A Dorchester man on bail while awaiting trial for illegal gun possession was arrested at his Claybourne Street residence Saturday for illegal gun possession after a family member turned him in, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Dexter Spinola, 45, had bail set at $9,000 at his arraignment in Dorchester District Court today. Judge Debra DelVecchio declined a request from prosecutors to revoke his bail on the 2013 charges - in which he was free on $15,000 bail.
A relative of Spinola contacted Boston Police on Saturday to report finding a firearm upon entering Spinola’s room in the family home the previous day, prosecutors told the court. When asked about the gun, Spinola allegedly told the family member that it had been placed in the house by a friend because the friend was drunk, prosecutors said.
The relative presented officers with a plastic bag containing an Interarms .40 cal semi-automatic handgun. It was loaded with seven live rounds of ammunition in the magazine and had an obliterated serial number, prosecutors said, and officers obtained a warrant charging Spinola with possessing it.
On May 25, 2013, the DA's office says, Spinola was charged with possession of a stolen 9mm handgun after a car crash.
Innocent, etc.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I can only assume a condition
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:05pm
I can only assume a condition of his first bail was "don't posses any more illegal firearms!". He obviously violated that and was released on LESS bail?! Here we go again.
Can we please start enforcing
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:07pm
Can we please start enforcing Bartley Fox and keeping people locked up for the mandatory minimums instead of allowing revolving door plea deals?
Passing all the new laws in the world does nothing if the old ones are never enforced.
Was there an earlier plea deal?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:55pm
The point of contention here is bail - which is an amount collected to ensure that somebody turns up for trial.
If he plead out on an earlier charge to avoid trial, could you supply a link?
Anecdote
By relaxyapsycho
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:20pm
*
THERE IT IS! People ask how
By BostonSean
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:22pm
THERE IT IS! People ask how this is possible every time something like this occurs. This scumbag is out on bail for one gun charge and gets an even LOWER bail for the 2nd charge while still awaiting trial on the 1st. So keep an eye on the news so you don't miss it when this outstanding member of society actually murders someone while out on bail for this most current charge. It'll probably be his "snitch" family member. Clearly I was living in the wrong state during my teenage years because I actually was punished when I eff'd up...
Do the right thing and
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 5:22pm
send in your tips! You will be protected! Yeah right.
"It'll probably be his "snitch" family member."
By dmcboston
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 5:25pm
Don't worry. Illegal guns are illegal. Hold it, an obliterated serial number? Um, isn't that illegal?
HOLD IT!!! Is there a bail bondsman in the Uhub house? What happens to the $15k? They put up another nine? He made bail? Isn't bail automatically revoked because of the subsequent offense?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is going on here??
What's going on is that the
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 5:29pm
What's going on is that the judges have no accountability nor do they have to live anywhere near these animals that they let loose daily in neighborhoods in and around the city.
Yet another example of why
By roadman
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 5:31pm
judges who defy prosecution recommendations regarding bail or sentencing should be required to provide written reasons on the public record for doing so.
How so?
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 5:43pm
Your use of the word "defy" suggests some confusion as to how the system works. It's the judge who sets the bail, not the prosecutor (or, for that matter, the defense.)
WIth all due respect
By roadman
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 6:07pm
a judge who rejects a prosecution's recommendation to revoke bail for a person awaiting trial for an offense who then commits the same offense, however you "justify" it, is defying the prosecution. And said judge should be required to explain their actions on the public record.
Part of the problem with the current system of bail and sentencing is that judges have too much say in the decisions.
Again, you don't get it
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 8:12pm
Judges have all the say, actually. By design.
The prosecutors - and the defendant's lawyers - have equal say to SUGGEST things. However, the judge has total say in sentencing and setting bail. That is because this person has not been convicted of anything (the function of bail is not punitive), AND because the prosecutors are no more than advocates for ONE SIDE of the story - that side being the accusing side. Their powers are very intentionally limited by our systems of rights, checks, and balances. They represent the Government in the court proceedings - they do not have authority to do anything more than make suggestions. That is intentional.
Judicial decisions are independent and unbound by the suggestions of the advocates for the state and the plaintiff, and there are reasons for this. This system did not spring from Zeus' forehead, but evolved over time to protect the rights of the accused from overwhelming state power as detailed in our Bill of Rights. I suggest you start with the history of the British legal system that our legal system is based on and work your way up. Otherwise, keep arguing for what would amount to a police state (again, look up the history) and keep getting educated on why we don't have one.
Oh please
By Anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 8:50pm
Are you still worried about the big bad Brits dragging you out of bed in the middle of the night and hanging you in the town square for betraying the king? I find it rather funny how all the leftie wankers are ridiculing the righties clinging to the second, yet they're wanking over the fourth even harder than the righties are wanking over the second. Neither one is relevant in its current form in today's world - one puts deadly weapons in the hands of a bunch of nut jobs, the other is a nifty little get out of jail free card.
Knowledge
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 10:47pm
It generally works better than willful ignorance, but, hey, if the latter is working for you ... for now.
It doesn't matter when these were written - they are the law, and that includes prosecutors not having the authority to set bail.
And, yes, people should be concerned about how much power the state has to take your life and property. If you aren't, you haven't been paying attention.
So what kind of wanker does that make me?
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 11:47pm
I believe that both the fourth *and* the second should be defended vigorously. Does that make me a rightie wanker or a leftie wanker? Far from being a "nifty little get out of jail free card," the fourth is basically the only effective way of keeping law enforcement on the right side of the law, because it says, in effect, "you gain no advantage by making illegal searches."
um...
By dmcboston
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 4:43am
Actually, the Legislature makes the laws. They can say, "Hey, a minimum of one year for a gun with no LTC."
So, this guy was out on bail for a crime that calls for a year in the can, then, he gets caught with another gun.
No Constitutional issues here. The system is so gummed up that proper justice isn't being served. Swirl is right about the reason for bail, but this isn't a 'bail' case. This is a WTF is taking so long case. After all, he never had a chance to default on the first gun violation.
Then he gets caught again. So, in a real world, bail revoked. Violation.
Family member gets to sleep at night.
No disagreement on this case
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 4:59pm
I have no disagreement on the specifics of this case; I just object to the argument that the prosecution ought to be able to set bail amounts.
I don't think it's quite
By basta
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 8:11pm
I don't think it's quite accurate to say that prosecutors are simply advocates of the accuser's side of the story. Prosecutors have an ethical obligation to represent the interest of the "people," which do not necessarily align with the accuser, and to make charging decisions and bail/sentencing recommendations accordingly.
Do you seriously not get it?
By Joe Dick's Brother
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 11:34pm
Do you seriously think that judges setting bail too low is a bigger problem than innocent people being railroaded by overzealous prosecution?
Which does more damage to society in the long run: on the one hand, a judge setting this scumbag's bail too low, or, on the other, prosecutors hounding Aaron Swartz literally to death or seeking a 20 year sentence for a fisherman who threw back an undersized fish.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/05/scotus-confronts...
Yes
By anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 9:58am
Let's see now - hundreds of violent thugs roaming the streets of every large city, shooting others ($300k on average to treat a shooting victim - do the math,) slinging dope, knocking up teenagers left and right and dragging young kids into gangbanger lifestyle, all due to judges setting laughably low bails or throwing out gun charges on one hand, and that idiot prosecutor who in the end became laughing stock of the entire judicial community on the other. I'll let you decide what does more harm to society.
As for Schwartz, that simply shows that if the machine really wants to grind you down, it will grind you down despite all the laws out there.
Source?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 8:21pm
With all due respect to you...
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 11:42pm
By your definition, a judge who acquits a suspect is "defying" the prosecution, and a judge who convicts a suspect is "defying" the defense.
On the contrary, we've seen the Kafka-esque hell that mandatory sentencing laws create: While cleaning the attic Grandma comes into possession of deceased Grandpa's old handgun, which neither of them have seen since 1956; puts it in her nightstand drawer; makes the mistake of mentioning that she has it, and gets sent to jail for a year. Or some basically good 23 year old guy with an I.Q. of 75 gets caught stealing a candy bar for the 3rd time and gets sent up forever as a repeat offender.
I'll take judicial discretion any day, and I'd sure rather see the matter in the hands of a judge than in the hands of a prosecutor.
Right
By anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 9:32am
That's why laws should be flexible enough to lock up a violent gangbanger but not the grandma and the basically good guy who happens to really like his sweets. Screaming about the fourth to justify a violent thug beating gun charges over and over again isn't that different from all the biblethumpers out there.
Straw man much?
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 5:01pm
Who's screaming about the fourth here?
(Allegedly) Illegal search
By Anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 7:24pm
Is what gets most of the gun charges tossed - no other nation has such idiotic evidence suppression laws on their books. A known gangbanger with a gun is a known gangbanger with a gun - it should not matter how the gun was found. Frisking a gangbanger with known prior gun convictions because he is known to have prior gun convictions should be just as admissible as catching him red-handed while he's shooting the said gun at a rival gangbanger.
written reasons for denial
By Pjc
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 6:17pm
written reasons for denial are in courts file.
He probably figured he had
By Hyde_Parker
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:44pm
He probably figured he had nothing to lose.
The best part is that he's
By Scratchie
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 5:01pm
The best part is that he's still out on bail eighteen months after being arrested for the prior offense. No wonder these guys act with impunity.
Indeed, doesn't he have the
By Biggie_Robs
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 9:41pm
Indeed, doesn't he have the right to a speedy trial?
See It Report It
By speakingouthere
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 6:47pm
I commend the family member for calling the police.
I hope he does not find out who it was and harm them.
Big problem is the system
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 7:28pm
Big problem is the system appears to be doing little to nothing to protect the person which did the right thing.
I was thinking the same thing
By Lmo
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 7:38pm
I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure this will help narrow it down: "Spinola allegedly told the family member that it had been placed in the house by a friend because the friend was drunk, prosecutors said."
Why would that be published?
Why Wouldn't It Be?
By anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 8:43am
If you're accused of a crime, you get the benefit of all the evidence against you. That means you and your attorney get all the witness statements that led to your arrest and all the grand jury testimony that follows it, with information much more detailed than this. This is your right under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, not something to be withheld from you. In order to charge you with a crime, the government also has to convince a judge that there's probable cause to proceed with the case, and that means reading evidence into the record as this seems to have been. If it's spoken in open court, it's part of a public proceeding, and the public has a right to know that the state isn't just arbitrarily locking people up for something other than a violation of the law.
"The relative presented officers..."...
By Boston_res
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 12:44am
..."It was loaded with seven live rounds of ammunition in the magazine"...
Ok, I took some small tidbits from the report. Handing anyone a loaded firearm is incredibly dangerous. It's dangerous to both people (person handing over, and person taking charge of). I think there should be some open class for handling firearms. Not for people who want to get an LTC, or even who want to learn how to shoot. A class for people who have unwanted firearms in their house though. It will certainly reduce the risk of negligent/accidental discharge. I'm also happy the person handing over the firearm wasn't charged with unlawful posession.
You can get an FID card.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 2:06am
This allows you to have guns in your house or place of business. If you have a permit to purchase, you can even have high capacity firearms in your house or place of business. FID cards are easy to get. Class A licences (allowing you to carry high capacity firearms in public consealed) are harder to obtain.
And if you call the police and tell them you found a weapon in your house, you will not be charged. Courts do use common sense in these cases.
The permit to purchase FID
By anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 11:59am
The permit to purchase FID card you speak of has never been issued in this state. It's the subject of a lawsuit right now.
Handing someone a loaded gun
By polarbare
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 9:19am
is not the least bit dangerous if the 3 basic rules of firearms are followed.
Aren't there four?
By anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 10:14am
I think his point was that people who aren't in lawful possession of firearms are less likely to follow safety rules. A lot of these guys get bagged because they jam a pistol in their pants, walk like they're packing, and the cops do an FIO. I doubt your average banger religiously follows the rules of firearms safety if they don't see the merits of a holster guarding the trigger.
Play stupid games
By polarbare
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 11:43am
and hopefully they'll win stupid prizes...
I know the NRA isn't terribly
By Ryan
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 9:39am
I know the NRA isn't terribly popular around these parts, but they actually have a course geared precisely at what you're talking about. It's mainly for children but also their parents, and teaches what to do if you find a gun. Look up Eddie Eagle.
You're all missing my point.
By Boston_res
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 11:28am
I know about NRA programs, FID cards and the legal red tape we have to go through to own a firearm? What I'm talking about are people who don't like firearms in any form or function and come across one in their own home. Take for instance this tragic event:
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20140207/child-s...
From what I can gather, most Boston residents won't know what the do when they come across a loaded firearm. This boy obviously thought he'd be safe to pull a trigger with a magazine dropped.
I know from experience some firearms will fire with a magazine removed and some will not fire once a magazine is removed. A variation of the Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm is one pistol which will still fire with a round chambered and the magazine missing. Some .22 rimfire pistols will not fire with a round chambered and magazine removed.
The type of class I'm talking about is a much shorter class than the 6 to 8 hour class required for a MA LTC. I'm talking about a shorter 1 to 2 hour class for parents/guardians of high risk youth. I don't think it's a question of "what if" for many people anymore, but a question of "what happens when" my kid brings a gun home. This is something the BPD could do as some type of outreach program.
As I've mentioned here before
By polarbare
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 11:46am
we had to pass hunter safety (including gun safety) as part of phys ed to graduate high school. I agree there is no reason that everyone in MA can't be taught the most basic lessons of gun safety.
Totally agree
By anon
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 12:12pm
Good point. This stuff is going to be obvious to anyone who's invested in a safety course to get licensed...in fewer words - not the people most likely to be around illegal firearms.
Seems like a non resource-intensive strategy that could potentially be life-saving. Teach kids not to ever point a gun at anyone, and that they should always be treated as loaded. Teach parents how to clear and make safe a firearm.
BPD district lobby areas run 24/7 and many have a prescription pill drop-off. Why isn't there a similar amnesty program for guns? Instead of a temporary buyback program, they should advertise that guns can be turned in to an officer at their local station at any time. They can still publicize the "x guns of the street" stats.
This is definitely a manageable outreach idea, and I'm surprised it doesn't already exist.
Add comment