Expertise-com - Best Criminal Defense Attorneys in Boston - 2026 - Badge

Expertise-com - Best DUI Lawyers in Boston - 2026 - Badge

2024 - Top 3 - Criminal Defense Lawyers in Boston - Badge

Hate Crime and Civil Rights Violation Charges in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 265, §§ 37 and 39

A person charged with a hate crime or a civil rights violation in Massachusetts usually faces two accusations in the same complaint. The police allege an assault, a threat, or damage to property. The police also allege that the person acted because of another person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Most people call these cases hate crime charges.

The charges often begin with an ordinary dispute. Two neighbors argue over a fence or a parking space. A fight starts outside a bar, on a train platform, or at a party. A witness tells the police that one person used a slur, and the police add a civil rights charge to the assault and battery or threats charge. The Commonwealth then prosecutes the person under G.L. c. 265, § 37, under G.L. c. 265, § 39, or under both statutes.

A slur does not prove a civil rights violation or a hate crime by itself. The Commonwealth must prove what the defendant intended, and most of these cases are contested on that element. Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. Attorney Serpa defends civil rights and hate crime charges in Boston, Cambridge, and the rest of Eastern Massachusetts. Those cases are heard in the divisions of the Boston Municipal Court, the district courts of Greater Boston, and the Suffolk, Middlesex, and Norfolk Superior Courts.

Discrimination is wrong. Violence driven by discrimination is worse. Serpa Law Office does not condone either one. A person who holds those feelings toward others because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or any other part of who they are should examine themselves honestly and consider reaching out for help.

The criminal case is a separate question. A person charged with a civil rights violation or a hate crime still has the right to a defense, and the Commonwealth must still prove every element, including the specific intent the statute requires. Many of these charges begin as an ordinary argument or fight in which someone said words in anger. A jury decides what that person intended.

The Massachusetts Hate Crime and Civil Rights Statutes

Section 37 is the civil rights statute. A person violates G.L. c. 265, § 37 when the person uses force or the threat of force to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten another person in the free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of Massachusetts or of the United States. An attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the person is also a violation. Section 37 applies to private citizens as well as to police officers and other public employees.

Section 39 is the statute that Massachusetts courts call the hate crime statute. A person violates G.L. c. 265, § 39(a) when the person commits an assault or a battery on another person, or damages another person’s real or personal property, with the intent to intimidate that person because of that person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The Commonwealth frequently charges both statutes for the same incident. In Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 691, the Supreme Judicial Court described § 37 as the more expansive statute and described both statutes as parts of one legislative plan to make violations of civil rights a crime. The same complaint usually also charges assault and battery under G.L. c. 265, § 13A, threats to commit a crime, malicious destruction of property, or disorderly conduct.

What the Commonwealth Must Prove for a Civil Rights Violation Under § 37

The Commonwealth must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a defendant of a civil rights violation under § 37.

The alleged victim was exercising or enjoying a right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of Massachusetts or of the United States.
The defendant injured, intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened the alleged victim in the exercise or enjoyment of that right, or attempted to do so.
The defendant used force or the threat of force.
The defendant acted willfully.

The secured right is usually the right to personal security or a right connected to housing and public places. In Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 693, the Commonwealth tried the § 37 charge on the theory that the defendants violated the alleged victim’s right to personal security.

Housing and public places are also protected. In Commonwealth v. Stephens, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 123-124, the Appeals Court approved jury instructions on the right to occupy housing without intimidation because of race or national origin and the right to use public streets and sidewalks free from discrimination. In Commonwealth v. Zawatsky, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 392, 398, the Appeals Court stated that a person has a right under Massachusetts law not to be beaten because of the person’s sexual orientation.

Force and the threat of force have their ordinary meanings. Under Instruction 6.620 of the Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court, force is physical force against a person or against property, and any amount of force is enough. A threat of force is a statement of an intent to use force that the defendant communicates to the other person and that a reasonable person would believe the defendant could carry out.

Words alone can be a threat of force. In Commonwealth v. Pike, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 653-654, a defendant shouted at a gay neighbor to come into the street and fight. The defendant also told the neighbor, “You haven’t seen anything yet, just wait.” The Appeals Court upheld the defendant’s § 37 conviction because a jury could find that those words, in context, were threats of force.

The Intent the Commonwealth Must Prove Under § 37

A civil rights violation under § 37 is a specific intent crime. The Appeals Court so held in Commonwealth v. Stephens, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 121-123. The word “willfully” in § 37 requires the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant acted with the purpose of depriving the other person of the enjoyment of the interests that the secured right protects.

The Stephens decision divides the question between the judge and the jury. The judge first decides, as a question of law, whether the right named by the Commonwealth is clearly established and plainly applies to the facts of the case. The jury then decides whether the defendant acted with the purpose of depriving the other person of the interests protected by that right.

A judge may also instruct the jury that a defendant acted willfully if the defendant acted because the other person had exercised the right. The Appeals Court approved that instruction in Commonwealth v. Pike, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 657.

Two rules about intent help the Commonwealth. First, the Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant knew which law or constitutional provision protected the other person. Commonwealth v. Stephens, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 125.

Second, the purpose of depriving the other person of a civil right does not have to be the defendant’s main purpose. In Stephens, the defendant argued that the group went to the victims’ home to retaliate for an injury to a friend. The Appeals Court upheld the § 37 convictions because the jury could find that the defendant also acted out of hatred of Cambodians. Id. at 124.

What the Commonwealth Must Prove for a Hate Crime Under § 39

The Commonwealth must prove two things to convict a defendant under § 39(a). The Commonwealth must first prove the underlying act, which is an assault, a battery, or damage to the other person’s property. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant committed the act with the specific intent to intimidate the other person because of that person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The intent to intimidate is a separate element from the intent to commit the assault. In Commonwealth v. Barnette, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 486, 490-491, the Appeals Court held that the intent to hit a person or to frighten a person with an imminent blow does not satisfy § 39 standing alone. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant specifically intended to put the other person in fear because of the other person’s membership in a protected group.

The Appeals Court also held in Barnette that to intimidate means to make a person timid or fearful. The Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant intended to force the other person to do something or to stop doing something.

The words “because of” set the level of motive that the Commonwealth must prove. In Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 689-692, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the protected characteristic does not have to be the only reason or a substantial reason for the assault. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to intimidate the other person because of race, even if the defendant also had another motive.

The Kelly decision also protects a defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court stated that the specific intent requirement prevents a conviction where race was merely an incidental part of the crime. Id. at 689.

The current District Court model jury instructions follow Kelly. Instructions 6.205, 6.206, and 6.207 tell the jury that hatred, bias, or prejudice based on the protected characteristic must have motivated the defendant at least in part. The instructions also refer to the other person’s “perceived or actual” characteristic, so a defendant’s mistaken belief about the other person does not end the charge.

How the Commonwealth Tries to Prove Intent

The Commonwealth rarely has direct evidence of what a defendant intended. Prosecutors ask the jury to infer intent from the defendant’s words before, during, and after the incident. In Commonwealth v. Barnette, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 486, 491, the defendant repeatedly used an ethnic slur against Mexican American neighbors and repeatedly told them to get out. The Appeals Court held that a jury could find from those repeated statements that the defendant intended to intimidate the neighbors because of their national origin.

Prosecutors also use social media posts, text messages, earlier incidents between the same people, signs, and graffiti. Speech that the First Amendment protects can still be evidence of motive. In Commonwealth v. Pike, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 656, the Appeals Court held that insulting signs on the defendants’ porch were admissible to show the defendants’ state of mind when they later threatened their neighbor, even if the signs themselves were protected speech.

Hate Crime and Civil Rights Violation Penalties in Massachusetts

A judge who sentences a defendant convicted under § 37 without bodily injury may impose a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. A civil rights violation without bodily injury is a misdemeanor. If the Commonwealth alleges and proves that bodily injury resulted from the violation, the judge may impose a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. A civil rights violation with bodily injury is a felony.

The bodily injury allegation also decides which court hears a § 37 case. The Appeals Court held in Commonwealth v. Zammuto, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 80, 84-85, and in Commonwealth v. Zawatsky, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 392, 395-396, that a § 37 complaint alleging bodily injury charges a felony that the District Court has no jurisdiction to try. The Commonwealth must indict that charge and prosecute it in the Superior Court, or proceed in the District Court on the misdemeanor without the bodily injury allegation.

A judge who sentences a defendant convicted under § 39(a) may impose a fine of up to $5,000, a sentence of up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, or both. The judge may also order the defendant to pay restitution of up to three times the value of the property damage.

If the defendant committed a battery that caused bodily injury, § 39(b) allows a fine of up to $10,000, a state prison sentence of up to five years, or both. If the defendant was armed with a firearm during an offense described in § 39(b), the judge may impose a state prison sentence of up to ten years or a house of correction sentence of up to two and one-half years. Under G.L. c. 218, § 26, the District Court and the Boston Municipal Court have jurisdiction over felonies punishable by not more than five years in state prison, so those courts can try a § 39(b) charge. A judge may impose up to ten years in state prison on the firearm form, so the Commonwealth must indict that charge and prosecute it in the Superior Court.

Section 39 adds two requirements after a conviction. The judge must add a $100 surcharge to any fine for each § 39 conviction. A person convicted under § 39 must also complete a diversity awareness program before the person is released from incarceration or before the person’s probation ends. The statute imposes the program requirement on a conviction. A judge who continues a case without a finding or places a defendant on pretrial probation may order a similar program as a discretionary condition of probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87.

Bodily Injury Under § 39(b)

The felony form of the hate crime charge requires the Commonwealth to prove bodily injury as the statute defines it. Section 39(b) defines bodily injury as a substantial impairment of the physical condition. The statutory examples are a burn, a fracture of any bone, a subdural hematoma, an injury to an internal organ, and an injury caused by repeated harm to a bodily function or organ, including the skin.

A cut that bleeds is not always bodily injury under § 39(b). In Commonwealth v. Sudler, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 153-156, the defendant cut two of the victim’s fingers with a knife, and emergency medical technicians treated the cuts with a bandage.

The Appeals Court held that the Commonwealth did not prove a substantial impairment because no evidence showed that the cuts limited the use of the victim’s fingers. The Appeals Court set aside the felony conviction under § 39(b) and ordered the trial court to enter a conviction for the lesser offense under § 39(a). Defense counsel should therefore obtain the medical records in every case in which the Commonwealth alleges bodily injury.

Civil Rights and Hate Crime Charges in Boston, Cambridge, and Eastern Massachusetts Courts

A misdemeanor civil rights or hate crime charge from an incident in Boston is heard in the division of the Boston Municipal Court that serves the neighborhood where the incident happened. The Boston Municipal Court has eight divisions: Central, Dorchester, Roxbury, South Boston, East Boston, Charlestown, Brighton, and West Roxbury.

A misdemeanor charge from Cambridge is heard in the Cambridge District Court. A charge from another Greater Boston community is heard in the district court for that community, including the Somerville, Malden, Woburn, Newton, Waltham, Concord, Framingham, Brookline, Quincy, and Dedham District Courts.

A felony civil rights charge with bodily injury, and a § 39(b) charge with a firearm, go to the Superior Court for the county where the incident happened. A Boston case goes to the Suffolk Superior Court, a Cambridge case goes to the Middlesex Superior Court, and a Quincy or Dedham case goes to the Norfolk Superior Court. The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office prosecutes Boston cases, and the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office prosecutes Cambridge cases.

Defenses to a Hate Crime or Civil Rights Charge in Massachusetts

The most common defense is that the Commonwealth cannot prove the required intent. A person who used an offensive word during a fight about a parking space, a debt, a relationship, or an earlier insult may have committed an assault, but the Commonwealth must still prove that the person intended to intimidate the other person because of a protected characteristic.

Under Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 689-690, a jury may not convict a defendant under § 39 where the other person’s race played no role in the assault or was only incidental to the assault. Evidence of how the dispute began, who said what first, and how the people knew each other is therefore central to the defense.

The defenses to the underlying charge also apply. A defendant who acted in self-defense did not commit an unlawful assault or battery, and the Commonwealth cannot convict that defendant under § 39. A defendant whom a witness misidentified in a group fight committed no offense at all. In a case against several defendants, the Commonwealth must prove the intent of each defendant separately.

A § 37 charge requires force or the threat of force. Offensive speech without force and without a threat is not a civil rights violation under § 37. Where the charge rests on words alone, the defense examines the exact words, the setting, the distance between the people, and what each person did next. The Supreme Judicial Court’s decisions on threats and the First Amendment are discussed on this firm’s page about threats to commit a crime.

Intoxication can bear on specific intent. In Commonwealth v. Barnette, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 486, 493, the Appeals Court stated that a judge must instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication only where the evidence suggests debilitating intoxication that could raise a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was able to form the required intent. The smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath was not enough in that case.

Finally, the Commonwealth must prove every aggravating fact that it alleges. A defendant charged with the felony form of either statute can contest the bodily injury allegation even where the evidence of the assault is strong.

The Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on a Civil Rights or Hate Crime Charge

A civil rights violation without bodily injury and a hate crime under § 39(a) are misdemeanors. When the police do not arrest a person for a misdemeanor, the police or the alleged victim file an application for a criminal complaint, and the person is ordinarily entitled to a clerk-magistrate hearing before any charge issues. A clerk-magistrate hearing is a private hearing held before arraignment. If the clerk-magistrate denies the application, no criminal complaint issues on that application and the person is not arraigned. The Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearing FAQs explain the hearing in detail.

When the police make an arrest, or when a clerk-magistrate issues the complaint, the case proceeds to arraignment. The district attorney’s office then decides whether to prosecute the civil rights or hate crime count, whether to dismiss that count and proceed on the assault or threats charge, and what plea to offer. In many cases the defense presents the full history of the dispute to the assistant district attorney early, because that history often shows that the incident was a personal quarrel.

Dismissal of a Civil Rights or Hate Crime Charge

A civil rights or hate crime charge can end before trial in several ways. A clerk-magistrate may deny the application for a complaint after a clerk-magistrate hearing, and no complaint issues on that application. After a complaint issues, defense counsel may move to dismiss the complaint if the application did not present sufficient evidence of each element, including the specific intent that § 37 and § 39 require. Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313.

The assistant district attorney may also dismiss the civil rights or hate crime count and proceed on the assault, threats, or property charge. With the defendant’s consent, a judge may place the defendant on pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87, and dismiss the case when the defendant completes the probation. A defendant in the Boston Municipal Court or a district court may also admit to sufficient facts and ask the judge to continue the case without a finding under G.L. c. 278, § 18. Federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a continuance without a finding, so a noncitizen should consult an immigration lawyer before admitting to sufficient facts.

Civil Injunctions Under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act

A person accused of a hate crime can also face a civil case. Under G.L. c. 12, § 11H, the Attorney General may file a civil action in the Superior Court for an injunction against a person who interferes with another person’s secured rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. The court may also order a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation that involves a constitutional right. Under G.L. c. 12, § 11I, the person who claims the interference may file a private civil action.

A violation of a civil rights injunction is a separate crime. Under G.L. c. 12, § 11J, a judge may sentence a person convicted of violating the injunction to a fine of up to $5,000, up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, or both. If bodily injury results from the violation, the judge may impose a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.

Serpa Law Office does not handle civil lawsuits. Attorney Serpa defends the criminal charge and advises clients about how statements in a civil case can affect the criminal case.

Immigration Consequences for Noncitizens

Federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a conviction or a continuance without a finding for a civil rights violation or a hate crime. A noncitizen charged under § 37 or § 39 should consult an immigration lawyer before accepting any plea or continuance without a finding.

The disclosure of an arrest or a charge on an immigration application, and an officer’s questions at an interview about the conduct described in a police report, can also create obstacles. An immigration lawyer should review the exact question, the client’s status, and the court record before the client files a petition or sits for an interview. More information appears on the page about immigration consequences of Massachusetts criminal charges.

Frequently Asked Questions About Civil Rights and Hate Crime Charges

What is a civil rights violation in Massachusetts?

A person commits a civil rights violation under G.L. c. 265, § 37 when the person uses force or the threat of force to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten another person in the free exercise of a right secured by Massachusetts or federal law. The secured right is usually the right to personal security. Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 693. Section 37 applies to private citizens as well as to police officers and other public employees.

What is a hate crime in Massachusetts?

A person commits a hate crime under G.L. c. 265, § 39(a) when the person commits an assault or a battery on another person, or damages another person’s property, with the intent to intimidate that person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Commonwealth must prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt in addition to the assault, battery, or property damage. Commonwealth v. Barnette, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 486, 490-491.

Is using a racial slur a hate crime in Massachusetts?

Using a racial slur is not a hate crime in Massachusetts by itself. A hate crime under G.L. c. 265, § 39 requires an assault, a battery, or damage to property, committed with the intent to intimidate a person because of a protected characteristic. A slur that a person uses during an assault is evidence that prosecutors use to prove that intent.

Can words alone be a civil rights violation in Massachusetts?

Words alone are a civil rights violation under § 37 only when the words are a threat of force. In Commonwealth v. Pike, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 653-654, the Appeals Court upheld a § 37 conviction because a jury could find that the defendant’s words to a neighbor, in context, were threats of force. Offensive speech without force and without a threat of force is not a civil rights violation under § 37. A hate crime under § 39 requires an assault, a battery, or property damage.

Can I be charged with a civil rights violation after a fight?

The police often add a civil rights or hate crime charge to an assault and battery charge after a fight in which a witness reports a slur. The Commonwealth must still prove that the defendant intended to intimidate the other person because of a protected characteristic. Under Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 689-690, a jury may not convict a defendant under § 39 where the protected characteristic played no role in the assault or was only incidental to the assault.

Can I be convicted of a hate crime if the fight was about something else?

A jury can convict a defendant of a hate crime even if the defendant had another motive, as long as the Commonwealth proves that the defendant also intended to intimidate the other person because of a protected characteristic. A jury may not convict a defendant where the protected characteristic played no role in the assault or was only incidental to the assault. Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 689-692.

What is the penalty for a civil rights violation charge in Massachusetts?

A judge may sentence a defendant convicted of a civil rights violation under G.L. c. 265, § 37 to a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. If bodily injury resulted, the judge may impose a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.

What are the penalties for a hate crime in Massachusetts?

A judge may sentence a defendant convicted under G.L. c. 265, § 39(a) to a fine of up to $5,000, up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, or both, and may order restitution of up to three times the value of any property damage. If the defendant committed a battery that caused bodily injury, the judge may impose a fine of up to $10,000, up to five years in state prison, or both under § 39(b). The judge must also add a $100 surcharge, and the defendant must complete a diversity awareness program.

Is a civil rights violation a felony or a misdemeanor in Massachusetts?

A civil rights violation under § 37 without bodily injury is a misdemeanor. A civil rights violation that results in bodily injury is a felony that the Commonwealth must prosecute in the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Zammuto, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 80, 84-85. A hate crime under § 39(a) is a misdemeanor, and a battery that causes bodily injury under § 39(b) is a felony. The District Court and the Boston Municipal Court can try a § 39(b) charge under G.L. c. 218, § 26, but the Commonwealth must indict the firearm form in the Superior Court.

What happens if a civil rights charge alleges bodily injury?

A § 37 charge that alleges bodily injury resulting from the violation is a felony. A judge may sentence a defendant convicted of that felony to a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. The District Court has no jurisdiction to try that felony, so the Commonwealth must indict the charge in the Superior Court or proceed in the District Court on the misdemeanor without the bodily injury allegation. Commonwealth v. Zammuto, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 80, 84-85.

Can a hate crime or civil rights charge be dismissed in Massachusetts?

A clerk-magistrate may deny the application after a clerk-magistrate hearing, and no complaint issues on that application. After a complaint issues, defense counsel may move to dismiss it if the application did not present sufficient evidence of each element, including the specific intent that § 37 and § 39 require. Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313. The assistant district attorney may also dismiss the civil rights or hate crime count and proceed on the assault or threats charge.

Can a civil rights or hate crime charge be continued without a finding?

A defendant in the Boston Municipal Court or a district court may admit to sufficient facts and ask the judge to continue the case without a finding under G.L. c. 278, § 18. If the defendant completes the probation, the judge dismisses the case. Section 39 requires the diversity awareness program on a conviction, and a judge who continues a case without a finding may order a similar program as a condition of probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87.

What is the diversity awareness program for a hate crime conviction?

The diversity awareness program is a program that G.L. c. 265, § 39 requires every person convicted under that statute to complete. The person must complete the program before release from incarceration or before probation ends.

Will I get a clerk-magistrate hearing on a civil rights charge in Massachusetts?

A person who was not arrested is ordinarily entitled to a clerk-magistrate hearing on a misdemeanor civil rights or hate crime charge under G.L. c. 218, § 35A. The clerk-magistrate decides at the hearing whether probable cause supports the complaint and whether a complaint should issue.

Where is a civil rights or hate crime charge heard in Boston?

A misdemeanor civil rights or hate crime charge from an incident in Boston is heard in the Boston Municipal Court division that serves the neighborhood where the incident happened: Central, Dorchester, Roxbury, South Boston, East Boston, Charlestown, Brighton, or West Roxbury. A felony civil rights charge with bodily injury, or a § 39(b) charge with a firearm, goes to the Suffolk Superior Court.

Where is a hate crime charge from Cambridge heard?

A misdemeanor civil rights or hate crime charge from an incident in Cambridge is heard in the Cambridge District Court. A felony civil rights charge with bodily injury, or a § 39(b) charge with a firearm, goes to the Middlesex Superior Court, and the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office prosecutes the case.

Does Serpa Law Office defend hate crime charges in Boston and Cambridge?

Attorney Joe Serpa defends civil rights and hate crime charges in every division of the Boston Municipal Court, in the Cambridge District Court and the other district courts of Eastern Massachusetts, and in the Suffolk, Middlesex, and Norfolk Superior Courts. Attorney Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995, with offices in Boston and Quincy.

Will a hate crime charge affect my immigration status?

Federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a conviction or a continuance without a finding for a hate crime or a civil rights violation. A noncitizen should consult an immigration lawyer before accepting any plea or continuance without a finding. The disclosure of the charge on an immigration application, and an officer’s questions at an interview about the conduct in the police report, can also create obstacles. An immigration lawyer should review the exact question, the client’s status, and the court record before the client files a petition or sits for an interview.

Do I need a lawyer for a hate crime charge in Massachusetts?

A person who receives notice of a clerk-magistrate hearing may be heard personally or by counsel under G.L. c. 218, § 35A, and a defendant has the right to counsel at arraignment and at every later stage of the case. Most civil rights and hate crime charges are contested on intent. Defense counsel presents the history of the dispute to the clerk-magistrate, the assistant district attorney, or the jury to show that the incident was a personal quarrel.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

Client Reviews

He's one of the best people I've met. I'm really appreciative of all the help I received. If you have a serious case, he'll work hard to make sure you have the best outcome. I highly recommend him. You will not be disappointed.

A.J

Mr. Serpa was very helpful with my family member ‘s case. He was able to get it dismissed quickly and easily. He is very professional and very good at what he does. I’m so glad he hired him. You will be glad too if you hire him.

Z.M.

Serpa law office was my attorney of choice for 2 seperate cases I had last year. With both situations, Joseph not only treated me great, delivered the results I was hoping for, and was extremely professional and genuine. I would definitely recommend this law office to anyone in need of legal help.

P.C.

Submit a Law Firm Client Review

Greater Boston Criminal Law Alerts

Matthew Farwell Convicted in the Death of Sandra Birchmore: The Evidence, the Elements and the Verdict

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center On Tuesday, November 10, 2026, a federal jury in Boston found former Stoughton police officer Matthew Farwell guilty on both counts of the superseding indictment that charged him in the death of Sandra Birchmore, according to WBUR. Count One charged him with killing a witness or…

Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy’s Double Jeopardy Motion: The November 9, 2026 Rulings

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center On Monday, November 9, 2026, Judge William Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss the murder charges on double jeopardy grounds. He also denied her request for records about the holdout juror and her request to question that juror under oath. He denied the Commonwealth’s request…

Lindsay Clancy Hearing on November 2, 2026 and the Double Jeopardy Motion

On November 2, 2026, Judge William Sullivan heard the Lindsay Clancy double jeopardy motion and indicated that a second trial could begin in March 2027.