Commonwealth v. Edwin Alemany

The prosecution

Edwin Alemany faced murder and assault charges arising from violent attacks in South Boston. The case drew intense media coverage and public fear—a prosecution where the community demanded accountability and the defense confronted a client with documented mental-health history.

Insanity defense

The defense team developed comprehensive psychiatric and psychological evidence supporting a finding that the client lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the offenses. Insanity defenses require meticulous expert preparation and jury education on a legal standard the public often misunderstands.

Outcome

The jury returned a verdict of guilty but not criminally responsible—finding the client committed the acts but lacked the capacity to appreciate their wrongfulness or conform conduct to the law. The result committed the client to psychiatric treatment rather than prison.

Context

In cases where mental illness is central, the defense must navigate public outrage, expert battles, and a jury pool that may resist any outcome other than incarceration. Alemany illustrates the firm's willingness to present unpopular but legally required defenses.

Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

← All representative matters · Request a review · Media archive