Attorneys Jellison and Alpert are zealous defenders of children ensnared in the criminal justice system. They are widely recognized as leading experts on protecting the constitutional rights of young people in Massachusetts courts. For example, Attorney Jellison convinced the SJC to dismiss all cases in Massachusetts against children under 12 that were already filed when the Legislature raised the age of the jurisdiction for the juvenile court. And Attorney Alpert convinced the Appeals Court that the widely-used juvenile probation condition “comply with DYS” violated separation of powers. Click below to read more about their track record of successfully defending children.

On September 27, 2021, a unanimous SJC reversed the first degree murder conviction and life sentence of Attorney Wood's client Cara Rintala in a 47 page decision. After two trials in which juries could not agree on a verdict, the prosecutor called a bench chemist at a paint company to offer "expert" testimony in a third trial that paint found on the victim's body had been poured intentionally just before police arrived at the crime scene. His opinion convinced the third jury to convict. On appeal, the SJC accepted Attorney Wood's argument, supported by the affidavit from a professor of material science and several amicus briefs, that this "expert" opinion was junk science that was not reliable because it did not follow the scientific method and should not have been admitted. The decision is a powerful precedent that trial judges must demand that prosecutors who offer expert opinion purportedly based on new science first demonstrate its reliability - using the scientific method - before permitting the jury to hear it.

Attorney Wood and his associate Melissa Ramos immediately filed a motion seeking Ms. Rintala's release while the Commonwealth decides whether to attempt to retry her a fourth time.

On August 16, 2021, Attorney Nathanson along with Attorney Jellison convinced the Supreme Judicial Court to issue a landmark ruling banning discrimination against LGBTQ and Black jurors in jury selection. Attorney Nathanson and Attorney Jellison convinced the SJC to go beyond its Goodridge gay marriage decision and rule that LGBTQ persons are part of a constitutionally protected class. Further, the SJC reversed our clients’ convictions because the trial judge failed to protect Black jurors from discrimination. The judge repeatedly ruled that there were enough Black jurors on the jury, so the prosecutor was not discriminating in striking other Black jurors. But in heavily minority communities like Boston, this is an open invitation to discrimination by allowing just enough Black jurors onto the jury and excluding all others, even if they are qualified. In a strong concurrence, SJC Justice Lowy argued that prosecutors should always have to explain their juror strikes if a defendant objects. A powerful and persuasive amicus brief was filed by GLAD, Black and Pink MA, and the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Racial Justice.

Wood & Nathanson is pleased to announce that, as a result of relentless, detailed work by Attorney Christopher Post, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office is moving to vacate and dismiss ninety-one additional drug convictions in sixty-four defendants’ cases that were tainted by the ever-growing Hinton Drug Lab scandal. In these cases, each of the defendants pleaded guilty to at least one drug offense despite the fact that laboratory testing subsequently proved that substances in question were not drugs at all. We are thankful that DA Rollins and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office chose to work proactively with Attorney Post to achieve a just result.

In December 2019, Attorney Wood secured the dismissal of a felony criminal charge against an MIT graduate student just three months after the client had been charged, and then convinced the court to grant his motion to seal the matter immediately (a process that normally takes about a year), preventing potential employers from learning that the client had ever been charged.

In November 2019, Attorney Wood represented a Northeastern University student in a university disciplinary proceeding, based on misconduct allegedly witnessed by university police. Moving very quickly because of an abbreviated timeframe, Attorney Wood prepared a defense that convinced the the Northeastern Student Conduct Board (SCB) not to expel the client. Instead, the SCB allowed the client to finish the semester, and provided a path to allow him to graduate on schedule with his classmates. Attorney Wood also convinced the Northeastern University Police Department not to refer the matter to the municipal criminal court.

In October 2019, Attorney Wood represented a Boston College student in a university disciplinary proceeding. In less than two weeks, Attorney Wood prepared a defense that convinced the Office of Student Conduct to dismiss the charge brought by a college police officer.

In early 2019, Attorneys Wood & Jellison represented a student at a local college who was accused of Title IX violations. After an extensive investigation of thousands of pages of evidence, and a multi-week investigation by the Title IX investigator, Attorneys Wood and Jellison helped their client prove to the Title IX investigator that the complainant had not been truthful in describing the events. Moreover, Attorneys Wood and Jellison helped their client convince the head of the Title IX office not to expel him. Instead, she allowed the client to finish the semester, and provided a path to allow him to graduate.

In August 2019, Attorney Wood secured the rapid reversal of a criminal conviction after just four months for a client who was working in the U.S. in a medical profession on a H1B visa and was fired as a result of the charge. This victory allows the client to remain in the U.S., maintain his license, and regain professional employment.

On September 16, 2019, Attorney Wood convinced the Hampden Superior Court to remove a GPS monitoring bracelet for his client “Omar,” while the District Attorney decides whether or not to retry him for a murder that he adamantly denies. In April 2019, Attorney Wood secured a reversal of Omar's conviction and his immediate release after 19 years in prison.

Recently, Attorney Jellison successfully shortened a client's cumulative 30 year sentence by ten years, moving his first parole date up by five years. This client was convicted of two non-violent property-based crimes in the space of six months. Middlesex County tried those cases separately and sought “habitual offender” indictments in both cases. The second trial judge ran the client's mandatory maximum sentences consecutively, leading to a cumulative 30 year sentence. Without the habitual offender statute, guidelines would suggest no more than 6 years of incarceration. Three strikes laws are draconian, and should be examined and abandoned in Massachusetts. It is all too easy for black and brown people who have struggled with poverty and addiction over a lifetime to qualify for devastating and disproportionate sentences. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court provided all relief possible after reviewing the client's offense, age, and current medical condition.

The Massachusetts drug lab scandal is by no means over. None of the prior cases decided by the SJC dealt with the fact that disgraced chemist Sonja Farak worked at the Boston-area Hinton drug lab before she was caught stealing drugs and faking results at the Amherst drug lab. Atty. Christopher Post recently won a new trial and dismissal of charges where he showed that Farak’s volume of testing at Hinton at times surpassed Annie Dookhan’s, who was only able to achieve such results through fraud. He also showed that Farak made statements that suggest drug use while she was at the Hinton lab.

On May 16, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted the arguments of Attorney Jellison in Commonwealth v. Lazlo L., ruling that continued prosecution of eleven year old children is repugnant to the purposes of the legislature in enacting criminal justice reforms limiting such prosecutions. The prosecution of children is not just cruel, it is empirically bad policy. The prosecution of children has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood of later criminal justice involvement. Further, children this young are precisely those people who are most likely to mature and change. Children should be treated as children.

On May 1, 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered a not guilty verdict for a defendant charged with accessory to murder. On behalf of MACDL and CPCS, Attorney Jellison authored an amicus brief in support of the defendant who was represented by Attorney Jin Ho King of MRDK Law. The witness refused give a phone number, which he had a right to do, and gave evasive answers. He was just scared and wanted to distance himself. The SJC adopted our argument that he didn't provide the killer with a defense or mislead police.

In February 2019, thanks to Attorney Wood's quick intervention, a Boston area university agreed to lift a temporary suspension and not to initiate Title IX proceedings against his client, a college senior in the U.S. on a student visa who had been charged with a misdemeanor in a local court. This decision allows the client to graduate on time.

In January 2019, Attorney Wood, assisted by Attorney Jellison, successfully convinced a trial court to dismiss felony drug distribution charges against a client prior to trial by proving that the Commonwealth had allowed the destruction of relevant evidence and that the Commonwealth's so-called "drug expert" was not qualified to given an opinion and therefore his testimony would be excluded.