Attorney Travayiakis’ choose him as their criminal defense lawyer because they know first-hand that he is not afraid to take those cases to trial that other attorneys might advise their clients otherwise. It is not easy to convince a Jury of ‘reasonable doubt’ when, under some circumstances, there is no question of guilt – but Attorney Travayiakis has managed to do just that time and time again.
Commonwealth v. G.U., Suffolk Superior Court
Client was charged with 6 firearms offenses involving 2 illegal guns. After a car stop, the Client, a passenger in the car, was alleged to have jumped out of the car and thrown away 2 guns. The officers gave pursuit but were unable to catch him. Meanwhile, the car had driven off in the opposite direction from the person who ran, but officers were able to immediately broadcast its license plate and description. Within minutes, the car was stopped, and the Client (who was alleged to have gotten out of the car and run away), was miraculously back in the car!?
The first trial resulted in a hung jury/mistrial, but Attorney Travayiakis retried the case with a different approach and led a meticulous counter-attack on the state's key witnesses by impeaching the testimony of police witnesses.
The Defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts.
Commonwealth v. J.V., Suffolk Superior Court
Client was charged with Unarmed Robbery (a life felony) and Assault and Battery after an alleged drug deal gone bad. The Defendant was accused of distributing drugs, and when the buyer didn't want to pay, he, along with another, allegedly took part in a violent beating of the buyer.
Despite that the buyer testified at trial and unequivocally identified the Defendant as the person who robbed & beat him, the defense strategy involved challenging the buyer's identification of the Defendant through effective cross-examination.
The Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. J.L., Suffolk Superior Court
Several Dorchester and South Boston food establishments were being robbed by a masked gunman. The Defendant, allegedly working in tandem with his girlfriend, would place food orders for delivery, and once the driver arrived to deliver the food, the girlfriend would stall just long enough for the Defendant, masked and armed, to approach the driver from behind and rob him.
Having committed these robberies one too many times, the Defendant mistakenly called the same pizza place that he had robbed just one month earlier. The manager, recognizing the same telephone number, took the order and called the police. A ‘sting’ was quickly set up, and the Defendant was tackled as he allegedly attempted to rob the delivery driver at gunpoint. Finding gloves, masks, as well as the gun on his possession, the Defendant was arrested and charged with four (4) counts of Armed Robbery, and Armed Assault with Intent to Rob. If convicted, he faced up to life imprisonment.
With several prior convictions, the best the prosecutor was offering on a deal was 7-10 years in state prison. In custody for over one year, the Defendant was offered a ‘sweet deal’ on the day of Trial by the Judge – only 2 more years in prison. His girlfriend, notably, had previously changed her plea to Guilty and had already been sentenced to state prison for several years.
After discussing the pros and cons of accepting this plea deal or proceeding to trial, the Defendant rejected the plea offer. Despite the strong evidence against him, including several pictures of him on the same phone that was used to place the delivery orders, Attorney Travayiakis was able to highlight just enough holes in the Commonwealth’s case to convince a Jury to find him NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. S.B., Roxbury Division
A concerned motorist calls the State Police to report an erratic and drunk driver on Storrow Drive. The Defendant is later stopped in Kenmore Square for failing to stay in his lane and for suspicion of drunk driving. Being unable to produce his license and exhibiting slurred speech, he is ordered to exit the car and is asked to perform several Field Sobriety Tests, which he allegedly fails. A search of the Defendants car yields one empty bottle and one half-empty bottle of Vodka under the driver’s seat, he is arrested for Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol.
The Defendant is found NOT GUILTY after Trial.
Commonwealth v. M.T., West Roxbury Division
After an argument, a woman reports to the Police that her boyfriend attacked her by throwing several knives at her. The Defendant is later arrested in the apartment and charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon; and Threat to Commit Murder.
After Jury Trial, the charge of Threat to Commit Murder is DISMISSED; and he is found NOT GUILTY of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.
Commonwealth v. R.S., Boston Municipal Court
Boston Police responded to a multi-unit complex after several reports of shots fired. After responding to the area, officers are directed by a witness into an apartment where the Defendant and Co-Defendant are found. In the apartment, a loaded firearm is recovered and the Defendant is charged with Possession of a Firearm; Possession of Ammunition; Possession of a Loaded Firearm; and Discharge of a Firearm.
After Trial, the Defendant is found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
Commonwealth v. J.G., Boston Municipal Court
Boston Police Officers on routine patrol observed and recognized the driver of a car as someone they had arrested in the past who was recently released from jail and attempted to stop the car for a “motor vehicle violation.” The driver refused to stop, and a high speed chase ensued, until the driver crashed into a tree. My client, the Defendant, was a passenger in that car.
Both the Defendant and the driver ran from the car, through several yards, until they were surrounded by several police officers several blocks away. Although he attempted to ‘give up’ and submitted to the Officer’s commands, the Defendant was physically assaulted by the Officer. The Officer alleged that he acted in self-defense. Later, when the police retraced the ‘escape route’ of the Defendant and the driver, they found a loaded firearm along the path that they both took.
The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Firearm; Possession of Ammunition; Possession of a Loaded Firearm; Assault and Battery on a Police Officer; and Resisting Arrest.
Prior to trial, the defense discovered that this particular officer had been the subject of multiple investigations by the Boston Police Internal Affairs Division concerning violations of conduct and use of excessive force. Relying on this information to impeach the officer’s credibility at Trial, the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
Commonwealth v. M.D. #1, Dorchester Division
Undercover police officers were watching the Defendant allegedly conduct a drug deal in Dorchester. After observing money allegedly being exchanged, they approached the Defendant and a chase and scuffle ensued with the detective. Once under arrest, several bags of marijuana, as well as 27 individually wrapped bags of crack cocaine, were found in his pocket. The detective sustained injuries as a result. He was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class B Substance, cocaine; School Zone Violation, 2 counts; Possession of a Class D Substance; Assault and Battery on a Police Officer; and Resisting Arrest.
Prior to trial, both School Zone charges, as well as the charge of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer were all DISMISSED. After Trial, a Jury found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Possession with Intent to Distribute; and only convicted him of the lesser offenses of straight Possession and Resisting Arrest.
Commonwealth v. M.D. #2, Dorchester Division
While the above case was pending for trial, the same Defendant was arrested by the same Boston Police Detective for yet another drug dealing case. Once again, the Detective was conducting undercover surveillance operations, and was specifically targeting this Defendant.
The Detective arrested the Defendant for Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class A Substance, Heroin; and for Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class D Substance, Marijuana, after observing him ‘interacting’ with 2 other individuals. The Detective approached and searched the Defendant, recovered the drugs, and arrested him.
The Defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest based on the Detective’s observations and, after a Motion to Suppress Hearing was held, the Judge suppressed/excluded all the drugs seized because the Detective’s actions were unlawful under the circumstances. All charges DISMISSED.
Commonwealth v. M.M., Dorchester Division
The female Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon against two other females after a verbal argument. After Jury Trial, the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
Commonwealth v. B.K., West Roxbury Division
One-half hour after leaving a bar in the Back Bay area of Boston at 1:00 a.m., the Defendant was stopped by the State Police for going through a red light and for suspected driving under the influence. After failing several Field Sobriety Tests (including the Alphabet Test), and even admitting that he had come from a bar where he had ingested alcohol, he was arrested for Operation Under the Influence of Alcohol, 3rd Offense.
After Jury Trial, this Defendant was found NOT GUILTY, and his Driver’s License was restored within 3 weeks.
Commonwealth v. A.W., Dorchester Division
Defendant was charged with Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle; Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle; Leaving the Scene of Property Damage; and Failure to Stop for Police. Boston Police alleged that the car the Defendant was driving was stolen, which explained why he refused to stop for them and led them on a high-speed chase through various Dorchester neighborhoods, all while having two young teenagers in the back seat of the car.
Despite testimony from the officers that they recognized the Defendant as the one who was driving because they were familiar with him from previous ‘encounters’, the Defendant maintained that he was only a passenger in the car, and the real driver of the car had made his escape in the few seconds that the police had lost sight of the car. After trial, the Jury acquitted the Defendant.
