53°
WESTBOROUGH, Mass. - Steven K. Woskie, the Grafton man arrested in January and charged with assault and battery and possessing ten firearms - including an AK-47 without a license - appeared in court Thursday for a pretrial conference.
Woskie, who posted bail, appeared with his attorney, Anthony M. Salerno of the Salerno Law Group. Under the conditions of his release, Woskie had to wear a GPS bracelet, stay within his home, obey a restraining order, surrender all firearms to Grafton police, and remain drug- and alcohol-free. Salerno asked that the conditions of his bail be relaxed so Woskie can work as a self-employed carpenter.
Since Woskie had not violated his bail agreement, Judge Michael Fabbri granted him, under strict court supervision, the leeway to work outside his home eight hours per day, five days a week.
Woskie’s legal trouble began Jan. 27, when Grafton police said they received a tip from Woskie's son, Jakob, who, reportedly was the victim of an unprovoked attack earlier that evening when he tried to enter his father’s Follete Street house. According to police, the suspect first wielded a bat, dropped it, then hit his son with a claw hammer.
According to the report, police received information about unsecured and possibly stolen weapons at the Follette Street address. Grafton police said a records check indicated Woskie did not have a license to possess weapons or ammunition.
Grafton police, with the assistance of a Central Mass. Law Enforcement Council SWAT unit, entered Woskie’s home with a search warrant and arrested him.
He was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic aggravated assault and battery, possession of an assault weapon, three counts of possession of large-capacity feeding devices, seven counts of possession of firearms/rifle/shotgun without a license, seven counts of improper storage of firearms/rifle/shotgun, improper storage of a large-capacity firearm/rifle, and possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card.
But Salerno said, in an interview outside the courthouse, that the alleged attack by Woskie on his son was not unprovoked, and contrary to police reports, not a one-sided story. “This is a father-son dispute that escalated into a fight. As a result, we’re here,” Salerno said. “We intend to present a very strong self-defense.”
Salerno said the biggest issue with this case is timing. “Prior to the Connecticut tragedy, I don’t think this sensitivity would be the norm,” he said. “There is no issue with this case that a firearm was ever used or threatened to be used. They have been in his house for years. They have never been used for anything illegally.”
Salerno added, “The issue is whether or not he had the proper license for high-capacity weapons. That’s what it will come down to, and it will be contested.”
Woskie will return to Westborough District Court on April 12 for a preliminary hearing on the status of the evidence, and to determine if the case will be brought to a grand jury and ultimately to Superior Court.
Comments (6)
possession of an assault weapon, three counts of possession of large-capacity feeding devices, seven counts of possession of firearms/rifle/shotgun without a license, seven counts of improper storage of firearms/rifle/shotgun, improper storage of a large-capacity firearm/rifle, and possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card.
I'd say stockpiled is a fair description, although I don't feel the need to nitpick every single word ...
I disagree. He may "own" seven guns and the bullets that go with them, which makes up all those counts. But, that to me is not a "stockpile". My dad had 4 guns, he liked them and I'm sure for others owning 7 is desirable.
Would one say that if a person owned 7 pairs of shoes that, that is a stockpile?
I've followed up my above thoughts with a Purdey shotgun associate and he said that there are gun collectors that own more then 1500 guns and it is common for many to own more than 100 guns.
Like shoes, it is common for those into guns to own more then one.
My point is, multiple ownership is not a crime, despite all the alleged criminal counts.
Anthony Salerno, an X-State Trooper has got this right. The tar and feather show is hyperbole. There always seemed to me to be a story under this story that the G.P.D. was publishing, and that story will come out in court. That's why we have courts; to be fair.
I feel, it's not our police department's job to publicly promote one sided evidence. In this case it seemed self promoting to me.
They should enforce the law, be professional, stay neutral, and move on.
I know this was a SWAT case, but that too may have been an overreaction to a father, son, long time divorced wife fight.
In the end, I'm glad that everyone is safe, the police did a great job at protection of life and that's a good thing.
He's middle class and white of course it's ok for him to stock pile assault weapons without a license... Some how I doubt you would feel the same if he was a person of color in a lower tax bracket. Weren't these weapons stolen to begin with?
Re: You said stolen? How do you know those guns were stolen? Those were the words used by an X-wife and passed on to you by the G.P.D. No court has determined stolen guns.
Even the police words were coy as to "stolen". I don't even think the word alleged was used in the sentence, they just restated the X-wifes allegation. And now you believe that, plus your word "stockpiled" is again hyperbole.
My big point here is: The police need to be professional about their business and not advertise and then move on.
P.S. I do appreciate that the court has "allowed work". simply-Amazing!!