30+ Years' Experience. Nationally Recognized Defense.
Kidnapping is a very serious crime in both the eyes of the Massachusetts and federal governments. Kidnapping, may be charged both federally or locally. It is defined as whoever, without lawful authority, forcibly or secretly confines, or imprisons another person, or forcibly carries someone out of state (or across state lines for federal charges) against their will. The sentence in Massachusetts for a first offense of kidnapping is up to ten years in state prison. The penalties are increased for second, subsequent kidnapping offenses and are enhanced if weapons are involved, injuries sustained and/or given the nature of offense or age/vulnerability of the victim. The crime of parental kidnapping allows for a sentence of up to five years in state prison, up conviction in Massachusetts.
If you find yourself charged with kidnapping or any related offenses, your case could make local or even national headlines. If this occurs, you will need a lawyer experienced in the courtroom as well as with the media. Brad Bailey, a kidnapping lawyer, has defended high-profile clients in cases that have garnered media attention, such as the Clark Rockefeller parental kidnapping case.
He also earned a successful outcome in Commonwealth v. Kdheer, an international parental kidnapping case involving Egypt and the United States, and he defended Conspiracy to Kidnap charges in a federal jury trial in United States v. Djokich, which involved an alleged plot by a Canadian business man to employ a US based (undercover agent) to kidnap a financier in the Bahamas. In that case, Mr. Bailey attempted to employ the little known, but legally recognized, defense of Manufactured Jurisdiction as part of his overall defense strategy. As a local prosecutor, he indicted and prosecuted and/or tried numerous kidnapping cases.
In short, Brad Bailey is highly experienced violent crimes lawyer, having spent more than three decades both prosecuting and defending all manner of violent crimes, including state and federal kidnapping cases. Mr. Bailey zealously protects his clients by consistently helping them understand their rights, treating them with the utmost sensitivity and respect, aggressively advocating for their freedom, insisting on the high level of justice each one is due, and always endeavoring to achieve the best possible outcome for their case(s).
To secure a top defense strategy, set up a consultation with Brad Bailey today.
Whoever, without lawful authority, forcibly or secretly confines, or imprisons another person within this Commonwealth against his will shall be punished. In order to establish a defendant’s guilt on this charge, the Commonwealth must prove each of the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
First Element: That a defendant was without lawful authority.
The first element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that a defendant was acting without lawful authority. An act taken under lawful authority means that it was authorized, sanctioned or allowed by law. An act is taken without lawful authority if it is not authorized by law.
Second Element: That a defendant forcibly or secretly confined or imprisoned
another person against their will.
The second element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that a defendant forcibly or secretly confined or imprisoned the victim in Massachusetts. The word “forcibly” means carried out through the use of force. One acts “forcibly” toward another if one compels, constrains or obliges them to do something against their will. Force may be either actual or constructive, so there need not be actual physical force applied against the alleged victim; it is sufficient that the alleged victim is subdued by a display of potential force. “Secretly” means to do something without the knowledge of others. “Confine” means to enclose within bounds or limit, to restrict, to shut up or keep in. “Imprison” means to detain in custody or to hold in restraint. Any restraint of a person’s liberty is a confinement or an imprisonment.
Third Element: That a defendant committed the offense against the other
The third element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that a defendant committed the offense against the person’s will. “Against their will” means that the alleged victim did not consent to be seized, confined, imprisoned, carried, sent, inveigled or kidnapped by a defendant. A person’s submitting because of fear is not consent.
Fourth Element: Intent to extort money or some other valuable thing.
The fourth element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that a defendant committed the offense of kidnapping, as described above, with the specific intent to extort money or some other valuable thing.
Intent refers to a person’s objective or purpose. Specific intent, which is required in this case, is the act of concentrating or focusing the mind for some perceptible period. It is a conscious act, with the determination of the mind to do an act. It is contemplation rather than reflex, and it must precede that act. The Commonwealth must prove specific intent on the part of a defendant; this requires you to make a decision about a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime. In this case, you may or may not infer a defendant’s intent by considering all of the facts, as well as evidence, of defendant’s conduct offered during the trial. To `extort” means to obtain property, coerce payment of money, secure a pecuniary advantage for oneself, or compel another to do an act against his or her will as a result of a threat. “The emphasis in the crime of extortion is on the wrongful use of fear to compel the alleged victim to surrender something of value to the extortionist.”
Brad Bailey is the go-to defense attorney for white collar crimes, federal crimes, as well as serious state felony charges. He is without question one of the most experienced criminal defense attorneys in Boston.