Overview
Our client, a 24-year-old father of two, was arrested and charged in connection with a drive-by shooting in Brockton that left one man seriously injured. Law enforcement alleged that the shooting was gang-related and that our client, who was previously associated with a local crew during his teenage years, was the shooter. Prosecutors relied heavily on the testimony of a single eyewitness and circumstantial evidence — but no physical evidence tied our client to the crime.Charges
- Assault with Intent to Murder
- Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Firearm)
- Carrying a Firearm without a License
- Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Dwelling
- Armed Assault in a Dwelling
Defense Strategy
From the outset, the case hinged on identification — and whether the Commonwealth could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that our client was the person in the car who fired the shots. The prosecution’s narrative rested on a single eyewitness who saw “someone who looked like” our client near the scene.
- Alibi Evidence: We presented cellphone data and surveillance footage from a nearby convenience store that confirmed our client was several miles away at the time of the shooting.
- Challenging the Eyewitness: Under cross-examination, the witness admitted they only saw the shooter for “a second or two,” in the dark, through tinted windows, while ducking for cover. We brought in an expert in cross-racial identification and memory reliability, who explained to the jury the common pitfalls and psychological science behind mistaken identification.
- No Forensic Evidence: There were no fingerprints, DNA, gunshot residue, or weapon found that connected our client to the shooting. The vehicle used in the incident was never recovered.
- Addressing the Gang Allegation: We did not shy away from our client’s past, but we made clear through character witnesses and employment records that he had left that life behind, was working full-time, and actively parenting his young daughter.
Outcome
After a week-long jury trial in Superior Court, our client was acquitted of all charges. The jury deliberated for less than two hours. They agreed that the Commonwealth had failed to meet its burden, and that a conviction based on such weak identification evidence would be a miscarriage of justice.Result:
- ✅Assault with Intent to Murder — Not Guilty
- ✅Firearm Charges — Not Guilty
- ✅Armed Assault — Not Guilty
- ✅Client Released Immediately
Reflections
When the government tries to convict someone based on shaky identification and reputation alone, the role of a defense attorney becomes critical. At Maloney Law, we challenge assumptions, expose weaknesses in the government’s case, and fight relentlessly for the truth — even when the odds are stacked.