The following article is in today's issue of Cape Cod Times, as well as on their website. I promise that I will write up exactly what happened at both dispositions, I've just been unbelievably busy the last couple of days.
By Aaron Gouvea Cape Cod Times
July 28, 2007
FALMOUTH — Different court room, same result.
Christopher Parker, 50, pleaded guilty in Falmouth District Court yesterday to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs and received a 2 ½-year sentence, six months above the minimum mandatory sentence for a fifth offense. In addition, he also received a one-year sentence for operating a motor vehicle negligently for the incident last October while driving in Bourne.
The sentences will run concurrently with the 2 ½-year sentence Parker received on Wednesday in Barnstable Superior Court, where he pled guilty to vehicular homicide.
Parker, of Forestdale, killed Diane Carhart, 63, in March when he slammed his Honda Accord into her Chevy Tracker on Route 130 in Sandwich. Police said Parker looked down to adjust a portable radio, causing the crash.
Although the last six months of his sentence will be suspended, he will be on probation for a combined four years. Parker will also have to submit to random drug and alcohol testing both in and out of prison, as well as alcohol counseling.
Carhart's daughter, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, is hopeful the punishments will serve as a fresh start for Parker and his family.
"I really do wish the man could clean himself up for his family's sake," Linhares said yesterday after Parker's court appearance. "My mother and I have never been vindictive people and while we won't forgive, we don't wish anybody harm."
Showing posts with label Falmouth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Falmouth. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Disposition on October DUI charge against Parker
I'm leaving now to go to the Falmouth District Court in Falmouth, MA in order to see what Parker receives for a sentence. I've been told there is a chance that any jail time in this charge could be served concurrently to his jail time he is serving in Diane's case. I really hope that is not the case since this case happened 5 months before the crash that Parker has been found guilty of where Diane died, it was in a different location, with the cases in two different courthouses. I just don't see how they could do that.
I'll be back around 11am as far as I know and will post the results of the case when I get back home so stop back by in a few hours.
I'll be back around 11am as far as I know and will post the results of the case when I get back home so stop back by in a few hours.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Parker's October DUI Charges Postponed Again
On Wednesday, July 18 at 9:00am I was once again at the Falmouth District Courthouse in Falmouth, MA in order to hear what would transpire with the DUI charges that Christopher G. Parker is facing when he was arrested last October in Bourne.
A different Judge was now presiding on the case due to the health of the original Judge. Judge Nagler is now assigned to the case. When "Commonwealth vs. Christopher G. Parker" was called A.D.A. Ilene Connors as well as Parker's Attorney Arnold Lett requested a side bar with the judge. The three of them spoke for several minutes and then a Disposition date of July 27, 2007 at 9:00am was announced. It is hoped that Parker will either plead or be found guilty of the DUI charge on that date.
A different Judge was now presiding on the case due to the health of the original Judge. Judge Nagler is now assigned to the case. When "Commonwealth vs. Christopher G. Parker" was called A.D.A. Ilene Connors as well as Parker's Attorney Arnold Lett requested a side bar with the judge. The three of them spoke for several minutes and then a Disposition date of July 27, 2007 at 9:00am was announced. It is hoped that Parker will either plead or be found guilty of the DUI charge on that date.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
June 28th Pre-Trial Hearing in Falmouth
Today, at the Falmouth District Courthouse, Christopher G. Parker was to appear for a Pre-Trial Hearing. Since he is still in custody at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility I'm not sure if he actually was brought to the Courthouse by the Sheriff as he didn't appear in the courtroom.
I met up with George Brennan from the Cape Cod Times after checking in with the Victim/Witness Advocate's office and we proceeded into the first session courtroom. Once again I was surprised at how small the courtrooms in Falmouth are. The first session room was about twice the size of the second session room which I have previously mentioned - still very small, with all seats taken.
We listened to the arraignments and probation matters and eventually Denise from the Victim/Witness office came to let me know that the case has been continued yet again, this time to July 18, 2007 at 9:ooam.
I'm getting the idea that Parker's two attorneys (Arnold Lett for the DWI in Oct. 2006 and Woodrow Brown for the Vehicular Homicide and Driving With a Revoked License in regards to Diane's death) are not too sure which case they would like to go to trial or disposition first. Would it be worse for Parker if he was convicted of his fifth or sixth DWI before going up on the charges resulting from Diane's death or would it be worse if he had a charge of Vehicular Homicide and driving on a revoked license before going up on the DWI?
To me it seems that it wouldn't make much difference, either way these are serious charges. Additionaly it is my hope that the two cases will be tried seperately with the punishments being served consecutively and not concurrantly. I'm getting the feeling that the delay tactics that Parker's Attorneys have been using are because they want the possible sentences in each case to be as lenient as possible and that they be served concurrantly.
While the job of the defense attorney is to make sure that the defendant's rights are upheld it seems that they take that even further in a type of game in which they are the winner if they can get as little as possible or no jail time for their clients. They hit the jackpot if they can get the case dismissed. I have more that I'd like to say but will save it for a later topic. As an eye opener try searching the internet for the terms DWI, DUI, OUI, or drunk driving. You will find a mulitude of defense lawyers and their websites which tell you how they can help you either get the charges dismissed, what to do when you are pulled over and the police suspect that you are under the influence of alchohol or drugs, and in the event that you are found guilty they state that they will get you the least possible sentence. In my personal opinion these lawyers are as much to blame as the defendants themselves for the repeat offenders that are epidemic on our roadways.
I met up with George Brennan from the Cape Cod Times after checking in with the Victim/Witness Advocate's office and we proceeded into the first session courtroom. Once again I was surprised at how small the courtrooms in Falmouth are. The first session room was about twice the size of the second session room which I have previously mentioned - still very small, with all seats taken.
We listened to the arraignments and probation matters and eventually Denise from the Victim/Witness office came to let me know that the case has been continued yet again, this time to July 18, 2007 at 9:ooam.
I'm getting the idea that Parker's two attorneys (Arnold Lett for the DWI in Oct. 2006 and Woodrow Brown for the Vehicular Homicide and Driving With a Revoked License in regards to Diane's death) are not too sure which case they would like to go to trial or disposition first. Would it be worse for Parker if he was convicted of his fifth or sixth DWI before going up on the charges resulting from Diane's death or would it be worse if he had a charge of Vehicular Homicide and driving on a revoked license before going up on the DWI?
To me it seems that it wouldn't make much difference, either way these are serious charges. Additionaly it is my hope that the two cases will be tried seperately with the punishments being served consecutively and not concurrantly. I'm getting the feeling that the delay tactics that Parker's Attorneys have been using are because they want the possible sentences in each case to be as lenient as possible and that they be served concurrantly.
While the job of the defense attorney is to make sure that the defendant's rights are upheld it seems that they take that even further in a type of game in which they are the winner if they can get as little as possible or no jail time for their clients. They hit the jackpot if they can get the case dismissed. I have more that I'd like to say but will save it for a later topic. As an eye opener try searching the internet for the terms DWI, DUI, OUI, or drunk driving. You will find a mulitude of defense lawyers and their websites which tell you how they can help you either get the charges dismissed, what to do when you are pulled over and the police suspect that you are under the influence of alchohol or drugs, and in the event that you are found guilty they state that they will get you the least possible sentence. In my personal opinion these lawyers are as much to blame as the defendants themselves for the repeat offenders that are epidemic on our roadways.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
No Guilty Plea today :-(
Well there you have it, Parker didn't take responsibility for his actions and plead guilty to charges of vehicular homicide and driving on a revoked license.
Since it was Thursday, a day when the weekend travel to the Cape begins I left early, giving myself two hours to make the normally forty-five minutes drive from Mattapoisett to Barnstable. I brought a book along with me because I thought I'd be getting there early...I was wrong. It started off with thick extremely slow traffic on Route 25 due to an accident just before the Bourne Bridge. I was finally able to slip around the traffic and take the exit where I could get to the Sagamore Bridge and onto Cape Cod. Everything was going smoothly up until I had just passed exit 4. Then the two lanes of traffic all but stopped. I had used up a good deal of my time already back in the traffic at the Bourne Bridge . I normally take exit 6 on the Mid-Cape Highway and now I had to inch along for a few miles until I could get off at exit 5 to try to get around the gridlock. As I took the exit and turned left I was hoping that this road would connect with route 6A, which I could then take into Barnstable. After about a mile I said "Hooray!" for right in front of me was the intersection with 6A. It was 2:00 by now, when I was due at the courthouse. Of course my "Murphy's Law" luck continued when an elderly woman pulled out in front of me and proceeded down the road at 20 MPH, braking at even the slightest curve in the road and every time a car passed going the other direction.
Finally I made it to the Barnstable District Courthouse and hurried in. I was fifteen minutes late and I was afraid that I might miss it. Thankfully they hadn't started yet and I met George Brennan and the Sandwich Police Chief right in front of the first session courtroom doors. Shortly after that Kathleen Finnegan our Victim/Witness advocate and A.D.A. Brian Shea walked up. I talked with Kathleen and Brian briefly and then we entered the courtroom. Being told I can sit anywhere that I would be comfortable I chose the front row. Kathleen came to sit with me and I showed her the Victim Impact Statements that Johnny and I had written. As she was reading the Judge came in and they brought the prisoners in. She handed the papers to me so that we could listen to what was going to happen. The clerk called "Commonwealth vs. Christopher G. Parker" and Parker stood up. He was wearing prison issue blue pants and blue shirt. His hands were cuffed in front of him. His hair had grown back a small amount and was in a crew cut style.
Unfortunately Parker did not plead guilty and so they scheduled the date of July 10, 2007 at 2:oopm for his next appearance in court. While I was a little disappointed I did realize that there was the chance for at least one continuance. Hey, at least we had our Victim Impact Statements done. Thinking about what I've learned about Christopher G. Parker it doesn't surprise me that he would not accept his guilt. I'm trying to be informative here and not voice a personal vendetta so I won't elaborate on that thought.
On the way out of the courthouse I noticed a woman with her right leg in a cast and walking with a cane. Since I had been informed that Francine Abbott, the driver of the NStar truck, also wanted to give an impact statement, and knowing that she had suffered some sort of injury to at least one of her legs during the crash I took a chance and approached her as she sat outside in the sun after the hearing. I asked if she was Francine Abbott and she said yes. I introduced myself and we hugged. She told me that her right ankle was "blown out", severly broken, during the crash and she has had a couple of surgeries on it already. After a few moments talking with her I left to walk to my car, being glad that I'd had the chance to meet Francine. I know my mother would have like that.
So another court date is done and next up is Parker appearing in Falmouth District Court on the October DWI charges Thursday June 28, 2007 at 9am. I'll be there and will have an update as to what happens there. I'm sure it is too much to hope for that Parker would plead guilty to that charge either, but I guess I can always hope......
Since it was Thursday, a day when the weekend travel to the Cape begins I left early, giving myself two hours to make the normally forty-five minutes drive from Mattapoisett to Barnstable. I brought a book along with me because I thought I'd be getting there early...I was wrong. It started off with thick extremely slow traffic on Route 25 due to an accident just before the Bourne Bridge. I was finally able to slip around the traffic and take the exit where I could get to the Sagamore Bridge and onto Cape Cod. Everything was going smoothly up until I had just passed exit 4. Then the two lanes of traffic all but stopped. I had used up a good deal of my time already back in the traffic at the Bourne Bridge . I normally take exit 6 on the Mid-Cape Highway and now I had to inch along for a few miles until I could get off at exit 5 to try to get around the gridlock. As I took the exit and turned left I was hoping that this road would connect with route 6A, which I could then take into Barnstable. After about a mile I said "Hooray!" for right in front of me was the intersection with 6A. It was 2:00 by now, when I was due at the courthouse. Of course my "Murphy's Law" luck continued when an elderly woman pulled out in front of me and proceeded down the road at 20 MPH, braking at even the slightest curve in the road and every time a car passed going the other direction.
Finally I made it to the Barnstable District Courthouse and hurried in. I was fifteen minutes late and I was afraid that I might miss it. Thankfully they hadn't started yet and I met George Brennan and the Sandwich Police Chief right in front of the first session courtroom doors. Shortly after that Kathleen Finnegan our Victim/Witness advocate and A.D.A. Brian Shea walked up. I talked with Kathleen and Brian briefly and then we entered the courtroom. Being told I can sit anywhere that I would be comfortable I chose the front row. Kathleen came to sit with me and I showed her the Victim Impact Statements that Johnny and I had written. As she was reading the Judge came in and they brought the prisoners in. She handed the papers to me so that we could listen to what was going to happen. The clerk called "Commonwealth vs. Christopher G. Parker" and Parker stood up. He was wearing prison issue blue pants and blue shirt. His hands were cuffed in front of him. His hair had grown back a small amount and was in a crew cut style.
Unfortunately Parker did not plead guilty and so they scheduled the date of July 10, 2007 at 2:oopm for his next appearance in court. While I was a little disappointed I did realize that there was the chance for at least one continuance. Hey, at least we had our Victim Impact Statements done. Thinking about what I've learned about Christopher G. Parker it doesn't surprise me that he would not accept his guilt. I'm trying to be informative here and not voice a personal vendetta so I won't elaborate on that thought.
On the way out of the courthouse I noticed a woman with her right leg in a cast and walking with a cane. Since I had been informed that Francine Abbott, the driver of the NStar truck, also wanted to give an impact statement, and knowing that she had suffered some sort of injury to at least one of her legs during the crash I took a chance and approached her as she sat outside in the sun after the hearing. I asked if she was Francine Abbott and she said yes. I introduced myself and we hugged. She told me that her right ankle was "blown out", severly broken, during the crash and she has had a couple of surgeries on it already. After a few moments talking with her I left to walk to my car, being glad that I'd had the chance to meet Francine. I know my mother would have like that.
So another court date is done and next up is Parker appearing in Falmouth District Court on the October DWI charges Thursday June 28, 2007 at 9am. I'll be there and will have an update as to what happens there. I'm sure it is too much to hope for that Parker would plead guilty to that charge either, but I guess I can always hope......
Monday, June 4, 2007
Parker's Pre-Trial Hearing
On Monday, June 4th Christopher Parker was due back at the Barnstable District Courthouse for a pre-trial hearing on the charges he received in connection to Diane's death. I was not able to attend but my brother Johnny and my dad, Dr John Everett did go. I was told that Parker's defense attorney and Brian Shea the prosecuting District Attorney met and seem to be reaching an aggreement on Parker pleading out in exchange for a lessor sentence. Parker's next court appearence will be June 21, 2007 at 2PM where he is expected to act on that aggreement.
This is not acceptable to me! When the maximum sentence that Parker will receive is only 2.5 years how can you allow him to plead out to a lessor amount of jail time? Isn't Diane's life worth more then that? If you kill someone you should go to jail...period! No chance to get a lessor sentence, or time off for good behavior. It seems like these attorneys find it too difificult to do there jobs to the fullest extent and so they do the easy thing and jump at the first offer either side could come up with. There is much more I could say but I will wait a bit and see what transpires on June 21.
This is not acceptable to me! When the maximum sentence that Parker will receive is only 2.5 years how can you allow him to plead out to a lessor amount of jail time? Isn't Diane's life worth more then that? If you kill someone you should go to jail...period! No chance to get a lessor sentence, or time off for good behavior. It seems like these attorneys find it too difificult to do there jobs to the fullest extent and so they do the easy thing and jump at the first offer either side could come up with. There is much more I could say but I will wait a bit and see what transpires on June 21.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges - Boston Herald Article
Well it seems that Parker's $10,000 cash bail/$100,000 surety has been noticed by the Associated Press, and because of that Parker's arraignment yesterday is receiving new media attention. So far in a brief search I've found mention in the Cape Cod Times, the Boston Herald, and on WLNE channel 6's website. I'll continue to post the articles as I find more. Some of the stories are similar with only minor changes since the media uses the articles from the AP.
Updated: 06:27 AM EST
BARNSTABLE - A Cape Cod man who has been convicted of impaired driving four times pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide on Wednesday.
Christopher Parker, 50, faces the charge in connection with a three-vehicle crash in March that resulted in the death of a Sandwich woman.
Parker was taken into custody on the homicide charge after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case in which he is charged with driving under the influence of drugs.
Parker pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Barnstable District Court on Wednesday and was ordered held on $10,000 cash bail. He was also charged with driving with a revoked license.
Diane Carhart, 63, was killed March 5 when her vehicle was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker’s car and pushed into the path of an oncoming NStar [NST] pickup truck, according to police. Parker suffered minor injuries.
"It’s been really hard leading up to Mother’s Day," Carhart’s daughter, Susan Linhares, told The Cape Cod Times. "Everywhere you turn, there are reminders and it’s very difficult."
Parker’s driving record includes four operating under the influence convictions.
© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges
By Associated Press Thursday, May 10, 2007
Updated: 06:27 AM EST
BARNSTABLE - A Cape Cod man who has been convicted of impaired driving four times pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide on Wednesday.
Christopher Parker, 50, faces the charge in connection with a three-vehicle crash in March that resulted in the death of a Sandwich woman.
Parker was taken into custody on the homicide charge after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case in which he is charged with driving under the influence of drugs.
Parker pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Barnstable District Court on Wednesday and was ordered held on $10,000 cash bail. He was also charged with driving with a revoked license.
Diane Carhart, 63, was killed March 5 when her vehicle was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker’s car and pushed into the path of an oncoming NStar [NST] pickup truck, according to police. Parker suffered minor injuries.
"It’s been really hard leading up to Mother’s Day," Carhart’s daughter, Susan Linhares, told The Cape Cod Times. "Everywhere you turn, there are reminders and it’s very difficult."
Parker’s driving record includes four operating under the influence convictions.
© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Driver pleads not guilty in fatal crash - Cape Cod Times Article
Driver pleads not guilty in fatal crash
By GEORGE BRENNAN STAFF WRITER
May 10, 2007
BARNSTABLE — Christopher Parker, who has been convicted of impaired driving four times, pleaded not guilty yesterday to vehicular homicide. He faces the charge in connection with a three-car crash that killed a Forestdale grandmother in March.
Parker, 50, was taken into custody on the homicide charge two weeks ago after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case. He is charged in that case with operating under the influence of drugs.
The law allows a judge to send a defendant to jail for up to 60 days if he is charged with another crime while out on bail. Parker is still being held at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility in Bourne on that bail revocation.
Barnstable District Court Judge W. James O'Neill yesterday imposed bail of $10,000 cash, $1,000 surety, Cape and Islands First Assistant District Attorney Michael Trudeau said. Prosecutors had requested Parker be held on $20,000 cash bail. Even if he can post that bail, he can't be released until his current 60-day sentence is served.
Diane Carhart, 63, was killed March 5 when her Chevrolet Tracker was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker's car and pushed into the lane of an oncoming NStar pickup truck, according to police.
"It's been really hard leading up to Mother's Day," Susan Linhares, Carhart's daughter, said. "Everywhere you turn, there are reminders and it's very difficult."
Linhares and two of Carhart's brothers were in the court when Parker was arraigned.
Parker was also charged with driving while his license was revoked. Trudeau said the investigation is ongoing, but declined to say if he expects more charges against Parker.
Yesterday's arraignment has been a long time coming for Carhart's family. Parker was taken to Falmouth Hospital with minor injuries he suffered in the crash, so rather than being arrested he was issued a summons on the charges. The family then had to wait until a clerk magistrate issued a criminal complaint against Parker.
Parker has an extensive poor driving record that includes the four operating under the influence convictions. His license was revoked at the time of the Sandwich crash by the registry because police considered him an immediate danger to the public.
"We're thankful he's behind bars where he can't hurt anyone else," Linhares said. "I was talking to my uncle and we're hopeful he gets the treatment he needs."
George Brennan can be reached at gbrennan@capecodonline.com.
ABC Channel 6 Article - Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges
Cape Cod man faces vehicular homicide charges
A Cape Cod man has been ordered held on $10,000 bail after pleading not guilty to a vehicular homicide charge in a crash that killed a Sandwich woman.
50-year-old Christopher Parker was also charged with driving with a revoked license. He's been convicted of impaired driving four times in the past.
63-year-old Diane Carhart died in the March 5th accident. Police said her vehicle was struck from behind on Route 130 by Parker's car and pushed into the path of an oncoming pick-up.
Parker was taken into custody after a Falmouth District Court judge revoked his bail in an unrelated case in which he was charged with driving under the influence of drugs.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Friday, April 27, 2007
Parker Goes To Jail!
As I wrote previously Christopher Parker was taken to jail on Friday April 27, 2007 when judge Tobey Mooney revoked Parker's bail. A BIG "Thank You!" to Cape Cod Times reporter George Brennan for posting an article about Parker being sent to the House of Correction so quickly on the Cape Cod Times website. You will find that article in the post before this one (below).
The weather this morning was horrible with wind and torrential rains. The sky was dark grey and fog had settled along the coast as I drove over the Bourne Bridge on my way to the Falmouth District Courthouse. I had been waiting for this day, hoping and even praying that today would find a bit of justice for my mother by having Christopher G. Parker's bail revoked.
If you have been following along on this blog you may have seen that Parker had been arrested yet again on charges of driving under the influence of drugs in October of 2006 in Bourne, MA. The day, March 5, that he allegedly drove his car into the back of my mother's Chevrolet Tracker he was not only out on bail for the Oct offense but was also driving on a revoked and suspended license. His license having been revoked after the Oct. OUI when he was found to be a danger to other drivers by the Registry and then suspended due to an unpaid speeding ticket.
I arrived at the courthouse and met up with George Brennan. Neither of us had seen Parker and it was 9am, the time the court session was slated to start. We checked the trial list and saw Parker's name so we waited for the announcement that would call people to the appropraite courtroom. At about 9:05 we see Parker enter the courthouse alone. He is dressed in a dark suit and tie and wearing a long black trenchcoat. He has a black baseball hat on and is wearing glasses. In his hands he is holding an umbrella and a wooden cane. He looks around and then sits down on one of the benches to await the call. At 9:10am the announcement comes for all adults having business in the trial court to go to the 2nd Session Courtroom. George and I followed Parker up the few stairs and down the hall toward the courtroom, Geoge telling me that it was a small room. He wasn't kidding! I think this courtroom was about the size of my master bedroom. Because it was so small most people stood outside in the narrow hallway. I stood just outside the open door of the courtroom on one side and George stood with his reporter's notepad on the other side of the doorway. As the Judge would call a case the defendants would go into the courtroom and stand in front of the large Judge's desk.
Finally I hear the clerk announce "The Commonwealth vs. Christopher Parker" and I moved to stand in the doorway so that I could see clearly. The clerk swore Parker in (although he didn't say anything) and at that point the Assistant District Attorney Chris Shea stood and said "Your Honor we request that bail be revoked in this matter". He then explained to Judge Tobey Mooney that while Parker was out on bail for this case he drove on a revoked license and has been charged with vehicular homicide in the death of Diane Carhart. I was surprised that they asked for the bail revokation so quickly, but I certainly was pleased! The Judge read briefly through Parker's file, made a comment on the number of his past convictions and charges and then she asked if Parker's Attorney, Arnold Lett, had anything to say. Atty Lett stated that Diane's death had been a tragic accident and involuntary on the part of his client, Parker. He also stated to the Judge that Parker has always appeared in court so he certainly wasn't a flight risk.
I have a problem with both facts that Atty Lett spoke too. First, my mother's death was not an involuntary accident. Parker was driving on a revoked and suspended license. He voluntarily got behind the wheel of that car. If he had been following the law he wouldn't have gotten into that driver's seat on Monday March 5, 2007. Secondly Parker had failed to appear on the date of his last court appointment, April 4, 2007. On that day there was to have been a Magistrate's Hearing at the Barnstable District Courthouse on the charges Parker is facing in Diane's death. Parker had even requested this hearing, but he failed to show up.
I found it interesting that Parker's face turned white when they asked for his bail to be revoked. He actually looked surprised that he might go to jail. He started slowly shaking his head back and forth as if he was saying no. He looked at the floor and then at the judge, then back at the floor. When Atty Lett was finished the Judge stated that Parker was a "danger to the community" and asked one of the two baliffs in the room to take Parker into custody. The baliff took Parker by the arm and left the room walking right past me as I stood there in the doorway. I had to fight the urge not to stick my foot out and trip him as they walked by! I stayed in the doorway watching as A.D.A. Shea and Atty Lett worked out a date for the next pre-trial hearing that they will meet on the Oct. 2006 OUI. That date will be May 18, 2007.
When they were done I left the courtroom and spoke briefly to George Brennan on how we felt to finally have Parker behind bars. Then I jumped into the car to drive home so that I could let everyone in my family know that he was in jail. My brother has been sick with a stomach flu and I hope this news will make him feel a little bit better. As of today Chistopher Parker is going to spend at least the next 60 days at the Barnstable County House of Correction in Bourne, MA and I couldn't be happier.
The weather this morning was horrible with wind and torrential rains. The sky was dark grey and fog had settled along the coast as I drove over the Bourne Bridge on my way to the Falmouth District Courthouse. I had been waiting for this day, hoping and even praying that today would find a bit of justice for my mother by having Christopher G. Parker's bail revoked.
If you have been following along on this blog you may have seen that Parker had been arrested yet again on charges of driving under the influence of drugs in October of 2006 in Bourne, MA. The day, March 5, that he allegedly drove his car into the back of my mother's Chevrolet Tracker he was not only out on bail for the Oct offense but was also driving on a revoked and suspended license. His license having been revoked after the Oct. OUI when he was found to be a danger to other drivers by the Registry and then suspended due to an unpaid speeding ticket.
I arrived at the courthouse and met up with George Brennan. Neither of us had seen Parker and it was 9am, the time the court session was slated to start. We checked the trial list and saw Parker's name so we waited for the announcement that would call people to the appropraite courtroom. At about 9:05 we see Parker enter the courthouse alone. He is dressed in a dark suit and tie and wearing a long black trenchcoat. He has a black baseball hat on and is wearing glasses. In his hands he is holding an umbrella and a wooden cane. He looks around and then sits down on one of the benches to await the call. At 9:10am the announcement comes for all adults having business in the trial court to go to the 2nd Session Courtroom. George and I followed Parker up the few stairs and down the hall toward the courtroom, Geoge telling me that it was a small room. He wasn't kidding! I think this courtroom was about the size of my master bedroom. Because it was so small most people stood outside in the narrow hallway. I stood just outside the open door of the courtroom on one side and George stood with his reporter's notepad on the other side of the doorway. As the Judge would call a case the defendants would go into the courtroom and stand in front of the large Judge's desk.
Finally I hear the clerk announce "The Commonwealth vs. Christopher Parker" and I moved to stand in the doorway so that I could see clearly. The clerk swore Parker in (although he didn't say anything) and at that point the Assistant District Attorney Chris Shea stood and said "Your Honor we request that bail be revoked in this matter". He then explained to Judge Tobey Mooney that while Parker was out on bail for this case he drove on a revoked license and has been charged with vehicular homicide in the death of Diane Carhart. I was surprised that they asked for the bail revokation so quickly, but I certainly was pleased! The Judge read briefly through Parker's file, made a comment on the number of his past convictions and charges and then she asked if Parker's Attorney, Arnold Lett, had anything to say. Atty Lett stated that Diane's death had been a tragic accident and involuntary on the part of his client, Parker. He also stated to the Judge that Parker has always appeared in court so he certainly wasn't a flight risk.
I have a problem with both facts that Atty Lett spoke too. First, my mother's death was not an involuntary accident. Parker was driving on a revoked and suspended license. He voluntarily got behind the wheel of that car. If he had been following the law he wouldn't have gotten into that driver's seat on Monday March 5, 2007. Secondly Parker had failed to appear on the date of his last court appointment, April 4, 2007. On that day there was to have been a Magistrate's Hearing at the Barnstable District Courthouse on the charges Parker is facing in Diane's death. Parker had even requested this hearing, but he failed to show up.
I found it interesting that Parker's face turned white when they asked for his bail to be revoked. He actually looked surprised that he might go to jail. He started slowly shaking his head back and forth as if he was saying no. He looked at the floor and then at the judge, then back at the floor. When Atty Lett was finished the Judge stated that Parker was a "danger to the community" and asked one of the two baliffs in the room to take Parker into custody. The baliff took Parker by the arm and left the room walking right past me as I stood there in the doorway. I had to fight the urge not to stick my foot out and trip him as they walked by! I stayed in the doorway watching as A.D.A. Shea and Atty Lett worked out a date for the next pre-trial hearing that they will meet on the Oct. 2006 OUI. That date will be May 18, 2007.
When they were done I left the courtroom and spoke briefly to George Brennan on how we felt to finally have Parker behind bars. Then I jumped into the car to drive home so that I could let everyone in my family know that he was in jail. My brother has been sick with a stomach flu and I hope this news will make him feel a little bit better. As of today Chistopher Parker is going to spend at least the next 60 days at the Barnstable County House of Correction in Bourne, MA and I couldn't be happier.
Repeat OUI driver jailed to protect public
Repeat OUI driver jailed to protect public
By George Brennan Cape Cod Times
April 27, 2007 11:01 AM
FALMOUTH – Christopher Parker, 50, was taken into custody this morning at Falmouth District Court, the judge calling him a “danger to the community.”
Parker is charged with causing a March 5 accident on Route 130 in Sandwich that killed Forestdale grandmother Diane Carhart, 63.He will be arraigned in Barnstable District Court on vehicular homicide charges May 9.
This morning he appeared in Falmouth District Court for a pre-trial hearing on a charge of operating under the influence of drugs.
If convicted, it would be his fifth offense for driving impaired.
At the time of his arraignment on those charges, Parker was released after posting $1,000 bail. After that charge, his license was revoked by the Registry of Motor Vehicles because he was considered a danger to other drivers.
This morning his bail was revoked yesterday by Judge Tobey Mooney ruling on a prosecution motion.Based on his driving record, which includes four convictions for operating under the influence of alcohol, Mooney said he should be taken into custody for 60 days at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility.
“I would find that (Parker) would present a danger to the community,” Mooney said.
Parker, hobbled by a leg injury that requires use of cane, walked out of the courtroom behind a court officer. The officer asked him if he came to court alone and he nodded yes.
Outside the courtroom, Susan Linhares of Mattapoisett, the daughter of Carhart, expressed relief that Parker was going to jail. “The family feels justice has finally been served,” she said. “We’ve waited almost two months for this. He has proven to be a danger to society, which is why his bail was revoked.”
All defendants offered bail are warned by the judge that being charged with another crime while out on bail could lead to a 60-day sentence in jail.
Arnold Lett, Parker’s attorney, argued against revoking the bail. He said his client shows up for court, which is what bail is supposed to guarantee.“This was an unfortunate accident,” Lett said. “It was not an intentional thing.”
A pre-trial hearing was set for May 18 in this case.
George Brennan can be reached at gbrennan@capecodonline.com.
Christopher G. Parker's Bail Revoked!
I've been waiting almost 2 months to be able to post this message....
At 9:30am this morning I watched as the judge at the Falmouth District Court approved the A.D.A.'s request to revoke Christopher Parker's bail on his Oct. 2006 Bourne, MA OUI charge. He was then taken into custody by the bailiff and sent directly to jail :-)
I will post more later this afternoon when I have a bit more time.
At 9:30am this morning I watched as the judge at the Falmouth District Court approved the A.D.A.'s request to revoke Christopher Parker's bail on his Oct. 2006 Bourne, MA OUI charge. He was then taken into custody by the bailiff and sent directly to jail :-)
I will post more later this afternoon when I have a bit more time.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Understanding the Court Process
I received a booklet from the Cape and Islands District Attorney's Office that has a guide to understanding the court process. Since a number of us had questions regarding this process I have decided to put the info from the booklet here.
Understanding the Court Process
Victim/Witness Assistants will help guide you through the criminal justice process as the case progresses through the court system. The District Attorney's Office asks for your cooperation and patience during the prosecution stages and will make every attempt to avoid any inconvenience to you.
The following describes various court procedures that may be pertinent to the case.
Complaint - A complaint is a document issued by the Court formally charging a person (the defendant) with having committed a crime. The Complaint is usually issued by the Clerk-Magistrate after a police officer or private citizen completes and swears to an "Application for Complaint," briefly describing the facts of the crime. If the accused person is not already under arrest, the Clerk-Magistrate usually holds a Clerk's Hearing before deciding whether to issue a complaint. At the hearing the person complaining and the person accused tell their versions of what took place, and the clerk decides whether to issue a Complaint. If the Clerk does not issue the Complaint, the complaining person may appeal to a judge to issue the Complaint.
If a Complaint is issued, it is issued on behalf of the Commonwealth; and the District Attorney's Office decides whether or not the case will be prosecuted.
Arraignment - The Arraignment is the first time the defendant appears in court. At that time he is advised by the judge of the charge(s) against him and of the right to have a lawyer. At the Arraignment, the judge determines the conditions under which the defendant will be released until the trail. Since people are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the primary purpose of bail is to insure that the defendant will appear in Court on the scheduled date.
Pre-Trial Hearing - At the arraignment, a pre-trial hearing date will be scheduled. At this time, the District Attorney, the Defense Attorney, and the defendant discuss the case to determine if the case will go to trial, or if the defendant will be pleading guilty to the charges. A defendant has the right to offer a guilty plea at any stage of the court proceedings; therefore it is very important that the victims contact the Victim/Witness Office to advise of any concerns they may have.
District Court Trial - For certain crimes, the District Court Judge has the authority to conduct a trail to determine the guilt of the defendant. The defendant has a right to a District Court Trial by a judge or by a jury of six persons/ In court, an Assistant District Attorney will represent the Commonwealth and be in charge of the prosecution of the case. The Assistant District Attorney may want to talk with you at a conference before the trial date or immediately before you testify. At the trial, the Commonwealth must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not have to testify. As a witness, your testimony may be necessary to the court in determining if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Summons (Subpoena) - A summons is a court order directing you to appear in court at a stated time and place. If you receive a summons you must appear in court. Bring the summons with you when you appear on the required day, and report wither to the Victim/Witness Office or to the District Attorney's Office in the appropriate courthouse.
Probably Cause Hearing - Certain crimes cannot be tried in the District Court. For these crimes the judge may schedule a preliminary hearing in the District Court called a Probable Cause Hearing. At this hearing the judge listens to testimony from witnesses and determines whether the evidence presented is sufficient to send the case to the Superior Court. Again, it is necessary for all summonsed (subpoenaed) witnesses to appear at the Probable Cause Hearing.
Grand Jury - A case sent to Superior Court may be presented to a Grand Jury, a group of 23 citizens. The Grand Jury hears evidence presented by an Assistant District Attorney through the questioning of witnesses in a secret session. The defendant is not present at the Grand Jury Hearing. If 13 or more members of the Grand Jury believe a crime was committed by the accused, the accused will be formally charged. The formal charge by the Grand Jury is an Indictment.
Superior Court Trial - Before the Superior Court Trial, the defendant is brought before the judge for arraignment, as in the District Court procedure. In the Superior Court, the defendant has a right to be tried by a jury of 12 persons or by a judge. The judge or jury will then decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If your testimony is needed during the trial, you will be summonsed to appear.
Sentencing - If the defendant is found not guilty at the trial, he is free to go and may not be tried again for the same offense. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge may choose any of the following sentences:
- Imprisonment
- Probation
- Fine
- Restitution
The judge may also decide to continue a case without a finding for a specific period of time.
Continuances - Occasionally, court hearings cannot take place as scheduled and will be postponed. The Victim/Witness Assistance Office will attempt to notify you of a postponement in order that you might avoid an unnecessary trip to court. You can call the office the day before your court appearance to check on postponements.
As a victim or witness, it is very important to keep the Victim/Witness Assistance Office informed of your current address and telephone number (home and/or work) so that we can contact you about your case. If you change your address or telephone number, be sure to let us know.
In the case of the Commonwealth vs. Christopher G. Parker the family and friends of Diane Carhart have been assigned Kathleen Finnegan as Victim/Witness Assistant. You can contact Kathleen at the Barnstable County Victim/Witness Assistance Office, 508-362-8103 (main office).
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Glossary of Legal Terms
Glossary of Legal Terms For Massachusetts
Accessory:A person who assists another in the commission of a crime, either before or after the fact.
Adjudication: A declaration by a judge.
Administrator: A person appointed by the court to settle the estate of a dead person when there is no will, or when there is a will but the executor has died, resigned or been removed from office.
Affidavit: A written or printed statement under oath.
Affidavit: A written or printed statement under oath.
Affirmative defense: A defense in which the accused is required to produce the supporting evidence.
Amicus curiae: A “friend of the court”; usually an interested person or agency, not a party to an ongoing case, that wishes to make its position known. This is most often done in writing.
Amortization: The payment of a debt by installments.
Answer: A document filed in response to a complaint.
Appearance: The procedure by which an attorney acknowledges his representation of a party in a suit; also the submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.
Appellant: The party appealing a decision to a higher court.
Appellate court: The court having jurisdiction of appeal and review of law; not a trial court.
Appellee: The party against whom an appeal is taken.
Arraignment: The reading of a charge and the entering of a plea in response.
Amicus curiae: A “friend of the court”; usually an interested person or agency, not a party to an ongoing case, that wishes to make its position known. This is most often done in writing.
Amortization: The payment of a debt by installments.
Answer: A document filed in response to a complaint.
Appearance: The procedure by which an attorney acknowledges his representation of a party in a suit; also the submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.
Appellant: The party appealing a decision to a higher court.
Appellate court: The court having jurisdiction of appeal and review of law; not a trial court.
Appellee: The party against whom an appeal is taken.
Arraignment: The reading of a charge and the entering of a plea in response.
Assignment for the benefit of creditors: The turning over of the assets of a debtor to a creditor or trustee to help pay off his debts.
Attachment: A lien on a defendant’s property to satisfy a legal claim that the plaintiff hopes to prove.
Bail: An amount of money or security posted by a person against whom criminal charges are pending, to guarantee his appearance in court. The bail is determined by considerations such as the nature and circumstance of the charges, whether the person charged is a flight risk, and the
likelihood of their appearance. It is not a reflection of guilt or innocence.
Bail hearing: An appeal to a superior court judge for the reduction of bail set by a judge in a lower court.
Bankruptcy: A method of declaring insolvency when the debtor’s liabilities exceed his assets. It has the practical effect of wiping out past debts. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy permits the continued operation of a business, with the proceeds to go to a trustee for the creditors.
Battery: An un-consented touching.
Attachment: A lien on a defendant’s property to satisfy a legal claim that the plaintiff hopes to prove.
Bail: An amount of money or security posted by a person against whom criminal charges are pending, to guarantee his appearance in court. The bail is determined by considerations such as the nature and circumstance of the charges, whether the person charged is a flight risk, and the
likelihood of their appearance. It is not a reflection of guilt or innocence.
Bail hearing: An appeal to a superior court judge for the reduction of bail set by a judge in a lower court.
Bankruptcy: A method of declaring insolvency when the debtor’s liabilities exceed his assets. It has the practical effect of wiping out past debts. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy permits the continued operation of a business, with the proceeds to go to a trustee for the creditors.
Battery: An un-consented touching.
Bench warrant: A warrant issued “from the bench” for the arrest of a person. It is frequently imposed when a witness or litigant fails to show up for an appearance.
Bill of particulars: A written statement by a prosecutor specifying the details, such as
time, place, manner and means of a crime he expects to prove against the defendant.
Brief: A written or printed argument prepared by counsel to support his case, usually
containing a statement of facts and a discussion of law.
Burden of proof: The duty of affirmatively proving disputed facts in a case.
Cause of action: The right a party has to institute a judicial action: a suit or litigation.
Certiorari: A special type of proceeding in which a court (usually the superior court) is asked by a concerned party to review the proceedings of a state or local administration, agency or board.
Circumstantial evidence: Evidence formed by a non-eyewitness.
Civil action: A non-criminal case.
Codicil: A supplement or addition to a will.
Comparative negligence: A doctrine applicable to those negligence cases in which both the plaintiff and the defendant are found to be negligent. If the “degree” of the plaintiff’s negligence is less than that of the defendant, the plaintiff is still entitled to prevail but any damages allowed
are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s negligence. -The legal process by which real estate of a private owner is taken for public use without his consent but upon the award and payment of just compensation.
Consecutive (on and after) sentence: One sentence to be served upon completion
of another sentence, as opposed to concurrent sentences.
Bill of particulars: A written statement by a prosecutor specifying the details, such as
time, place, manner and means of a crime he expects to prove against the defendant.
Brief: A written or printed argument prepared by counsel to support his case, usually
containing a statement of facts and a discussion of law.
Burden of proof: The duty of affirmatively proving disputed facts in a case.
Cause of action: The right a party has to institute a judicial action: a suit or litigation.
Certiorari: A special type of proceeding in which a court (usually the superior court) is asked by a concerned party to review the proceedings of a state or local administration, agency or board.
Circumstantial evidence: Evidence formed by a non-eyewitness.
Civil action: A non-criminal case.
Codicil: A supplement or addition to a will.
Comparative negligence: A doctrine applicable to those negligence cases in which both the plaintiff and the defendant are found to be negligent. If the “degree” of the plaintiff’s negligence is less than that of the defendant, the plaintiff is still entitled to prevail but any damages allowed
are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s negligence. -The legal process by which real estate of a private owner is taken for public use without his consent but upon the award and payment of just compensation.
Consecutive (on and after) sentence: One sentence to be served upon completion
of another sentence, as opposed to concurrent sentences.
Consent decree: An agreement of the parties made under the sanction of the court to be bound by certain stipulated facts.
Contempt of court: Any act calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in the administration of justice or to lessen its authority or dignity.
Contingent fee: A charge for services, agreed to in advance, based on the lawyer’s successful handling of the case. It is usually a set percentage of the amount won in a lawsuit.
Costs: Actual expenses connected with prosecuting or defending a suit, including filing fees, sheriff’s service, etc., but not including attorney’s fees.
Counterclaim: A claim filed by a defendant against a claimant in the same action.
De novo: Usually applied to trial de novo, a system that permits a defendant to elect a
second, totally new trial before a jury if the first trial was before a judge and the defendant
is dissatisfied with the judge’s decision.
Contempt of court: Any act calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in the administration of justice or to lessen its authority or dignity.
Contingent fee: A charge for services, agreed to in advance, based on the lawyer’s successful handling of the case. It is usually a set percentage of the amount won in a lawsuit.
Costs: Actual expenses connected with prosecuting or defending a suit, including filing fees, sheriff’s service, etc., but not including attorney’s fees.
Counterclaim: A claim filed by a defendant against a claimant in the same action.
De novo: Usually applied to trial de novo, a system that permits a defendant to elect a
second, totally new trial before a jury if the first trial was before a judge and the defendant
is dissatisfied with the judge’s decision.
Declaratory judgment: Declares the rights of the parties or the opinion of the court on a question of law.
Decree: Decision or order of the court in certain types of cases; a final decree fully and finally disposes of the litigation; an interlocutory decree is provisional. A final decree has the same effect as a judgment.
Default: In a criminal case, failure to appear upon order of the court. In a civil case, failure to file a pleading or appear within the time allowed.
Deposition: Sworn testimony taken prior to trial out of court and in the presence of a stenographer, usually for the purpose of “discovering” in advance what the witness
is going to say and also to preserve testimony. (See discovery)
Direct evidence: Proof of facts by witnesses who saw and heard what they are testifying
about, as distinguished from circumstantial evidence, which is called indirect evidence.
Directed verdict: An instruction by the trial judge ordering that judgment be entered without the jury considering the matter; used usually when one party has failed to produce enough evidence, considering the merits of the case.
Discovery: The term used to describe various methods for obtaining evidence in advance of trial, including such things as interrogatories, depositions and various motions to permit the inspection of documents, etc.
Dismissal without prejudice: Permits plaintiff to sue again on the same cause of action; dismissal “with prejudice” bars the action forever.
Double jeopardy: A doctrine that prohibits prosecution of a defendant in a criminal matter more than once for the same offense.
Eeminent domain: The power of a government or of certain agencies to take private property for public use, even against the will of the owner, and to pay compensation.
Escrow: The holding by a third person of something of value, e.g., money, deed to property, etc., until some agreed-upon contingency.
Estoppel: A doctrine that prevents any action by a person who has earlier made a
statement or taken a position inconsistent with his present posture. Example: One is estopped from denying a fact he earlier tried to prove.
Ex parte: A proceeding where only one side is heard.
Ex post facto: An act or fact occurring after some previous related act.
Exclusionary rule: A rule prohibiting the use in criminal prosecutions of illegally obtained evidence.
Executor: A person named by the decedent in a will to carry out the will’s provisions.
Extradition: The surrender by one state to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offense in the demanding state’s jurisdiction. In Massachusetts, extradition and rendition are interchangeable.
Felony: Any crime punishable by a year or more in state prison.
Fiduciary: A person who undertakes the duty to act primarily for another’s benefit, usually in financial areas. A fiduciary is bound by a high standard of good faith.
Garnishment: Proceeding whereby property, money or credits of a debtor in the possession of another are applied to the debts of the debtor, as in the garnishment of a person’s wages.
Grand jury: A jury that receives complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hears the evidence and issues indictments in cases where it feels a trial ought to take place. It meets in a secret proceeding not open to the public.
Guardian ad litem: A person appointed by the court to represent the rights of minors, the unborn and others under legal disability.
Habeas corpus: Literally, “you have the body.” An order of the court to bring a person before it; commonly used to test the legality of a prisoner’s detention.
Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter as asserted.
Iimpeachment of witness: Throwing doubt on the credibility of a witness by testimony
showing prior inconsistency, contradiction or a conviction of a crime.
Implied contract: An agreement, not in writing, in which the conduct of the parties indicates their intention to be bound.
In camera: A judge’s chambers; in private.
Indemnify: To compensate another for loss or damage that has already occurred or to give security against future loss.
Indictment: The formal accusation made by a grand jury charging a person (named or unnamed) or corporation with a specific crime.
Interlocutory: Court orders that are provisional, temporary and not final.
Interrogatories: Written questions served on a party which must be answered under oath before trial; one of the methods of discovery.
Intervention: A method by which a person may make himself a party to an action in which he has some special interest.
Intestate: Dying without a will.
Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a particular case and to render a judgment.
Leading question: One that suggests an answer to the witness.
Levy: The seizure of property by legal process.
Lien: A claim upon the property of another on account of a debt.
Lis pendens: Generally a notice filed in the registry of deeds to warn persons that title to certain property is in litigation.
Malfeasance: The performance of an act that a person ought not do. The term is usually applied in connection with public officers.
Mandamus: A court order directing a lower court, agency or official to perform its specific duty.
Manslaughter: Unlawful killing of another without malice during the commission of certain minor crimes or in the heat of passion or through willful, wanton or reckless misconduct. Massachusetts recognizes two kinds: voluntary and involuntary.
Decree: Decision or order of the court in certain types of cases; a final decree fully and finally disposes of the litigation; an interlocutory decree is provisional. A final decree has the same effect as a judgment.
Default: In a criminal case, failure to appear upon order of the court. In a civil case, failure to file a pleading or appear within the time allowed.
Deposition: Sworn testimony taken prior to trial out of court and in the presence of a stenographer, usually for the purpose of “discovering” in advance what the witness
is going to say and also to preserve testimony. (See discovery)
Direct evidence: Proof of facts by witnesses who saw and heard what they are testifying
about, as distinguished from circumstantial evidence, which is called indirect evidence.
Directed verdict: An instruction by the trial judge ordering that judgment be entered without the jury considering the matter; used usually when one party has failed to produce enough evidence, considering the merits of the case.
Discovery: The term used to describe various methods for obtaining evidence in advance of trial, including such things as interrogatories, depositions and various motions to permit the inspection of documents, etc.
Dismissal without prejudice: Permits plaintiff to sue again on the same cause of action; dismissal “with prejudice” bars the action forever.
Double jeopardy: A doctrine that prohibits prosecution of a defendant in a criminal matter more than once for the same offense.
Eeminent domain: The power of a government or of certain agencies to take private property for public use, even against the will of the owner, and to pay compensation.
Escrow: The holding by a third person of something of value, e.g., money, deed to property, etc., until some agreed-upon contingency.
Estoppel: A doctrine that prevents any action by a person who has earlier made a
statement or taken a position inconsistent with his present posture. Example: One is estopped from denying a fact he earlier tried to prove.
Ex parte: A proceeding where only one side is heard.
Ex post facto: An act or fact occurring after some previous related act.
Exclusionary rule: A rule prohibiting the use in criminal prosecutions of illegally obtained evidence.
Executor: A person named by the decedent in a will to carry out the will’s provisions.
Extradition: The surrender by one state to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offense in the demanding state’s jurisdiction. In Massachusetts, extradition and rendition are interchangeable.
Felony: Any crime punishable by a year or more in state prison.
Fiduciary: A person who undertakes the duty to act primarily for another’s benefit, usually in financial areas. A fiduciary is bound by a high standard of good faith.
Garnishment: Proceeding whereby property, money or credits of a debtor in the possession of another are applied to the debts of the debtor, as in the garnishment of a person’s wages.
Grand jury: A jury that receives complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hears the evidence and issues indictments in cases where it feels a trial ought to take place. It meets in a secret proceeding not open to the public.
Guardian ad litem: A person appointed by the court to represent the rights of minors, the unborn and others under legal disability.
Habeas corpus: Literally, “you have the body.” An order of the court to bring a person before it; commonly used to test the legality of a prisoner’s detention.
Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter as asserted.
Iimpeachment of witness: Throwing doubt on the credibility of a witness by testimony
showing prior inconsistency, contradiction or a conviction of a crime.
Implied contract: An agreement, not in writing, in which the conduct of the parties indicates their intention to be bound.
In camera: A judge’s chambers; in private.
Indemnify: To compensate another for loss or damage that has already occurred or to give security against future loss.
Indictment: The formal accusation made by a grand jury charging a person (named or unnamed) or corporation with a specific crime.
Interlocutory: Court orders that are provisional, temporary and not final.
Interrogatories: Written questions served on a party which must be answered under oath before trial; one of the methods of discovery.
Intervention: A method by which a person may make himself a party to an action in which he has some special interest.
Intestate: Dying without a will.
Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a particular case and to render a judgment.
Leading question: One that suggests an answer to the witness.
Levy: The seizure of property by legal process.
Lien: A claim upon the property of another on account of a debt.
Lis pendens: Generally a notice filed in the registry of deeds to warn persons that title to certain property is in litigation.
Malfeasance: The performance of an act that a person ought not do. The term is usually applied in connection with public officers.
Mandamus: A court order directing a lower court, agency or official to perform its specific duty.
Manslaughter: Unlawful killing of another without malice during the commission of certain minor crimes or in the heat of passion or through willful, wanton or reckless misconduct. Massachusetts recognizes two kinds: voluntary and involuntary.
Misdemeanor: A criminal offense less than a felony, generally punishable by fine or imprisonment in a jail or a house of correction rather than a state prison.
Moot: Loosely, an issue that has been settled by some happening other than judicial
determination.
Motion: A request that a court act or rule in a certain way.
Negligence: The omission of an act that a reasonable person, guided by ordinary considerations, would do; or the commission of an act that a reasonable and prudent person would not do, which may result in injury, damage or loss to another person.
No bill: The report of a grand jury that has found insufficient evidence to support an indictment.
No-fault divorce: A divorce based on irretrievable marital breakdown and involving mutual consent of the parties.
nolle prosequi: Commonly, nol pros; a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute a criminal case after charges have been brought.
Nolo contendere: Commonly, nolo; a plea indicating the defendant will not contest a criminal charge.
Non obstante verdicto: Notwithstanding the verdict; a judgment entered by a trial judge that is contrary to the jury verdict.
Nunc pro tunc: Literally, “now for then”; acts or entries of decrees or judgments made retroactive to an earlier date.
Opinion: The formal written decision rendered by a judge or court in a case; it contains
the legal principles and reasons upon which the decision was based.
Opinion evidence: What the witness thinks, believes or infers, as distinguished from personal knowledge; limited admissibility.
Moot: Loosely, an issue that has been settled by some happening other than judicial
determination.
Motion: A request that a court act or rule in a certain way.
Negligence: The omission of an act that a reasonable person, guided by ordinary considerations, would do; or the commission of an act that a reasonable and prudent person would not do, which may result in injury, damage or loss to another person.
No bill: The report of a grand jury that has found insufficient evidence to support an indictment.
No-fault divorce: A divorce based on irretrievable marital breakdown and involving mutual consent of the parties.
nolle prosequi: Commonly, nol pros; a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute a criminal case after charges have been brought.
Nolo contendere: Commonly, nolo; a plea indicating the defendant will not contest a criminal charge.
Non obstante verdicto: Notwithstanding the verdict; a judgment entered by a trial judge that is contrary to the jury verdict.
Nunc pro tunc: Literally, “now for then”; acts or entries of decrees or judgments made retroactive to an earlier date.
Opinion: The formal written decision rendered by a judge or court in a case; it contains
the legal principles and reasons upon which the decision was based.
Opinion evidence: What the witness thinks, believes or infers, as distinguished from personal knowledge; limited admissibility.
Ordinance: A rule having the force of law established by a city.
Per curiam: Literally, “through the court”; an opinion of an appellate court not attributable to any one judge.
Peremptory challenge: The right to reject a juror without assigning a cause.
Perjury: Stating under oath as true what is known to be false.
Personal recognizance: Bail consisting of a promise to appear in court when required.
Petition: A written request addressed to the court asking for some favor or relief.
Petit Jury: A trial jury, as opposed to a grand jury. Also called a petty jury.
Pleading: The process by which parties in an action raise and define in writing the issues to be resolved.
Power of attorney: Written authorization permitting one person to act for another.
Prejudicial error: A legal error that warrants an appellate court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision.
Preliminary hearing: A hearing held to determine whether a person charged with a crime should be held for trial.
Preponderance of evidence: Evidence supporting a proposition that outweighs evidence offered to contradict it; the standard of proof required in a civil case for the plaintiff to win.
Presentment: A notice by a grand jury, from its own knowledge or observation to the court, that a crime has been committed; similar to the indictment.
Pretrial motion: Any motion made in advance of trial.
Prima facie: Literally, “at first sight”; when applied to evidence, such evidence as is sufficient to establish a given fact or facts constituting the party’s claim or defense which, if not rebutted, will remain sufficient.
Probable cause: Reasonable belief. For example, probable cause is required for the issuance of a search warrant and the arrest of a person without a warrant.
Probate: The legal process of establishing the validity of a will and settling an estate.
Probation: Supervision by authorized court personnel over the activities of a person released after conviction of some criminal offense.
Pro se: Representing oneself without the assistance of legal counsel.
Quash: To vacate, annul or void any written order.
Reasonable doubt: The standard by which criminal cases are decided.
Receiver: A neutral person appointed by the court to manage the property or business of another, pending legal action.
Recuse: To disqualify oneself as a judge in a particular case.
Remand: A decision by an appellate court, sending a case back to the court from which it came for further proceedings.
Respondent: The party who answers an appeal. (See appellee)
Restraining order: A temporary court order directing a person to do, or not to do, a particular act pending further hearing. It is often used to order one person stay away from another.
Retainer: A fee paid by a client to an attorney in anticipation of legal work that the attorney will perform.
Search warrant: Written judicial authorization for a search of specified premises for specified articles.
Separate maintenance: A court-ordered allowance granted to one spouse for selfsupport
and child support while living apart for justifiable cause.
Sequestration of witnesses: Separating witnesses so they may not hear one another’s
testimony.
Specific performance: A legal remedy for forcing compliance under an agreement;
most commonly used to force the transfer of real property.
Statute of limitations: Time within which a criminal or civil action must be commenced.
Statutory law: The written law enacted by legislative bodies.
Stay: The postponement of judicial action by court order, usually temporary and usually
related to some other contemplated action.
Stipulation: A statement by the attorneys or the parties that certain matters have
already been agreed upon.
Subpoena: A court order compelling a witness to appear and give testimony.
Subpoena duces tecum: A court order compelling a witness to produce certain documents.
Summary judgment: A judgment decided by a judge without the necessity of a trial.
suppression hearing: A request filed by the defendant to prohibit the use of evidence gathered in violation of the defendant’s rights; this hearing is held outside the presence of the jury.
Suspended sentence: A sentence that need not be served if the defendant complies
with certain court-imposed conditions.
Testator: Maker of a will.
Title search: A thorough investigation of public records to ascertain ownership of property, or to discover any liens or encumbrances against a property or other defects in title to the land.
Tort: A civil injury or wrong.
True bill: The endorsement made by a grand jury upon a bill of indictment when it finds sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal charge.
Unlawful detainer: Retaining possession without the right to do so.
Unreasonable search and seizure: An action executed contrary to legal guidelines that tightly regulate the way in which a private citizen’s property may be searched and seized by the government.
Venire: The group of people who are summoned for jury duty.
Voir dire: Generally applied to the questioning of jurors during impaneling to test their
qualifications and determine possible bias; also, a hearing conducted during the trial by a judge out of the presence of the jury.
Waiver: The express or implied voluntary surrender of a right.
Writ: Any of numerous orders issuing from a court.
SOURCE: Massachusetts Bar Association
Lawyers Weekly is grateful to the MBA for the use of this informative resource.
Per curiam: Literally, “through the court”; an opinion of an appellate court not attributable to any one judge.
Peremptory challenge: The right to reject a juror without assigning a cause.
Perjury: Stating under oath as true what is known to be false.
Personal recognizance: Bail consisting of a promise to appear in court when required.
Petition: A written request addressed to the court asking for some favor or relief.
Petit Jury: A trial jury, as opposed to a grand jury. Also called a petty jury.
Pleading: The process by which parties in an action raise and define in writing the issues to be resolved.
Power of attorney: Written authorization permitting one person to act for another.
Prejudicial error: A legal error that warrants an appellate court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision.
Preliminary hearing: A hearing held to determine whether a person charged with a crime should be held for trial.
Preponderance of evidence: Evidence supporting a proposition that outweighs evidence offered to contradict it; the standard of proof required in a civil case for the plaintiff to win.
Presentment: A notice by a grand jury, from its own knowledge or observation to the court, that a crime has been committed; similar to the indictment.
Pretrial motion: Any motion made in advance of trial.
Prima facie: Literally, “at first sight”; when applied to evidence, such evidence as is sufficient to establish a given fact or facts constituting the party’s claim or defense which, if not rebutted, will remain sufficient.
Probable cause: Reasonable belief. For example, probable cause is required for the issuance of a search warrant and the arrest of a person without a warrant.
Probate: The legal process of establishing the validity of a will and settling an estate.
Probation: Supervision by authorized court personnel over the activities of a person released after conviction of some criminal offense.
Pro se: Representing oneself without the assistance of legal counsel.
Quash: To vacate, annul or void any written order.
Reasonable doubt: The standard by which criminal cases are decided.
Receiver: A neutral person appointed by the court to manage the property or business of another, pending legal action.
Recuse: To disqualify oneself as a judge in a particular case.
Remand: A decision by an appellate court, sending a case back to the court from which it came for further proceedings.
Respondent: The party who answers an appeal. (See appellee)
Restraining order: A temporary court order directing a person to do, or not to do, a particular act pending further hearing. It is often used to order one person stay away from another.
Retainer: A fee paid by a client to an attorney in anticipation of legal work that the attorney will perform.
Search warrant: Written judicial authorization for a search of specified premises for specified articles.
Separate maintenance: A court-ordered allowance granted to one spouse for selfsupport
and child support while living apart for justifiable cause.
Sequestration of witnesses: Separating witnesses so they may not hear one another’s
testimony.
Specific performance: A legal remedy for forcing compliance under an agreement;
most commonly used to force the transfer of real property.
Statute of limitations: Time within which a criminal or civil action must be commenced.
Statutory law: The written law enacted by legislative bodies.
Stay: The postponement of judicial action by court order, usually temporary and usually
related to some other contemplated action.
Stipulation: A statement by the attorneys or the parties that certain matters have
already been agreed upon.
Subpoena: A court order compelling a witness to appear and give testimony.
Subpoena duces tecum: A court order compelling a witness to produce certain documents.
Summary judgment: A judgment decided by a judge without the necessity of a trial.
suppression hearing: A request filed by the defendant to prohibit the use of evidence gathered in violation of the defendant’s rights; this hearing is held outside the presence of the jury.
Suspended sentence: A sentence that need not be served if the defendant complies
with certain court-imposed conditions.
Testator: Maker of a will.
Title search: A thorough investigation of public records to ascertain ownership of property, or to discover any liens or encumbrances against a property or other defects in title to the land.
Tort: A civil injury or wrong.
True bill: The endorsement made by a grand jury upon a bill of indictment when it finds sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal charge.
Unlawful detainer: Retaining possession without the right to do so.
Unreasonable search and seizure: An action executed contrary to legal guidelines that tightly regulate the way in which a private citizen’s property may be searched and seized by the government.
Venire: The group of people who are summoned for jury duty.
Voir dire: Generally applied to the questioning of jurors during impaneling to test their
qualifications and determine possible bias; also, a hearing conducted during the trial by a judge out of the presence of the jury.
Waiver: The express or implied voluntary surrender of a right.
Writ: Any of numerous orders issuing from a court.
SOURCE: Massachusetts Bar Association
Lawyers Weekly is grateful to the MBA for the use of this informative resource.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Change of Falmouth District Court Date
Christopher G. Parker's court date of March 30, 2007 in Falmouth District Court, where he was to appear on charges of driving under the influence of drugs this past October, has been continued until April 27, 2007 at 9:00am at the request of his Attorney.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Man accused in fatal crash to get hearing
Man accused in fatal crash to get hearing
CAPE COD TIMES SANDWICH - Christopher G. Parker, the man accused of causing a three-car crash March 5 that killed a Forestdale grandmother, will plead his case before a clerk magistrate.
Parker, 50, faces a clerk magistrate hearing April 4 at 2 p.m. to determine probable cause to charge him with vehicular homicide and other charges related to the crash, police said. The hearing will be held in Barnstable District Court.
Parker requested the clerk magistrate hearing, which is closed to the public. The magistrate will decide to advance the charges to district court or dismiss the charges.
Parker was issued a citation in the Route 130 crash for vehicular homicide and driving after his license was revoked. He has an extensive driving infraction record, including four convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol.
On Friday, Parker is due in Falmouth District Court for a pretrial hearing on a charge of operating under the influence of drugs in an unrelated driving incident. In October, state police arrested Parker in Bourne and charged him with operating under the influence of drugs.
(Published: March 24, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
