An Adams couple was sentenced to three to five years in prison Thursday after they were convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of their 10-month-old foster child. “No sentence can undo the loss of this child. This was an avoidable and deeply tragic case,” Assistant District Attorney Andrew Covington said in a press release. “The Commonwealth is pleased the defendants were sentenced to prison for their reckless conduct that resulted in the death of a ten-month-old baby.” Matthew Tucker and Cassandra Barlow-Tucker will serve staggered prison and probation terms for involuntary manslaughter and reckless child endangerment, the Northwestern District Attorney’s Office said in the press release. They were convicted March 16 in Berkshire County Superior Court. The foster child died while in the couple’s custody in February 2020 after they ignored “clear and obvious signs” that he needed medical treatment, according to the DA’s office. Due to this neglect, he died from complications of a strep infection, bronchopneumonia, and empyema, all of which are “routinely treatable with timely medical care.” The court staggered the couple’s sentences because they currently have four other children. Barlow-Tucker will serve her prison term first, and after she is released, Tucker will begin his own sentence, prosecutors said. Before Tucker is sent to prison, he will serve five years of probation, and, after Barlow-Tucker is released, she will serve three years of probation, according to the DA’s office. Both of them are prohibited from becoming foster parents again or serving in “any caregiving roles involving children” other than their own. A Superior Court judge initially dismissed the charges due to a lack of sufficient evidence, court records show. In 2024, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court determined that the judge had “erred” by incorrectly applying legal precedent in his decision. Though the circumstances of the case took place in Berkshire County, the Northwestern DA’s office was brought in to prosecute because of a “conflict of interest” for the Berkshire DA’s office, according to prosecutors. “We thank the jury for its careful deliberations,” Assistant District Attorney Stephanie Jimenez said in the release. “This was a difficult case, and their verdicts hold the defendants accountable.” Neither Tucker’s attorney, Jill Sheldon, nor Barlow-Tucker’s attorney, Timothy Flynn, returned requests for comment Thursday night.
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2026/04/02/mass-couple-sentenced-to-prison-for-manslaughter-in-death-of-infant-foster-child/
Category Archives: criminal justice
Alaska State Appeals Court Holds Oral Argument on Samoan Prosecution
On January 15, the Alaska State Appeals Court heard arguments in the case of *Tupe Smith v. State of Alaska*.
This case centers on American Samoans who ran for local office in Whittier, Alaska.
For more details, see the full story.
https://ballot-access.org/2026/01/15/alaska-state-appeals-court-holds-oral-argument-on-samoan-prosecution/
Bombay HC: Minor’s Consent Or Marriage With Family Approval No Ground To Quash POCSO Case
**Mumbai: Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench Upholds POCSO Act in Minor Marriage Case**
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that neither a love affair between a minor girl and an adult man, nor their families’ consent to marriage followed by the birth of a child, can be grounds to quash criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
### Plea to Quash FIR Rejected
A bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande dismissed a plea filed by a 29-year-old man and his parents seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
### Details of the Marriage
According to the prosecution, the man married the minor girl on June 2, 2024, as per Muslim rites, with the consent of both families. At the time of the marriage, the girl was below 18 years of age and subsequently gave birth to a child while still a minor.
### Court Observations
The bench noted, “Though she states that the said marriage was as per Muslim rites and religion, at the time of marriage, she was below 18 years of age. When she delivered the child, she was also below 18 years old.”
### Accused Fully Aware of the Minor’s Age
The court observed that the accused, who was 27 years old at the time of the marriage and is now 29, was fully aware of the girl’s minor status. The judges stated, “At least, he ought to have understood that he should wait till the girl attains 18 years of age. Then, in spite of having knowledge that the girl is a minor, when he takes her away from the legal custody of her parents, from that point itself he commits the offence. Merely because now the girl has given birth to the child, we are of the opinion that the acts of the applicants cannot be brushed aside.”
### Reference to Supreme Court PIL on Age of Consent
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s ongoing suo motu public interest litigation regarding the “Right to Privacy of Adolescents.” In this case, the Union Government has categorically opposed reducing the age of consent.
In its affidavit, the Centre maintained that lowering the age “would disturb the very purpose for which the POCSO Act was enacted” and would reintroduce the mischief the law seeks to prevent.
### Legal Standing and Court’s Conclusion
The bench remarked, “As the consent of the minor is irrelevant and the stand taken by the Central Government before the Apex Court also shows that it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India, as law is not for individuals but for society at large.”
Holding that justice must be administered according to law, the court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“We, therefore, do not find this to be a fit case… The application stands rejected,” the judges ruled.
—
For more details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai and surrounding regions, visit: [https://budgetproperties.in/](https://budgetproperties.in/)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bombay-hc-minors-consent-or-marriage-with-family-approval-no-ground-to-quash-pocso-case
Sessions Court Acquits Filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma In Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement In Lok Adalat
**Sessions Court Acquits Filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma in Cheque Bouncing Case**
The sessions court recently acquitted filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma, who was found guilty of cheque bouncing. The acquittal came after Verma and the complainant reached a settlement before the Lok Adalat.
### Background of the Case
Ram Gopal Verma was initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in Andheri, Y P Pujari, on January 21, under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque bouncing. He was sentenced to three months in jail and was directed to pay Rs 3,72,219 to the complainant within three months.
The complaint was filed in 2018 by a partnership firm named Shree, through one of its partners, Mahesh Chandra Mishra. The firm, engaged in the business of providing hard disks for several years, had supplied a hard disk to Verma’s company between February and March 2018. For this, the complainant raised a bill of Rs 2,38,220.
When the complainant deposited a cheque given by Verma on June 1, 2018, it bounced due to insufficient funds. Upon approaching Verma, the complainant received another cheque which also bounced, with the reasons cited as “payment stopped by drawer” and “outgoing clearing charges.”
As a result, the complainant filed a criminal complaint for cheque bouncing at the Magistrate Court in Andheri.
### Legal Proceedings
Verma denied the allegations, claiming that the cheque did not bear his signature and was not issued by him. However, the magistrate rejected his defense, stating, “It did not find any material brought by the accused to show the probable defence.”
Following his conviction, Verma’s lawyer challenged the verdict in the sessions court in February. During the appeal, both parties submitted a joint statement on July 29 indicating their intention to settle the dispute before the Lok Adalat.
Hearing this, the sessions court adjourned the matter to provide an opportunity for an amicable settlement. After the dispute was resolved, the parties filed a memo of settlement.
### Court Decision
Accepting the settlement, the sessions court acquitted Ram Gopal Verma. This marks the conclusion of the cheque bouncing case against the filmmaker.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/sessions-court-acquits-filmmaker-ram-gopal-verma-in-cheque-bounce-case-after-settlement-in-lok-adalat