RI Federal and MA State Criminal Defense Attorney

Arson in the state of Rhode Island

2012-05-09T09:30:00.000-04:00

Although most fires are the result of negligence, old wiring, or simply accidental misfortune, a percentage of them are caused deliberately. The crime of intentionally starting a fire is called "Arson", and involves anyone who knowingly causes, procures, assists, counsels or creates a serious risk of harm to people or property via fire or explosion. The crime of arson is a serious one regardless of whether or not the intention is physical harm to another person, or if the fire involves a structure that isn't used for residential purposes.

1st Degree Arson

First degree arson involves injury or death and may result in a mandatory 20 year prison sentence, with a max of life imprisonment in addition to a $25000 fine. A death or injury is not required in order for a prosecution to charge you with 1st degree arson. Any person that commits arson of an occupied structure which has been inhabited within the past six months of the crime is guilty of arson in the first degree.

2nd Degree Arson

Second degree arson generally involves committing the act within an unoccupied building and doesn't not include death or injury to another individual. Second degree arson is still a very serious crime and may result in no less than five years imprisonment and $3,000-$25000 in fines.

Individuals convicted of Arson may not be subject to any minimum, mandatory sentences if it can be shown that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify a modification in sentence. This includes being able to demonstrate that a person is of exceptional character and background and fully cooperates with law enforcement authorities.

Have you been convicted of Arson?

Some states such as Rhode Island treat certain crimes very seriously, and will attempt to prosecute such cases with the most severe sentences possible. If you or a loved one has recently been arrested for Arson in The State of Rhode Island please contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation now.

Courts-Martial

2012-05-04T09:30:00.000-04:00

The United States military operates on many different systems, most of which function independently of those of the civilian population. One of these differences includes the legal system by which all active duty members are bound. Instead of being arrested by members of the local police department where a crime is committed, soldiers must answer to a "court-martial". A court-martial is designed to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces as well as the punishment if found guilty.

The majority of court-martial cases involve a breach of military discipline, although there are occasionally more serious offenses which are examined as well. In some countries there is no court-martial system in times of peace, and any foreign or domestic soldier is subject to that country's civilian laws.

Most individuals subject to a court-martial are U.S. active-duty military members, however; reservists, retirees, cadets, midshipmen, prisoners of war, and even civilians are subject to a court-martial if they are serving alongside our troops in the field, such as military contractors and journalists.

If you are being Court-Martialed

The military owns and operates several detainment facilities, one type of which is a penal system used to house domestic active-duty personnel convicted of a crime. Another type is designed to hold foreign "enemy combatants" where captured enemies are confined for military reasons until hostilities cease. RI Criminal Defense Attorney John Calcagni understands that even active-duty military members make mistakes, and he is prepared to give you a competent and professional representation in a military court of law. Contact Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

Tax Fraud

2012-04-18T09:37:00.000-04:00

The United States government uses the term "voluntary compliance" to describe every citizen's responsibility to fill out a tax return when required, and for paying the correct amount of tax. Very often individuals can make mistakes, and in some cases; intentionally attempt to evade, or take advantage of their legal responsibility by providing fraudulent information. This is what is called "Tax Fraud".

Although there are different types of tax fraud, the most common is when an individual or business entity intentionally falsifies information on a tax return in order to limit or decrease his or her amount of tax liability. This is done simply by claiming false deductions, disguising personal expenses as business expenses or by deliberately failing to report income.

Types of Tax Fraud

Basically, any information you provide that is not accurate can be interpreted as Tax Fraud, even an honest mistake, that's why it is important to understand exactly what the IRS Criminal Investigation Unit ( CIU ) looks for when tax fraud is suspected. Some of the ways you be charged with tax fraud include:

Knowingly changing your income

Possessing two set of books

Claiming false deductions

Concealing or transferring assets or income

Over reporting the amount of deductions

Using false amounts in books and records

Recording personal expenses as business expenses

Tax Fraud consequences in Rhode Island

The penalties for criminal tax fraud in the state of Rhode Island are very serious, and may result in up to 5 years imprisonment. In addition to jail time, an individual found guilty of tax fraud may even face fines of up to $500,000, including the court costs for each individual tax crime.

Once this process is complete, the IRS CIU will refer the case back to the Examination Division where more accurate tax calculations will be made and a tax fraud penalty will be added to any criminal tax fraud fines.

Have you been charged with Tax Fraud?

Like any criminal conviction, a tax fraud charge can wreak havoc on your record, and can potentially affect virtually every area of your life, making it almost impossible to find employment. This is especially true within specialized fields such as public servitude or politics, where personal character is paramount. If you have recently been arrested in the state of Rhode Island and charged with Tax Fraud, please contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation and more information.

Eluding Police Case Result

2012-04-13T09:30:00.000-04:00

If you have been charged with a crime in RI or MA, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information.

Eluding Police: Filed. Police stopped a motorist on the highway after observing him travel at excessively high speeds weaving in and out of traffic. When officers pulled the motorist over, they noticed his truck was slightly ajar. The motorist claimed to be driving a rental vehicle and had no knowledge of the open trunk. Officers obtained the motorist’s license and rental registration to run a criminal background check. This check revealed to officers that the motorist was released from prison after serving long jail sentence for murder, and had also been recently charged with narcotics trafficking, a charge that was subsequently dismissed. Based on this information, the patrol officer called for back-up assistance of more police officers. When the motorist observed multiple police cars pull in behind his stopped car along the highway, he panicked, started his engine and sped off. The motorist fled police on the highway from Rhode Island and into neighboring Massachusetts. He was ultimately apprehended and charged with Eluding Police. The frightened motorist retained Attorney Calcagni to represent him against this misdemeanor charge. The motorist admitted his responsibility before the Court and pleaded for mercy at the time of sentencing. Because of his criminal history, the prosecution advocated for a sentence of one year in jail, to be suspended for one year, with probation. Attorney Calcagni vehemently opposed this sentencing recommendation and zealously advocated for his client who, though a felon, paid his debt to society and feared law enforcement. Attorney Calcagni successfully convinced the Court to not impose the sentence recommended by prosecutors and instead file this matter for one year. Providing the man is not charged with a new offense in the next year, he will be eligible to have his case sealed and he will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident. Congratulations to this client.

Arrest Warrant Client Testimonial

2012-04-11T09:23:00.000-04:00

If you have been arrested or are facing criminal charges in RI or MA, contact John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for a free consultation or more information.

“Attorney Calcagni honestly and truly made a difference in my life. He helped me vacate four different arrest warrants in a manner that prevented me from going to jail and closed out all of my cases with no additional punishment. I cannot explain with words the sincere gratitude that I have for the expert legal representation he provided to me. He is an awesome attorney. I will never hesitate to recommend him to anyone. It is my pleasure to pass along my great experience with him to others.” - MC

Assault and Disorderly Conduct Case Results

2012-04-06T09:30:00.000-04:00

If you have been charged with the crime of Assault or Disorderly Conduct, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for a free consultation or more information.

Simple Assault and Disorderly Conduct: Dismissed.

Intoxicated college student was involved in a melee on campus with a group of other students. Campus security or public safety officers arrived on scene and dispersed the crowd. A campus security officer, attempting to investigate the assault, approached an intoxicated college student and requested the student’s identification card. The student refused to produce his ID. In response, the public safety officer snatched from the student’s hand his cellular phone. The officer then offered to trade back the student’s phone for his ID. The student verbally agreed to the trade, but instead, tried to retrieve his phone without producing his ID. A struggled ensued between the officer and student at which time the student struck the officer in the face with a closed fist and attempted to flee. Several officers pursued the student and tackled him to the ground. The student continued to physically struggle until he was ultimately subdued by both public safety officers and local police officers who were called to the scene. For this series of events, the student was charged with both Simply Assault on the public safety officer and Disorderly Conduct for his fighting behavior. The student and his family retained Attorney Calcagni to defend against these criminal charges. Attorney Calcagni advocated on behalf of this first-time offender who was intoxicated at the time of the offense and had ambitions of enlisting into the military. At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated for the dismissal of these charges. Congratulations to this client.

Fugitive from Justice Criminal Defense Attorney Case Result

2012-04-04T09:30:00.000-04:00

If you are charged with a criminal offense in RI or MA, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation and more information.

Fugitive from Justice for More Than Ten Years: Surrendered and Cases Dismissed.

A man had four separate warrants for his arrest. The warrants each related to old cases for which the man had previously been criminally charged and released on bail, but subsequently failed to appear in Court.

The cases dated back to 1996, 1997 (two cases) and 2002, respectively. The man recently learned of the pending warrants and retained Attorney Calcagni to negotiate his surrender before the Court. Attorney Calcagni notified the District Attorney’s Office and Probation Department (the man was also on probation from these old cases) of the man’s desire to self-surrender on the arrest warrants.

The State took the position that when and if the man chose to voluntarily surrender, it would recommend to the Court that he be sentenced to six (6) months in jail as punishment for the old cases. Attorney Calcagni advised his client of this unfavorable prospective sentencing recommendation by the State.

Notwithstanding the possibility he could face jail time, the man still sought to surrender himself to the Court. Upon doing so, Attorney Calcagni knew he would have to strongly and creatively advocate on the man’s behalf to resolve his cases through some disposition other than jail.

Attorney Calcagni and his client appeared before the Court to surrender on the arrest warrants. As a result, the warrants were vacated. However, in order to dispose of the open cases, Attorney Calcagni successfully convinced the Court to allow his client to pay outstanding fines, assessments and restitutions on the old cases instead of going to jail.

In support of this non-jail sentencing recommendation, Attorney Calcagni educated the Court that his client has tragically suffered a traumatic brain injury years prior, as well as a host internal injuries from a life threatening accident when he fell several stories from scaffolding while working on a construction job. As a result, the man spent the vast majority of the past several years undergoing surgeries and other medical treatment, which caused him to forget about or otherwise lose track of his court obligations. Attorney Calcagni also stressed his client’s integrity and commitment to justice by self-surrendering to the Court in face of the State’s representation that it would seek jail as a consequence for the client’s absence and prior charged misconduct.

Overall, Attorney Calcagni successfully persuaded the Court, Probation Department and District Attorney’s Office to allow the man to pay his financial debts to the Court and for his cases to all be disclosed without any further punishment, to include jail. Congratulations to this client who sought to clear his name and who hired the right attorney to steer him clear of jail or further criminal punishment.

Military Drug Charge Case Results

2012-03-23T12:08:00.000-04:00

If you are a member of the armed forces and need assistance with a military criminal charge, contact Military Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for more information and assistance.

Cocaine Use: Finding of No Misonduct and Retained for Future Military Service.

A U.S. Army National Guard Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) tested positive for cocaine use during a unit-wide urinalysis for unlawful drug use. The NCO, a female of Latin-American decent, consumed a Latin herbal tea made partially with coca leaves, a major component to cocaine, several hours before the urinalysis. The NCO’s family member offered her the tea as a home remedy for an upset stomach. The NCO consumed the tea without realizing it was of the type made with cocoa leaves and thereafter attended her scheduled monthly battle drill. While there, she participated in a urinalysis that detected the cocaine metabolite in her system. In accordance with army regulations, the NCO was both flagged from favorable personnel actions and processed for administrative separation from military service. The NCO was in the zone at the time for re-enlistment and promotion with plans to attend both Air Assault and Officer Candidate School. She was also a leading candidate for a full-time AGR position with the National Guard. Because of the positive urinalysis and resulting flagging action, all of these plans were placed on hold. Needless to day, the NCO had a lot on the line and much to lose with the pending separation action, to include her military career.

The NCO was represented by Attorney John L. Calcagni III for purposes of her separation hearing board. Attorney Calcagni worked hand-in-hand with his client to prepare an ironclad defense at the hearing. Attorney Calcagni’s defense employed a two-part strategy. First, Attorney Calcagni sought to highlight for the board members the NCO’s impeccable service record. This female had nearly ten (10) years of military service at the time. She had previously deployed to Iraq. She was also highly regarded among her peers and by her chain of command, to include both her Battalion Commander and Battalion Sergeant Major. Similarly, her Company Commander and First Sergeant gave her stellar reviews. She also had countless certificates, achievements and awards in her service record. Attorney Calcagni marshaled this information before the board members in the form of both live and recorded witness testimony as well as documents from the NCO’s personnel files.

The second prong of Attorney Calcagni’s defense was to demonstrate that the NCO innocently ingested the cocoa tea without knowing of its chemical make-up. Part of this defense prong was to establish the small amount of cocaine base in each tea bag, and how that small amount ingested close in time to a urinalysis could yield results equal or similar to that of the NCO. Lastly, Attorney Calcagni sought to show that this small amount of cocaine base, if ingested into the body, would not produce any psychological or physiological effects that would give notice to an ingested illicit substance. To obtain and present this evidence, Attorney Calcagni underwent a nationwide search for toxicologists with Department of Defense (DOD) and/or military backgrounds. He located such an expert with extensive experience performing urinalysis testing for the U.S. Army. Attorney Calcagni then employed an investigator to go into the local community to purchase the cocoa tea in question, which is available for sale in inner city Hispanic markets. The investigator acquired the type and brand tea consumed by the NCO. He also acquired more potent samples from the local market place. A sample of the type and brand of tea consumed by the NCO was then shipped to a laboratory, at the toxicologist’s instruction, for chemical testing. This testing confirmed Attorney Calcagni’s theory – that someone of the NCO’s height and weight, who consumed one standard cup of the brewed cocoa tea within hours of a urinalysis, would test positive for the presence of cocaine as did this unlucky Soldier. The toxicologist completed a report of the laboratory’s findings and set forth his opinion, which was that one bag of the tea contained enough cocaine base such that if consumed within hours of the urinalysis, would yield test results for the presence of cocaine in a similar quantity as the NCO. He further opined that the NCO would not have experienced any effects from the substance and therefore, could have innocently ingested it. The report was presented for the board members’ consideration.

In closing argument, Attorney Calcagni argued that the NCO was the epitome of an American Soldier who lived and breathed the Army values. He also argued that she was the antithesis of a drug user. Because of her ethnic background, her family member provided her a substance that though comprised partially of the cocoa leaf, is apparently lawful in the United States given its availability for purchase in the local community. Lastly, he argued that her character and reputation in the National Guard buttressed and supported her innocent ingestion, which was scientifically proven by the toxicologist’s report. As a result of these efforts, the board members voted unanimously that the NCO committed no misconduct. The members further voted for the NCO to be retained for future service, and be immediately reinstated to duty and for all other service-related benefits. Congratulations to this NCO, who has since become a Commissioned Officer, for this outstanding result.

Operating Under the Influence Case Results

2012-03-21T10:30:00.000-04:00

If you are facing charges for OUI, Drug Possession, or any kind of Sexual Assault crime, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for assistance and a free consultation.

OUI 2nd for Alcohol; OUI for Drugs; and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex: OUI First-Offender Sanctions Imposed and All Other Charges Dismissed.

Police received a report of a motorist following a city garbage truck during the early morning hours. The report indicated that the motorist was believed to be intoxicated and was soliciting a female garbage trucker worker to perform a sexual act on him. Police arrived on the scene and stopped the motorist. At the time of the stop, officers detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the motorist, as well as observed him to have both blood shot eyes and slurred speech. During a discussion with the motorist, he admitted to having consumed several beers earlier in the night and appeared to be disoriented. Officers administered a battery of field sobriety tests to the motorists all of which he failed. Officers than placed the motorist under arrest and transported to the police station. He then participated in a breathalyzer test that measured his BAC to be .24 –three times the legal limit of .08. During the booking process, officers discovered a bottle of narcotic mediation on the motorist’s person person. As a result of the foregoing, police charged the motorist with Operating under the Influence (OUI) of Alcohol (2nd Offense); OUI of Narcotics; and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex. Attorney Calcagni represented the motorist. At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated to have the OUI for Narcotics and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex charges dismissed. Attorney Calcagni further negotiated for the motorist to be treated as a first-time offender for purposes of the OUI of Alcohol charge. The motorist was then sentenced to a Continuation without Finding for twenty-four (24) months with minimum first-time OUI offender sanctions. Providing the motorist is not charged with a new offense during this period, his case will be dismissed in two years and he will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident.

Larceny and Conspiracy Case Results

2012-03-16T10:30:00.000-04:00

If you have been charged with Larceny or a Conspiracy crime, contact Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or further assistance.

Larceny and Conspiracy to Commit Larceny Over $250: Continued Without a Finding.

Mother and son were charged with engaging in an elaborate scheme to steal from various department stores during the holiday season. According to law enforcement authorities, the duo allegedly stole from innumerous stores in two states and multiple locations within each state. The mother and son were ultimately apprehended after being captured on video surveillance while leaving a department store with a carriage full of merchandise for which they did not pay. Some of the stolen property was recovered while other property was never recovered. Authorities are unable to estimate the value of the total loss to all retail victims. Notwithstanding, the mother and son were individually charged with Larceny Over $250 and Conspiracy to commit the same. Attorney Calcagni represented the mother against the pending charges. He successfully negotiated a disposition of her case, which spared her from jail time – as requested by the prosecutor – and provided her with the opportunity to maintain a clean criminal record, which she has maintained for most of her life. Attorney Calcagni obtained a Continuation without a Finding (CWOF) for twelve (12) months on his client’s behalf. Providing she is not charged with a new offense during this period, her case will be dismissed in one year and she will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident. Congratulations to this client.

Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Case Result

2012-03-14T10:30:00.000-04:00

If you have been charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation and assistance.

Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon: Dismissed. Two siblings residing under the same roof allegedly took sibling rivalry to another level. An adult female and her adult brother had a verbal argument in their family home. When the matter could not be settled verbally, the sister obtained a baseball and physically attacked her brother by striking him with it about his body. The police were notified and charged the alleged victim’s sister with both misdemeanor and felony assault. She was then represented by Attorney Calcagni. At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni first successfully negotiated for dismissal of the misdemeanor Assault and Battery charge. Second, he negotiated for amendment of felony assault charge to a misdemeanor. Third and lastly, he negotiated for his client to admit no guilt to the sole remaining charged offense. While maintaining her innocence, she was placed on unsupervised pretrial probation for nine (9) months. Providing she is not charged with a new offense during this period, her case will be dismissed in nine (9) months and she will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident. Congratulations to this fortunate client.

Assault and Battery Case Results

2012-03-09T09:34:00.000-05:00

If you have been involved in an assault and battery, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation and more information.

Assault and Battery and Witness Intimidation: Dismissed.

Boyfriend and girlfriend reside together in the same apartment. After a verbal argument, the boyfriend physically assaulted his girlfriend. When she attempted to call the police, he took a cell phone from her possession. When she attempted to flee the apartment, he physically restrained her and removed her clothing to prevent her from leaving. Ultimately, the girlfriend broke free and notified the authorities. As a result, her boyfriend was criminally charged with Assault and Battery and Witness Intimidation. Attorney Calcagni represented the boyfriend. At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated for the dismissal of the entire case and its charges. The boyfriend will not sustain a criminal conviction or any punishment from this unfortunate chain of events.

U.S. Army Recruiter Retained Following Administrative Separation Board

2012-03-07T09:24:00.000-05:00

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Recruiter, with 17 years of service, was referred for administrative separation from military service. The Recruiter was alleged to have engaged in an inappropriate and unlawful relationship with a female recruit. The Recruiter's Commander initiated an investigation into specific allegations the Recruiter unlawfully took the female recruit to parties; invited her to his home; spent time working out with her at a local civilian gym; and engaged in romantic relations together. Once the recruit shipped off to basic training, the Recruiter allegedly maintained contact with her; assisted her with going AWOL; and stating lies and falsified documents to conceal the alleged misconduct.

The Commander's investigation yielded sufficient evidence, in the investigator's opinion, to substantive charges against the Recruiter for fraternizing with the recruit, making false official statements, and falsifying a leave/pass form. The Recruiter was referred for Non-Judicial Punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Recruiter's Brigade Commander served as the Article 15 Hearing Officer. After reviewing evidence presented by the government related to the charges, and "allegedly" reviewing exculpatory evidence submitted by the Recruiter in his behalf, the Article 15 Officer found the Recruiter guilty of all charges and specifications. Thereafter, the Commander relieved the Recruiter from his recruiting position and referred him for administrative separation from the U.S. Army with a recommendation that his military service be characterized as Other Than Honorable (OTH). The Recruiter demanded his right to an administrative separation board and hired Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent him at this proceeding.

At the hearing, the government relied upon both the recruiter's Article 15 convictions and related evidence to support the government’s request that the Recruiter be discharged from military service with an OTH. Attorney Calcagni delicately cross-examined each of three government witnesses, all whom testified that the Recruiter had committed inexcusable misconduct and therefore, should be separated from future military service. However, each witness conceded on cross-examination that their opinions and recommendations were based in whole on the Recruiter’s Article 15 convictions.

In the Recruiter's defense, Attorney Calcagni and his military defense counsel counterpart, Captain Jason S. Ballard – with whom Calcagni has a longstanding working relationship and proven track record – called two character witnesses. Both witnesses, former members of the Recruiter's chain of command, testified that the Recruiter was a flawless Non-Commissioned Officer, exceptional asset to the U.S. Army and recruiting community, and should be retained without question for future military service. One character witness further testified that decisions to refer the Recruiter for both an Article 15 and administrative separation may have been product of a biased command climate.

Attorney Calcagni presented further evidence that challenged the integrity of the Recruiter's Article 15 hearing, as well as the reliability of government’s evidence relied upon by the Article 15 officer, especially when compared to overwhelming evidence that exculpated the Recruiter from any wrongdoing. Attorney Calcagni – in a bold and brave manner – also challenged the credibility and veracity of the Recruiter’s chain of command, many of whom had made prejudicial remarks to recruiter before and during the Article 15 hearing; testified inconsistently with the evidence presented; and apparently engaged in coercion or other inappropriate actions during the course of investigation leading up to and following the Article 15 hearing.

After sworn testimony from the Recruiter himself, and a passionate and compelling closing argument by Attorney Calcagni claiming that "perception is not realty," "members in uniform are not impervious to human weaknesses of misrepresentation, bias, prejudice and self-interest,” and that the Recruiter was “entitled to a fair shake” both at the Article 15 hearing and at his separation hearing, the separation board members voted that the Recruiter did not engage in the thrust of the charged misconduct and should be retained for further military service in his recruiting capacity. Congratulations to this Soldier!

Conspiracy Charges in Rhode Island

2012-02-29T09:41:00.000-05:00

Conspiracy can be a broad and complex crime, but is generally defined as an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act. In some cases such an act may not be considered illegal when there is only one individual involved, but becomes a crime when there are more. Federal conspiracy crimes include conspiracy to engage in criminal activity such as money laundering, conspiracy to manufacture drugs, conspiracy to violate federal laws, or conspiracy to manufacture weapons.

In Rhode Island, and most other states conspiracy is governed by a statute in the Federal court and most State courts. Before being codified in State and Federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was little more than an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intentions of carrying it out. Although many people are not aware of it, conspiracy is considered a separate criminal activity from any crime to which it is attached. For example, if two people plan on kidnapping an individual and follow through with the crime, they may be found guilty of both conspiracy, and kidnapping.

Sentences for conspiracy start with the federal maximum penalty of five years in prison, and can be compounded by any other State and Federal violations. Conspiracy charges can be prosecuted by different entities such as The Department of Justice, the FBI, or even state and local law agencies.

If you or someone you know has been charged with conspiracy, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at the Law Office of Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Cocaine Use: Finding of No Misonduct and Retained for Future Military Service

2012-02-22T09:30:00.000-05:00

If you need a Military Criminal Defense Attorney, contact John L. Calcagni, III now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

A U.S. Army National Guard Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) tested positive for cocaine use during a unit-wide urinalysis for unlawful drug use.

The NCO, a female of Latin-American decent, consumed a Latin herbal tea made partially with coca leaves, a major component to cocaine, several hours before the urinalysis. The NCO’s family member offered her the tea as a home remedy for an upset stomach. The NCO consumed the tea without realizing it was of the type made with cocoa leaves and thereafter attended her scheduled monthly battle drill.

While there, she participated in a urinalysis that detected the cocaine metabolite in her system. In accordance with army regulations, the NCO was both flagged from favorable personnel actions and processed for administrative separation from military service. The NCO was in the zone at the time for re-enlistment and promotion with plans to attend both Air Assault and Officer Candidate School.

She was also a leading candidate for a full-time AGR position with the National Guard. Because of the positive urinalysis and resulting flagging action, all of these plans were placed on hold. Needless to day, the NCO had a lot on the line and much to lose with the pending separation action, to include her military career.

The NCO was represented by Attorney John L. Calcagni III for purposes of her separation hearing board. Attorney Calcagni worked hand-in-hand with his client to prepare an ironclad defense at the hearing. Attorney Calcagni’s defense employed a two-part strategy. First, Attorney Calcagni sought to highlight for the board members the NCO’s impeccable service record.

This female had nearly ten (10) years of military service at the time. She had previously deployed to Iraq. She was also highly regarded among her peers and by her chain of command, to include both her Battalion Commander and Battalion Sergeant Major. Similarly, her Company Commander and First Sergeant gave her stellar reviews.

She also had countless certificates, achievements and awards in her service record. Attorney Calcagni marshaled this information before the board members in the form of both live and recorded witness testimony as well as documents from the NCO’s personnel files.

The second prong of Attorney Calcagni’s defense was to demonstrate that the NCO innocently ingested the cocoa tea without knowing of its chemical make-up. Part of this defense prong was to establish the small amount of cocaine base in each tea bag, and how that small amount ingested close in time to a urinalysis could yield results equal or similar to that of the NCO.

Lastly, Attorney Calcagni sought to show that this small amount of cocaine base, if ingested into the body, would not produce any psychological or physiological effects that would give notice to an ingested illicit substance. To obtain and present this evidence, Attorney Calcagni underwent a nationwide search for toxicologists with Department of Defense (DOD) and/or military backgrounds. He located such an expert with extensive experience performing urinalysis testing for the U.S. Army.

Attorney Calcagni then employed an investigator to go into the local community to purchase the cocoa tea in question, which is available for sale in inner city Hispanic markets. The investigator acquired the type and brand tea consumed by the NCO. He also acquired more potent samples from the local market place.

A sample of the type and brand of tea consumed by the NCO was then shipped to a laboratory, at the toxicologist’s instruction, for chemical testing. This testing confirmed Attorney Calcagni’s theory – that someone of the NCO’s height and weight, who consumed one standard cup of the brewed cocoa tea within hours of a urinalysis, would test positive for the presence of cocaine as did this unlucky Soldier.

The toxicologist completed a report of the laboratory’s findings and set forth his opinion, which was that one bag of the tea contained enough cocaine base such that if consumed within hours of the urinalysis, would yield test results for the presence of cocaine in a similar quantity as the NCO. He further opined that the NCO would not have experienced any effects from the substance and therefore, could have innocently ingested it. The report was presented for the board members’ consideration.

In closing argument, Attorney Calcagni argued that the NCO was the epitome of an American Soldier who lived and breathed the Army values. He also argued that she was the antithesis of a drug user. Because of her ethnic background, her family member provided her a substance that though comprised partially of the cocoa leaf, is apparently lawful in the United States given its availability for purchase in the local community.

Lastly, he argued that her character and reputation in the National Guard buttressed and supported her innocent ingestion, which was scientifically proven by the toxicologist’s report. As a result of these efforts, the board members voted unanimously that the NCO committed no misconduct. The members further voted for the NCO to be retained for future service, and be immediately reinstated to duty and for all other service-related benefits.

Congratulations to this NCO, who has since become a Commissioned Officer, for this outstanding result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

U.S. Army Recruiter Retained Following Administrative Separation Board

2012-02-17T09:30:00.000-05:00

If you need a Military Defense Attorney or Criminal Defense Lawyer contact John L. Calcagni, III now at (401) 351-5100.

Disorderly Conduct Charges Filed Against Post Super Bowl Fighters on UMASS Campus

2012-02-15T09:30:00.000-05:00

If you have been charged with a criminal offense in MA or RI, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald now for a free consultation at (401) 421-1440.

14 arrested in post-Super Bowl fracas on UMass-Amherst campus; DA vows to ‘vigorously prosecute’ all suspects
By Colin A. Young, Globe Correspondent

A disturbance on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus following the New England Patriots’ Super Bowl loss Sunday night ended with the arrests of 13 students and one non-student. The students will face school sanctions as well as criminal charges, officials said.

UMass Amherst police said about 1,500 people gathered in the Southwest residential area of the campus when the Super Bowl ended around 10 p.m. Police said in a statement that officers told the growing crowd to disperse at 10:08 p.m., after “the crowd became unruly and a number of fights broke out.”

The 14 arrested will face charges of failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and, in some cases, rioting. They are to be arraigned Tuesdsay in Eastern Hampshire District Court.

“Our office intends to vigorously prosecute all individuals who were part of the riots on the University of Massachusetts campus,” Northwestern District Attorney David E. Sullivan said in a statement. “This behavior diminishes the image of the university and created a public safety hazard for the community.”

In a statement, UMass Amherst officials said the students will also face school discipline.

“Dean Enku Gelaye will review the cases under the code of student conduct, with students facing potential sanctions that can range up to suspension or expulsion,” the statement said.

University spokesman Daniel Fitzgibbons said there were no reports of injuries or damage stemming from the incident.

MA Peeping Tom Indicted by Grand Jury

2012-02-10T09:50:00.000-05:00

If you have been charged with a sex crime in MA, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

Child pornography, wiretapping, and photographing an unsuspecting nude person were the charges brought against a Somerville MA man by a grand jury yesterday. Ryan Perez is accused of video-taping several women in a YMCA locker room.

Somerville man indicted on videotaping women at YMCA
February 7, 2012
By Matt Byrne, Town Correspondent

A Somerville man was indicted by a Middlesex County grand jury today on multiple charges after he allegedly filmed multiple women in a YMCA locker room, authorities said.

Ryan A. Perez, 24, was indicted by on four counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude person, three counts of possession of child pornography, and wiretapping, according to the office of Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone.

According to authorities, Perez was discovered by a Somerville Y patron in the women's locker room Nov. 1 about 9:30 a.m. recording video of partially clothed women with a cellphone from underneath a bathroom stall.

Police searched the phone and found six videos created that day in roughly an hour, in addition to 23 images of child pornography.

Perez was initially arraigned the same day in Somerville District Court on lesser charges and was released on the condition he stay away from the YMCA.

No arraignment date has been set for the new charges, Leone's office said.

Choosing the Best Criminal Defense Attorney for Your Needs

2012-02-03T09:30:00.000-05:00

Now that you have a better understand of the types of legal fees (link to first post), the question remains: how much does it cost to hire an attorney. The answer is still “it depends.” Legal fees vary by geographic area; the type and nature of the case involved; and the particular attorney you choose to hire. Clients are often under the mistaken belief that all attorneys are the same – one size fits all. This could not be further from the truth.

Attorneys, even those who practice in the same geographic area and work on the same types of cases, are not alike. Each attorney has his or her own unique experience and background. For instance, some lawyers have a lot of trial experience and some do not. Researching an attorney’s true experience and background can be difficult. With the legalization of advertising for attorneys, many try to dazzle potential clients with fancy websites and colorful language regarding their skills and abilities. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Meet with the attorney in person; ask around about his or her reputation; and request examples of cases they have worked on in the past.

Aside from experience, lawyers also have different values and personalities. Some lawyers are more hardworking and dedicated to client needs and concerns than others. For instance, how many times have you heard the complaint that “my lawyer never returns phone calls” or “my lawyer is always out of the office.” These complaints do not describe all lawyers equally. Some lawyers return client calls the very same day the client leaves the message. Others work nights and weekends to be available to clients who otherwise work during the day and cannot meet with their lawyer during normal business hours.

The bottom line is that when it comes to lawyers, just like restaurants, automobiles and other consumer goods, the old adage holds true: you get what you pay for. If you prefer a lawyer who charges discount prices, you will certainly find one. However, if you choose to hire such a lawyer, do not be surprised if their representation has the same 'discount' quality. Perhaps you prefer higher quality and competence over discount prices.

Whatever your needs may be, take the time to find a lawyer who is right for you. When it comes to legal representation, choose an attorney who is qualified, competent, experienced, caring and devoted to your case. After all, what price is too high to pay for your rights and your future?

If you are in need of quality and experienced legal representation, and you want a lawyer who is responsive to your needs; returns phone calls; is available to you anytime and anywhere; knows the law; and will fight for your rights, call Attorney John L. Calcagni III today for a free consultation. Contact us now at 401-351-5100 or jc@calcagnilaw.com.

Domestic Assault Case Results

2012-02-01T09:17:00.000-05:00

If you have been charged with a domestic assault or an assault and battery crime in RI, MA, or on a Federal level, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Domestic Assault: Dismissed
November 2011
Two brothers had a physical altercation in their parents’ home. The incident began with the two brothers spending the day drinking. Some time thereafter, the two got into a verbal disagreement. The agreement escalated when the younger brother picked up a chair and threw it at his older brother in their family home. The two then engaged in a fight, which prompted the older brother to contact 9-1-1 and notify the police that he had been assaulted. The younger brother was placed under arrest and a no-contact order was imposed preventing him from having any contact with his brother. The younger brother retained Attorney Calcagni to represent him in this matter. Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated at a pretrial conference for the dismissal of this charge. The case and its charge were dismissed and the younger brother will not sustain a criminal record from this incident.

How much does it cost to hire an attorney - Part 3

2012-01-27T09:30:00.000-05:00

In the first two parts of this series, I discuss the contingency fee plan, and the hourly rate fee plan. The final part in this series will discuss the flat rate fee.

The third and last type of fee structure is the flat rate fee. With this arrangement, you and your attorney agree upon a flat rate for all legal representation pertaining to a particular matter regardless of the time and effort needed to perform the agreed-upon legal work. Some clients prefer this form of payment because it limits their financial exposure and provides them with certainty regarding the cost of legal representation. Lawyers who charge flat rates take the risk that the fee they quote will fairly compensate them for the estimated time needed to perform the required legal service.

In some instances, the lawyer may complete his work in less time than expected, and therefore, enjoy a financial windfall from a flat fee arrangement. Alternatively, and in many cases, lawyers underestimate how much time and effort is required on a particular case. In these instances, lawyers assume this risk that the quoted flat rate is not fair compensation for the actual work required. Flat rates are very typical with criminal defense cases. Many attorneys charge a flat rate for all pretrial representation related to a case, and then a second installment flat rate if and when a case is scheduled for trial.

If you are in need of quality and experienced legal representation, and you want a lawyer who is responsive to your needs; returns phone calls; is available to you anytime and anywhere; knows the law; and will fight for your rights, call Attorney John L. Calcagni III today for a free consultation. Contact us now at 401-351-5100 or jc@calcagnilaw.com.

How much does it cost to hire an attorney - Part 2

2012-01-25T09:30:00.000-05:00

In part one of this series, I discuss the various ways that may be available to pay for legal services from an attorney. The first we discussed was contingency fee (link). Now I will move on into hourly rates.

Hourly rates are often charged by attorneys who represent large organizations such as corporations, non-profit organizations or other entities capable of affording legal services on an hourly basis. This fee structure is most commonly used in connection with corporate law, business litigation and insurance defense. Hourly rate billing is the most expensive type of fee arrangement for clients.

In this circumstance, you are billed on a monthly or quarterly basis for the time actually spent by your attorney or his agent performing work on your case during the billing period. Lawyers who charge on an hourly basis bill for everything to include, but not limited to, phone calls, copies, consultations, letters and email, research, court appearances, travel time, and any other time spent working on a case.

Before agreeing to an hourly fee structure, it is important to know what types of services are billed; how often; in what time-increments; and at what rate. Firms may charge varying rates depending upon who in the organization actually performs the billed service such as a secretary, investigator, paralegal, associate attorney or senior-level attorney. As stated above, hourly billing is most often employed by lawyers who represent corporations or wealthy clients. It is also used in connection with family law work; estate and tax planning; elder law; areas of civil law other than personal injury; and complex criminal defense cases.

Please read part three where I will discuss the final fee structure, the flat rate fee. (link)

If you are in need of quality and experienced legal representation, and you want a lawyer who is responsive to your needs; returns phone calls; is available to you anytime and anywhere; knows the law; and will fight for your rights, call Attorney John L. Calcagni III today for a free consultation. Contact us now at 401-351-5100 or jc@calcagnilaw.com.

How Much Does it Cost to Hire an Attorney? - A 3 Part Series by RI Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni, III

2012-01-20T12:44:00.000-05:00

People often ask how much it costs to hire an attorney. The answer is “it depends.” Generally speaking, there are three fee structures or ways that attorneys charge for legal representation: contingency fee, hourly billing, or flat rate. The type of fee structure used is a function of both the particular attorney and/or law firm you consult and the type of case or representation that you require.

Contingency fees are paid to an attorney contingent upon the result or legal outcome that he obtains on your behalf. If the attorney is unsuccessful in obtaining a desired result or outcome for you, then he or she does not get paid. Alternatively, if the attorney achieves a successful result, the he or she is paid at the predetermined rate or fee.

Contingency fees are most often used in personal injury cases. When you initially retain an attorney for representation in a personal injury matter, no money or fee is paid to the lawyer. Instead, you and your lawyer agree that if, and only if, they succeed in obtaining money on your behalf, they will then be paid a percentage of the recovered amount. This percentage differs by state and case type. Most often the percentage is one-third or 33% of the total recovery. However, in more complicated cases such as those involving malpractice or product liability claims, or even less complicated cases that require litigation or the actual filing of a lawsuit, attorneys may require a contingency fee of up to 40% of the total recovery.

Contingency fees are very attractive to clients because they do not require any out-of-pocket expense for representation. It is important to note, however, that contingency fees are not permitted in either criminal or family law cases such as those involving divorce, child custody or other domestic issues.

For more information on this topic, please read part two of "How much does it cost to hire an attorney."

If you are in need of quality and experienced legal representation, and you want a lawyer who is responsive to your needs; returns phone calls; is available to you anytime and anywhere; knows the law; and will fight for your rights, call Attorney John L. Calcagni III today for a free consultation. Contact us now at 401-351-5100 or jc@calcagnilaw.com.

Motion to Suppress Drugs Case Result

2012-01-18T09:30:00.000-05:00

If you have been charged with a drug related offense in RI, MA or on a Federal level, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Motion to Suppress Drugs Granted and Case Dismissed

October 2011

A man was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and a Drug School Zone Violation, which makes it unlawful to possess drugs within 1000 feet of a school or 100 feet of a park. These charges stemmed from the search of the man’s car by police, which uncovered a substantial quantity of marijuana from inside the automobile. An undercover police officer, driving an unmarked police cruiser, drove into the parking lot of a neighborhood park during the daytime. The officer observed a man sitting alone inside his vehicle. There was no one else present in the park. The officer did not observe any drug or other unlawful activity. The officer also did not recognize or otherwise know the man. The officer used a pair of binoculars to get a closer look at the man. He specifically observed the man sitting in the driver’s seat of his car looking into his lap. He then saw what he believed to be the man licking a marijuana cigar or blunt. The officer immediately drove his unmarked cruiser next to the man’s car so that the driver’s side doors of each car were aligned. As the officer pulled up, he observed loose tobacco on the ground outside of the man’s car, which the officer, based upon his training and experience, understood to be from a lawful cigar the man had emptied in order to roll a marijuana cigar or blunt. The officer made no other observations or detected the odor of marijuana. Based on his limited observations, the officer unilaterally opened the man’s car door; grabbed the apparent cigar from the man’s hand; and physically removed from his vehicle. The officer then proceeded to search inside the passenger compartment where he discovered multiple bags of marijuana of varying quantities. The officer then arrested the man and charged him with various drug offenses. Attorney Calcagni was tasked with representing the man, who was a first-time offender.

In defense of the man, Attorney Calcagni sought to challenge the legality of the police conduct by filing a suppression motion. The motion challenged the officer’s conduct of opening the man’s car door; grabbing an object from the man’s hand; physically removed the man from his vehicle; and searching inside. The thrust of this argument was that the police violated the man’s 4th amendment right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. If successful, the motion asked the Court to suppress as evidence against the man the drugs discovered by police in his vehicle. The Court conducted a hearing on the defense motion. After the hearing, the Court agreed with Attorney Calcagni that the man’s rights were violated. As a remedy for this violation, the Court suppressed the discovered marijuana. As a result of this favorable pretrial ruling, all charges against the man will soon be dismissed for lack of evidence. Ultimately, this client avoided a mandatory jail sentence associated with the drug charges and will not sustain a criminal record from this incident.

Steroids Distributor Case Results

2012-01-11T09:35:00.000-05:00

If you have been charged with a drug related offense, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Steroids Distributor Sentenced to Term of Probation.

October 2011

Man was charged with Introducing Misbranded Drug into Interstate Commerce, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), and Possession of Anabolic Steroids with the Intent to Distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(E). These charges followed a long-term drug investigation whereby federal authorities determined that the man was an online host of several internet-based steroid discussion boards used in connection with both the distribution and use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. As a host on these websites, the man promoted and offered for sale numerous steroids and other illicit drugs. The man specifically promoted his product; received orders for the product from various customers through email; forwarded such orders to his overseas suppliers; and then received shipment thereof in the United States. Upon receipt of the product, the man re-packaged the steroids and other drugs for reshipment to his customers throughout the United States.

Federal agents, after gathering sufficient evidence against the man, arrested him following a motor vehicle stop and thereafter executed a search warrant for his home and personal storage container. The searches led to the discovery of a large quantity of steroids with an estimated wholesale value of nearly $250,000.00. Agents also discovered a firearm co-located with illegal product.

Based on the weight of evidence against the man, he determined it was in his best interest to plead guilty to the charged offenses. Attorney Calcagni was tasked with representing this man throughout the plea process in U.S. District Court, and more importantly, at his sentencing hearing. Attorney Calcagni successfully argued that the man be granted pretrial release while awaiting sentence. During this time, the man focused his efforts on obtaining lawful employment; caring for his sick spouse who suffers from fibromyalgia; tending to his stepchildren; and recovering from his narcotics addiction, namely, to steroids. The man remained on pretrial release for nearly one year and during this time, accomplished all of the aforementioned goals. Attorney Calcagni spent time with the man and his family; acquired statements of support on the man’s behalf for presentation to the Court at sentencing; and other materials to present on his behalf. Thereafter, Attorney Calcagni prepared and submitted a written sentencing memorandum and made an oral presentation at the sentencing hearing, both of which highlighted the man’s accomplishments on pretrial probation; acceptance of responsibility for his offenses; and his lack of criminal history.

Based upon these collective factors and Attorney Calcagni’s efforts, the Court granted the man leniency by sentencing him to a term of probation opposed to the standard jail sentence for narcotics offenses. Overall, the Defense built its case around a request that the man be afforded a second chance. That request was well received by the Court and ultimately granted. Congratulations to this client.