Boston Bombing Fraud Proof Sufficient To Prevent Sentence Stay

The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice who had denied a stay of sentence to a defendant who used the Boston Marathon bombing as a vehicle to defraud

The charges stemmed from an attempt by the defendant and his half-brother to defraud One Fund Boston, Inc. (One Fund), of approximately $2 million by claiming that a long-deceased aunt had been injured in the 2013 bombing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The judge imposed a State prison sentence of from three years to three years and one day on the conspiracy charge and concurrent sentences of three years’ probation for the attempted larceny and identity fraud charges, to run from and after the committed sentence.

The defendant appealed from his convictions and filed in the trial court a motion for stay of the execution of his sentence pending appeal. The judge denied the motion. After his appeal was docketed in the Appeals Court, the defendant filed a motion for stay of the execution of the sentence in that court. We granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review of his appeal, and thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for stay in this court. The matter was referred to the single justice, who denied the motion.

The defendant failed to make a sufficient showing on the merits

To prevail on this aspect of his appeal from the single justice’s order, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of success on his challenge to the conspiracy conviction, the crime for which the judge imposed the committed portion of the sentence…the defendant’s burden is to demonstrate as well a reasonable possibility of success on his appeal from the identity fraud conviction and that reversal of the identity fraud conviction vitiates the conspiracy conviction. We are not persuaded that he has done so.

(Mike Frisch)