a) concerning the custody of a child born to unmarried parents.

Settled Cases

Commonwealth v. Palatino. This case was favorably settled after we filed a post-trial Motion for Reconsideration of Restitution in Hampshire Superior Court.

Commonwealth v. Cuffee. The Hampden Superior Court allowed the Defendant's Motion to Revise and Revoke Sentence, and the Defendant was released from prison several months earlier than he had originally been sentenced.

Lombardo v. Lombardo was favorably settled by negotiation post-trial after the notice of appeal was filed but without the need to litigate the matter beyond Probate Court.