Gun charge against Cape trooper dismissed

Wolf99

NES Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
653
Likes
101
Feedback: 30 / 0 / 0
Gun charge against Cape trooper dismissed

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090220/NEWS11/90220018

STAFF WRITER
February 20, 2009
BARNSTABLE – A charge that a Massachusetts state trooper illegally stored a large-capacity firearm in the presence of a minor has been dismissed.

Lt. Richard Bolduc of Sandwich was accused of leaving his service weapon in an unlocked bureau while not at home. Police said that on June 25, Bolduc’s 12-year-old son took the gun, pointed it at a 5-year-old neighbor and pulled the trigger.

More Times Breaking News
LeBoeuf pleads guilty to having stolen goods - 3:05 pm Gun charge against Cape trooper dismissed - 1:12 pm Wall Street falls amid economic concerns - 12:30 pm UMass committee approves $1,500 fee hike - 12:27 pm See All Breaking News Stories » While the gun was not loaded and no one was hurt, police said they found a loaded clip in the same drawer where it was stored. His son was charged separately as a minor.

Earlier this month, Bolduc’s attorney, Daniel O’Malley, argued before Judge Joan Lynch that the charge should be dropped based on a June 26 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court declared a Washington, D.C. gun ban unconstitutional and struck down a requirement that guns be locked or disassembled when stored.

While Lynch on Feb. 5 indicated she was leaning toward the defense, she took the request under advisement.

Judge W. James O’Neill officially declared the case dismissed in Barnstable District Court today.

Bolduc declined to comment after the brief hearing.

Read more about this in tomorrow’s Cape Cod Times.
 
I can't wait to see the follow up on this.

Was it done on by legal argument, as in Heller, or was it broomed.
 
So now I can leave them out and about? How about these other two guys recently in Gemmetown? Their entire prosecution revolves around the storage charge. It was the storage violations that served as the probable cause to dig deeper. Take that away, and the entire chain of evidence vanishes.
 
Heller? Heller? Heller?
This might be it!


Earlier this month, Bolduc’s attorney, Daniel O’Malley, argued before Judge Joan Lynch that the charge should be dropped based on a June 26 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court declared a Washington, D.C. gun ban unconstitutional and struck down a requirement that guns be locked or disassembled when stored.

While Lynch on Feb. 5 indicated she was leaning toward the defense, she took the request under advisement.

Judge W. James O’Neill officially declared the case dismissed in Barnstable District Court today.
 
I know it's wishful thinking, but at least it can be used as reference in future hearings. See Commonwealth vs. Bolduc....................

+1. I can't wait to see the next improper storage case present this precedent.

Well, until one of the forum lawyers chimes in, let me educate you a little.

WHAT precedent? There is NO precedent here.

The case was dismissed. That doesn't make a precedent. Could have been dismissed for various reasons. Also, charges probably COULD be brought back against him again.

Now, myself, I was hoping it would go to trial, and he be found not guilty. Citing flaws in the law would be the frosting on that cake. THAT would be a precedent, with or without the cite, though the cite would NAIL it.

Edited to add. Just saw th eupdates that were made while I was composing this.

The JUDGE dismissed it. Now, it is possible for the judge to dismiss it in such a way to set a precedent. I may be using the wrong term, but it would be dismissed with a prejudice or something like that. Those type situations CAN be cited, and likely will be.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a precedent to me.

But then, I'm no lawyer. [rolleyes] My mind and logic aren't nearly twisted enough to be one!!





Sorry, Darius. [wink]
 
Well, until one of the forum lawyers chimes in, let me educate you a little.

WHAT precedent? There is NO precedent here.

The case was dismissed. That doesn't make a precedent. Could have been dismissed for various reasons. Also, charges probably COULD be brought back against him again.

Now, myself, I was hoping it would go to trial, and he be found not guilty. Citing flaws in the law would be the frosting on that cake. THAT would be a precedent, with or without the cite, though the cite would NAIL it.

[bow] Sorry for wishful thinking I guess. It's still a reference.
 
[bow] Sorry for wishful thinking I guess. It's still a reference.

Recheck my post. When I was typing it, the Heller information wasn't there, just that it had been dropped. Of course, my dismal opinion on courts, especially MA courts is such that I figured it was dropped for the wrong reasons, and by the DA.
 
Not prosecuted

Exactly, there are two classes of people after-all. Those who get prosecuted and those who have money and or standing that get themselves out of the situations.

I don't folloow you on the not being prosecuted.The guy was charged,had to hire an attorney,and a judge later dismissed the charge.Not being prosecuted would mean none of the above happened.
 
People should spend some time in District Courts and watch how they operate.All kinds of people have charges either dismissed,watered down or filed.Wheres the so called double standard?Just saying stupid things does not make it so.Don't forget,everyone wants the cops to do their jobs,but not on them.lol I was sent to a neighborhood to watch a stop sign that the neighbors said was being blown thru all hours of the day.A bunch of them signed a petition asking the cops to do something about it.Whithin one minute of being there,I see a car blow it at about 20 MPH.I pull the lady over and she says"Is this all you have to do Officer?" You guessed it,she signed the petition.
 
paging forum lawyers...paging....the forum lawyers.

Buehler? Buehler? [wink]
Of the three firearms specific lawyers here, the only one who would talk shop with us regularly on stuff like this is still persona non grata. One other one is not around much and the third does not seem to engage in conversations like this for whatever reason, I am sure it is not anything against us.
So we can have fun making this out into something it is not and get ourselves all worked up one way or the other without fear of reality biting us in the ass anytime soon. Basically it's an internet forum, just talk smack and have a good time and don't sweat the reality. [smile]
 
Last edited:
Recheck my post. When I was typing it, the Heller information wasn't there, just that it had been dropped. Of course, my dismal opinion on courts, especially MA courts is such that I figured it was dropped for the wrong reasons, and by the DA.

Umm, it was in the OP, as well as the main defense the whole time.
 
Umm, it was in the OP, as well as the main defense the whole time.

That it was the Defense Attorney's reason for filing for dismisal, yes.

I frankly missed that the Judge is the one that dismissed it, so, I'll take that hit, I deserve it.

If it was the Judge's total reasoning isn't all that clear, and (in some places, not so sure about MA) she COULD have dismissed the case, without prejudice, thereby totally ending any precedent. I'm NOT saying that DID happen, just saying we have less than total facts here, and the missing items can be crucial.

As to precedent, as I stated, it ALL depends on HOW it was dismissed.
 
That it was the Defense Attorney's reason for filing for dismisal, yes.

I frankly missed that the Judge is the one that dismissed it, so, I'll take that hit, I deserve it.

If it was the Judge's total reasoning isn't all that clear, and (in some places, not so sure about MA) she COULD have dismissed the case, without prejudice, thereby totally ending any precedent. I'm NOT saying that DID happen, just saying we have less than total facts here, and the missing items can be crucial.

As to precedent, as I stated, it ALL depends on HOW it was dismissed.

No biggie, just making sure I was reading it correctly as well.
 
Oh, no offense taken, as I missed it when Ilooked.

Now, I'm hoping we can find out the missing parts, because, dismissed correctly, this MIGHT make the exact precedent needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom