Stalking Defense Lawyer in Boston

Former Prosecutors Defending Massachusetts Stalking Charges

A stalking charge under M.G.L. c. 265, §43 is a felony from the moment a complaint issues. The decisions made in the first hours and days shape everything that follows. Degiacomo & Mikhlin, P.C. is a Massachusetts criminal defense practice led by former prosecutors James G. DeGiacomo and Sergey Mikhlin, available around the clock to step in before the situation becomes harder to manage.

Their time on the prosecution side means they already know how the Commonwealth builds a stalking case. That knowledge lets them identify weaknesses in the state’s theory early and challenge them before the case gathers momentum.

If you or someone you know is facing a stalking charge in Boston, call Degiacomo & Mikhlin, P.C. now at (617) 941-3666. Attorneys are available 24 hours a day and can review your situation right away.

What Degiacomo & Mikhlin, P.C. Brings to a Stalking Case

The practice has a track record of dismissals, not guilty verdicts, and no probable cause findings. That record reflects a consistent ability to stop weak cases from moving forward rather than letting them reach a jury. A stalking case that ends at the clerk-magistrate stage may avoid an arraignment, a CORI entry, and a trial.

Attorneys DeGiacomo and Mikhlin explain court procedures and legal risks in plain language, share strategy ahead of time, and stay in contact throughout the process, not only on court dates. Clients facing serious charges benefit from knowing what to expect at each stage and why the approach is built the way it is.

Aggressive courtroom advocacy and steady personal support aren’t mutually exclusive. The attorneys listen carefully, treat every client with respect, and give direct, honest assessments without minimizing what’s at stake.

Why the First Stage of a Boston Stalking Case Matters Most

Because stalking is a felony, many cases begin by arrest rather than by summons. But when a stalking application is filed by a complainant rather than by police, the case may be routed to a clerk-magistrate hearing first. At that hearing, the clerk-magistrate decides whether probable cause exists to issue a criminal complaint at all. If the application is denied, no complaint issues, no arraignment takes place, and no CORI entry is created.

That window closes quickly. The practice returns calls fast, sometimes within minutes, and makes it possible to reach an attorney directly rather than working through layers of scheduling. Getting counsel involved before a clerk-magistrate hearing, or as soon as possible after an arrest, can change what options are available.

The Elements of Felony Stalking Under M.G.L. c. 265, §43

To convict for stalking under subsection (a), the Commonwealth must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• A knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts involving at least three incidents directed at a specific person
• Acts that would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress and that actually caused the alleged victim serious alarm or annoyance
• Conduct that was willful and malicious
• A threat with intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury

The base penalty under subsection (a) is up to five years in state prison, up to two and a half years in a house of correction, a fine of not more than $1,000, or a combination. Two aggravated subsections carry mandatory minimum sentences. Subsection (b) applies when the conduct violates a restraining order, vacate order, or no-contact order, including a 209A abuse prevention order, and carries a one-year mandatory minimum with a range of one to five years. Subsection (c) applies to a second or subsequent stalking conviction and carries a two-year mandatory minimum with a range of two to 10 years.

Criminal harassment under M.G.L. c. 265, §43A shares most of the same elements but doesn’t require the threat element. That distinction matters both for how a defense is built and for the exposure a defendant faces if the stalking count is contested.

Challenging a Stalking Charge: Where the Defense Focuses

Attorneys DeGiacomo and Mikhlin build meticulous defenses that challenge the state’s case rather than accepting it at face value. They advocate confidently in front of judges at Boston Municipal Court and Suffolk County Superior Court, and their focus on precision means nothing is taken for granted.

The Threat Element & the Pattern Requirement

The threat element is one of the most contested issues in Massachusetts stalking cases. The Commonwealth must show that the defendant intended to place the complainant in imminent fear of death or bodily injury and that such fear would be objectively reasonable. Communications that express frustration, request contact, or are directed at third parties don’t automatically satisfy that standard. Isolated acts, or acts that fall outside the charged time period, don’t satisfy the three-incident pattern requirement either.

Digital Evidence & Foundation Challenges

Most stalking cases now rest heavily on digital records: message threads, account activity logs, location data, and social media posts. Before that evidence can be used against a defendant, the Commonwealth must establish proper authentication and lay the necessary business-records foundation. Those are threshold questions that arise before a jury ever considers what the messages mean.

Start with a Free Consultation

A stalking charge in Boston carries serious consequences that extend well beyond sentencing. Degiacomo & Mikhlin, P.C. offers free initial consultations where Attorneys DeGiacomo and Mikhlin review the evidence, explain realistic outcomes, and outline concrete next steps. Clients leave knowing what the case involves and what the defense strategy is built around.

The practice is available around the clock. Waiting to involve counsel only narrows what can be done.

Call Degiacomo & Mikhlin, P.C. at (617) 941-3666 to schedule a free consultation with a Boston stalking defense attorney today.