Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Boston.com reports today that a forty six year old Dorchester, Massachusetts man has been charged with Motor Vehicle Homicide stemming from an incident that occurred last week. It is alleged the defendant was driving his vehicle on Morrissey on September 14, 2012 when he hit a sixty three year old bicyclist. The impact of the collision threw the victim from the bicycle leaving him dead at the scene. The accused remained at the scene and called 911. The responding police officer reported that the defendant admitted to having one drink prior to the incident. The defendant asked to go to the hospital and quickly hired an attorney prompting police to honor his constitutional rights and cease all questioning. The officer at the hospital noted that the suspect exhibited the following: 1) a strong odor of alcohol coming from his person; 2) speech was slurred; 3) tongue was "thick and pasty" and 4) unsteady on his feet. An accident reconstructionist believed the defendant was driving twenty miles per hour over the speed limit. The case is pending in the Dorchester District Court.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Homicide Defense Law Firm

Dorchester, Massachusetts Criminal Attorney

From the perspective of a Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer the accused in this case did the right thing. I have said on countless occasions that no one can talk his or her way out of being charged with a crime. People suspected of criminal activity who talk to the police usually provide the information necessary to secure a conviction. The reason for this is simple. The police are trained to ask questions and to ask them in a certain way. They often leave the suspect with a false sense comfort and implicitly suggest that their cooperation will benefit them if the case gets prosecuted. Their objective is to prove a suspect's involvement in criminal activity regardless of what they tell you. The unassuming subject will talk to the police believing he is helping himself. He is wrong about this. His cooperation will hurt him.

Conversely, people who invoke their 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent make the prosecution prove its case with evidence collected from the crime scene, the testimony of people who witness the event and other evidence that might support its case. Here for instance, the prosecution is going to have to rely primarily on the representations of the responding officer. The information in the report is boilerplate. The strong odor of alcohol, being unsteady on his feet, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech are phrases used in almost all drunk driving police reports. I wish that Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorneys would keep a database of police officer's reports because in my experience the content varies only slightly from report to report with these types of cases. Observations such as these are certainly subject to challenge from the experienced criminal lawyer. How did the defendant walk and talk before the arrest? What did his eyes look like before the incident? Now, try to get the office to explain exactly what he means by the "strong odor of alcohol coming from his person".

Continue reading "Dorchester Massachusetts Man's Decision to Immediately Hire a Lawyer Might be Key to Success in Motor Vehicle Homicide Case" »

Just one week ago an unidentified person driving a car in Lowell, Massachusetts made an observation he thought worthy of police investigation. He noticed that the driving of another car was stopped in traffic and sleeping. This individual was then observed "waking up" and driving in an erratic manner, nearly colliding with a utility pole. The Dracut police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the man. It is alleged that the man was unsteady on his feet and that for his own safety no Field Sobriety Tests were given. It turns out that the driver of the suspect vehicle was an off duty paramedic. He was arrested and charged with OUI Drugs in the Lowell District Court. In the car police found some prescription pills, possibly some Heroin and some Drug Paraphernalia. These substances are being tested.

Read Article:

Experienced Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer.

Historically, Massachusetts Courts have approved of this strategy. For instance, in murder cases it is often the case that the medical examiner who performed the autopsy is unavailable to testify at trial. The district attorney will substitute this witness with another medical examiner who will review the first examiner's reports and records as well as the photographs taken during the examination. The substitute will then be allowed to provide an opinion as to the cause of death. This might however be coming to an end. In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011) the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made for the purposes of proving a particular fact, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2710 (2011). Such surrogate testimony violates the confrontation clause unless the analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist. I am hopeful that the Bullcoming decision once tested in Massachusetts will have application to drug recognition experts.

Continue reading "Paramedic From Lowell Massachusetts Charged With OUI Drugs After Being Stopped By Dracut Police" »

Tyrone Farrar of Lawrence, Massachusetts was arraigned yesterday in the Newburyport District Court on charges of Statutory Rape. Farrar, a security guard at the Frost School is accused of having consensual sex with a fourteen year female student from that school. Initially, Farrar, the victim and the victim's mother all denied that Farrar's relationship with the girl was of a sexual nature. This changed however this past weekend when Farrar was arrested for OUI Drugs in Salisbury, Massachusetts with the girl in the car. The prosecution alleges that after the arrest both Farrar and the girl admitted to having sexual relations on several occasions over the past year. The victim claims that the sex started when she was thirteen years old. Reports state that Farrar was also the girl's basketball coach. Farrar has been held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing. Charges are now pending in the Newburyport District Court. The Rape of a Child charges will be indicted and prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1243783675/Lawrence-school-security-officer-charged-with-statutory-rape

Essex County Statutory Rape Defense Lawyer

Farrar is in a lot of trouble. Back in June of this year a Melrose, Massachusetts basketball coach, James Connor plead guilty to similar charges and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in state prison. Connor was fifty two years old at the time. He will be eligible for parole when he is seventy two years old. While many people think that the "consensual" nature of Statutory Rape (Rape of a Child in Massachusetts) lends itself to leniency often times it does not. Farrar, as a security guard and coach is in a position of trust when it comes to the development and safety of the people under his care. A violation of that trust particularly in a sexual manner is often punished harshly in Massachusetts. The sexual acts, helping the victim sneak out of her house, the presence of drugs and a firearm, having the girl out into the early hours of the morning will all factor into his sentence if Farrar is convicted. In so many regards this case presents great challenges for Farrar's Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney.

Continue reading "Lawrence Security Guard, Coach, Charged With Statutory Rape In Essex County" »

Paul Souza, a Boston Police Fire Department lieutenant has been charged with OUI, Malicious Destruction to Property Over $250, Assault and Battery and Failure to Stop from a Police Officer stemming from his involvement in an incident in Braintree this past Friday. According to reports, Souza cut off a car that pulled out of a parking lot in front of him. Souza then confronted the driver, broke his window, shouted obscenities at him and fled. The victim followed Souza. He called the police. Souza then tried to evade the police who ultimately apprehended him. The police detected alcohol on Souza's breath and indicated that he was uncooperative at the time of the stop. The case is pending in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/16/boston_firefighter_charged_in_braintree_road_rage_incident/

Quincy, Massachusetts OUI, Assault and Battery Lawyers

Cases like this are difficult for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers to defend successfully at trial. The district attorney would use Souza's behavior as his or her best evidence of the OUI charge. They would argue that alcohol either triggered his violent behavior or prevented him from maintaining his composure. Trying to evade the police and being aggressive upon apprehension are also factors that would support their position. Given Souza's rank it is unlikely that he has a criminal record. I would imagine that his lawyer will be successful in getting these charges continued without a finding. A consequence will probably include the 24D program and perhaps anger management counseling. I am willing to bet that this case does not go to trial.

Continue reading "Boston Firefighter Charged In Quincy With OUI After Road Rage Incident" »

Just before Thanksgiving Massachusetts Police set up a sobriety checkpoint in North Andover, Massachusetts. According to many reports Kenneth Howe, a forty five year old father of three was a passenger in a car being driven by a friend. The car was pulled over at the sobriety checkpoint. Howe might have had a marijuana cigarette in his possession that he was trying to extinguish. When asked to get out of the car he jumped out of a window, supposedly struck an officer and attempted to run away. He was quickly apprehended. Other reports suggest that Howe was dragged out of the car by a female trooper who claimed that Howe had assaulted her. A friend of Howe's who was present at the time stated that up to twenty police officers descended on Howe. The lawyer for Howe's family, Frances King commented that the "police acted like savage beasts" and that a witness overheard officers stating it was a "good thing we had flashlights". Howe was taken to the police barracks in Andover where he collapsed during booking. He was taken to the Lawrence General Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Read Article:

Massachusetts Man Dies After Struggle At Sobriety Checkpoint

Almost every time I have a client who has been charged with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer the client comes into my office looking pretty beat up. There is no secret in Massachusetts Criminal Legal circles that this charge is filed anytime the police get overly aggressive with a suspect. Defense attorneys, judges and prosecutors know this and often the result of the case; i.e. a dismissal of this charge reflects this sentiment. The best thing defense attorneys can do in a case like this is go to the crime scene and look around for surveillance cameras. Post 9-11 many businesses and government structures such as schools, highways, bridges and even police vehicles have installed videotaping equipment to monitor suspicious activity. In this case, if there is video evidence of this incident I have no doubt that Attorney King will find it. She is an excellent attorney who knows firsthand how law enforcement officers operate.

I am more curious to see how the Essex County District Attorney's Office handles this case. If Attorney King's witnesses' account of this event is accurate, what will Mr. Blodgett do? Twenty or even ten police officers beating a man to death at a sobriety checkpoint is nothing short of murder. How can these actions be justified? How injured was the female trooper? Did she go to the hospital? The law on self-defense in Massachusetts is clear. You can use no more force than is necessary to defend yourself. Was it necessary to use force sufficient to kill Howe? And would it not make more sense for an independent agency to investigate this case? After all, Mr. Blodgett's office prosecutes cases that many of these officers have investigated. If ten or twenty civilians went to the aid of a female friend or colleague who claimed to have been struck by a stranger and beat him to death you can be assured that Mr. Blogdett would respond with indictments. One thing you can be sure of. If Jonathan Blodgett does not properly investigate this case, Frances King will.

Continue reading "Did Massachusetts Cops Beat Man To Death At Sobriety Checkpoint In Essex County" »

Over the weekend Michael Farfard was stopped for speeding in Worcester County Massachusetts. Police then searched through his eighteen pack of Budweiser beer. In it they found over forty seven grams of cocaine. The charges: trafficking cocaine, OUI, 2nd offense, OUI drugs, using a motor vehicle during the commission of a felony and numerous motor vehicle crimes.

Massachusetts Man Arraigned On Cocaine Trafficking Charges

The drug trafficking charge is the most serious crime that Farfard must defend. The crime of trafficking over twenty eight grams of cocaine in Massachusetts carries a minimum mandatory five year state prison sentence. If there is a school zone violation involved then another two year mandatory sentence must be imposed. In the more rural Massachusetts counties you typically do see have as many school zone charges. In Suffolk County Massachusetts a large majority of drug cases have school zone violations as a component. This is primarily due to the population density in the county and the fact that there are hundreds of schools throughout the City of Boston and Suffolk County.

From this article it appears that the strength of the district attorney's case will depend on the constitutionality of the search. The prosecution must show probable cause to stop Farfard's vehicle. They must also show that the police had probable cause to search seize items in Farfard's car. Even if they are able to show that the search and seizure was within constitutional limits they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cocaine was Farfard's and that he intended to distribute the substance.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man Charged With Cocaine Trafficking In Worcester County" »

Amesbury, Massachusetts police had their work cut out for them early Saturday morning when they stopped a 2002 Pontiac sedan operating erratically on Route 110. When Officer David Noyes activated his lights the car's four occupants started behaving strangely. When he contacted the driver he noticed the smell of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle. Noyes quickly learned that the driver had a warrant out of the Newburyport District Court for an OUI conviction and that he was operating on a revoked driver's license. The passengers had become unruly and Noyes called for assistance. The responding officers patted down the passengers and conducted a search of the car. During the search the police located a loaded semi-automatic firearm. A small bag of cocaine was found on one of the passengers and two additional bags were located in the car. All four had criminal records including cocaine distribution, larceny of a motor vehicle, robbery and possession of a dangerous weapon. Three of the subjects had pending criminal cases in other courts.

As a result of this incident several charges were filed in the Newburyport District Court including carrying a firearm, possession of ammunition, possession of cocaine, OUI second offense, driving with a revoked license, open container violation and minor in possession of alcohol. Bail for each was set at $25,000 pending arraignment.

Read Article: Boston Men Charged With Drug, Gun Violations, OUI Second After Routine Traffic Stop

Of all the charges these guys are facing the most serious is the gun possession charge. In Massachusetts possession of a firearm is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter Section 10. The law states that anyone who carries a firearm without being properly licensed to do so is guilty of a felony. There is a mandatory minimum eighteen month sentence that you must serve if you are convicted of this crime. The firearm charges in this case might be very difficult for the prosecution to prove. All four defendants are charged with possessing the gun. This is because the police were unable to determine who actually possessed the weapon. While there can be a joint venture theory used by the prosecution to attribute possession to all defendants the likelihood of getting convictions of this basis is slim.

Recently in Essex County the district attorney's office has been fingerprinting firearms in cases such as this. If the prints match up to one of the occupants in the car a conviction against that person becomes more likely. Essex County has a gun court now held in Peabody. This might be where this case is ultimately prosecuted.

Continue reading "Traffic Stop Results In Gun, Drug, OUI Charges In Newburyport District Court" »

James Routenberg of Westford, Massachusetts has been charged with motor vehicle homicide stemming from an incident that occurred on February 26, 2009.  According to reports, Routenberg lost control of an SUV he was driving on Worcester Road when he struck a tree.  His passenger, a 36 year old man from Maynard was killed in the crash.  Police stated that the defendant's blood alcohol was a .20, two and one half times the legal limit.  In addition to motor vehicle homicide Routenberg is being charged with negligent operation.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Man Charged With Motor Vehicle Homicide While Driving Drunk" »

Massachusetts police allege that a thirty seven year old man was under the influence when he lost control of the snowmobile he was driving causing it to crash into rocks, killing his passenger.  Chris Corriveau is now charged with operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and motor vehicle homicide.  The victim, a thirty six year old woman died at the scene. 

Read Article:  Massachusetts Authorities Charge Man With Drunk Driving and Motor Vehicle Homicide in Connection With Snowmobile Fatality

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 1 defines motor vehicles in Massachusetts.   The law states that any vehicle made for propulsion by power is a motor vehicle.  Motorized bicycles are not motor vehicles however in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 1B anyone operating a motorized bicycle is subject to the laws of the road and can be prosecuted for DUI.  In Massachusetts motorcycles are motor vehicles as are golf carts, mobile homes, tractors and mobile construction cranes.  While arguably a snowmobile may be considered a motor vehicle, in this case there is an issue as to whether the vehicle was operated on a public way.  Public way is an element that the district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be convicted of OUI or motor vehicle homicide. 

The issue of impairment can also be attacked in any alcohol related driving case.  Field sobriety tests are subjective and vulnerable to attack on cross-examination.  People would be amazed at how many times police officers demonstrating these tests in court stumble or inadequately perform the very tests that they administered in the field to the defendant.  Breathalyzer tests are subject to the same scrutiny as are any other machines.  Think about how many times you drove past one of those stationary police radar signs that tell you how fast you are driving.  Rarely do they reflect the same speed registered on your speedometer.  The speeds often vary by 5 or 6 miles per hour.  What does this tell you?  Either the police radar is inaccurate or your speedometer is inaccurate.  Why does this happen?  Because these are machines and they are fallible. 

Continue reading "Drunk Snowmobile Driver Charged With Motor Vehicle Homicide In Massachusetts" »

Juan Fernandez of Lynn, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Attleboro District Court after being charged with drunk driving (DUI), leaving the scene of an accident, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and operating to endanger.  All of this stems from a collision last Saturday morning involving Fernandez and a Massachusetts Police Officer.  Apparently, at 4:50 in the morning Fernandez was driving the wrong way on Interstate 95 near Route 123.  His car struck a police cruiser who was attempting to stop him from operating in the wrong direction.  It was reported that Fernandez was so drunk that when questioned by police he did not know where he was. 

Read Article:  http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/02/10/news/4390515.txt

Massachusetts district attorneys look at drunk driving in two contexts.  One is based on the police officer's observations of the defendant at the time he or she is stopped.  The officer considers the manner of operation of the vehicle, the suspect's physical appearance, the odor of alcohol, physical behavior and the performance of field sobriety tests.  These subjective criteria help the police form opinions as to sobriety or impairment.  The second context in which prosecutors look at drunk driving cases involves an "illegal per se" operation of a motor vehicle.  Massachusetts and all other states have adopted a rule that anyone operating with a blood alcohol of .08 percent or higher is guilty of drunk driving.  There is an overlap between an officer's observations and the illegal per se view of this crime.

Many drunk driving cases are defensible.  Police officers' subjective opinions are often countered by reasonable explanations for certain behavior.  For instance, officers typically use the expression "unsteady on his feet" to support their opinion that someone was intoxicated.  Many times however the defendant will have a physical defect or problem that causes a certain gait.  Another common phrase used by the police at trial is "slurred speech".  This can be explained by certain impediments or accents particular to the suspect.  Unless the officer knows the person he has no way of knowing if the speech pattern is the effect of alcohol or the individual's particular speech pattern. 

Continue reading "Lynn Man Charged With OUI After Driving Wrong Way On Route 95 And Hitting Cruiser" »

A Beverly, Massachusetts man pleaded guilty to his 5fh drunk driving charge and will spend the next three to three and one half years in state prison.  Gary Lee was first convicted of OUI in Massachusetts back in 1975.  He picked up his second DUI in 1982 in Alaska.  Two more convictions in Massachusetts followed, one in 1985 and the other in 2004.  The plea took place in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts. 

This case resulted from an incident in June of 2008.  Beverly Police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle crash where they found the defendant being treated by ambulance personnel.  The medical attendants detected alcohol on the man's breath and alerted the police.  Once it was clear that the man had no injuries the police conducted field sobriety tests which the defendant failed.  A breathalyzer test was administered.  The defendant blew a .24, three times the legal limit. 

Massachusetts OUI laws require someone convicted of a 5th offense drunk driving charge to serve at least 2 years in jail.  There is also a fine of at least $2,000 associated with a conviction as well a lifetime loss of license.  The case can be prosecuted in either the district court or the superior court.  In this case the Essex County District Attorney's Office chose to prosecute the defendant in the Superior Court.  Massachusetts District Courts can sentence to no more than 2 1/2 years in a county house of correction.  Judges in Massachusetts Superior Courts can sentence people to state prison.  The maximum sentence for a 5th offense OUI in Massachusetts is 5 years in prison.

Continue reading "Beverly Man Convicted Of 5th Offense Drunk Driving In Essex Superior Court" »

The Boston Globe reported that a Charlestown man will face charges of motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence after a crash on Soldiers Field Road in Brighton early yesterday that killed a pedestrian.  Police reported that at about 3:00 a.m. the man was walking on Soldiers Field Road near Everett Street.  He was struck by a jeep driven by the defendant, a twenty six year old Charlestown man.  The defendant was arrested at the scene and charged with motor vehicle homicide and OUI.  The victim was pronounced dead at the scene.  Both the defendant and his twenty five year old passenger were not injured.  Read full story, Boston Globe November 17, 2008. 

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts DUI Lawyers

Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Homicide Defense Lawyers

Motor Vehicle Homicide in Massachusetts is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 Section 24G.  The law states that anyone who operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher or while under the influence of liquor or drugs and operates a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently so as to endanger the lives or safety of the public shall be guilty of motor vehicle homicide.  Punishment shall range from 1 year to 15 years.  A conviction under this section requires the person to serve at least 1 year of his or her sentence.  The elements the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are (1) operation of a motor vehicle, (2) upon a public way, (3) recklessly or negligently so as to endanger human life or safety, (4) thereby causing the death of a person. The legislative intent of this statute was to enact a law to provide a middle ground between the felony of manslaughter and the misdemeanor of driving so as to endanger.

Our office has successfully handled motor vehicle crimes on many occasions over the past twenty years.  We often use expert witnesses to show the jury that our client was not impaired by the alcohol.  We also use accident reconstructionists to demonstrate that the accident was not our client's fault if the facts support that defense.  The Crash Lab in Hampton, New Hampshire is a group with whom we frequently consult in cases such as this one. 

If you have questions about a case such as this please call our office now. 

Earlier today, a jury in the Peabody District Court acquitted one of our clients of a second offense drunk driving charge.  The case was tried by Attorney Stephen Neyman, an experienced Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyer.  The facts of the case as reported by the arresting police officer are as follows:

On Sunday, March 16, 2008 shortly after 1:00 a.m. a Peabody Police Officer was on patrol on Andover Street when he observed a pick-up truck being driven by our client drifting over the right lane marker five times.  The officer observed this pattern from 300 Andover Street (Route 114) to the intersection of Andover Street and Sylvan Street.  After the vehicle turned left on Sylvan Street the officer activated his overhead lights.  The officer approached the driver and observed his eyes to be glassy and bloodshot.  He also detected an odor of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle.  The officer asked our client where he was going to which he replied "Denny's".  The officer then asked our client how much he had to drink to which he replied "a couple of beers".  When asked the produce his license and registration our client experienced some difficulties.  Accordingly, the officer asked him to get out of his car.  The client complied and the officer noticed that he was "stiff-legged" and "unsteady on his feet".  As a result, a series of field sobriety tests were offered.

Three tests were administered.  First was the alphabet test.  The officer stated that our client stopped at the letter "T" and then continued with the remainder of the alphabet, this time starting with the letter "T".  The officer opined that the defendant failed that test.  Second, was the "walk and turn" test.  The client was asked to walk nine steps, heal to to with his arms by his said.  The officer said that the defendant walked off of the line three times and that he kept his arms behind his back.  Conclusion:  another failed field sobriety test.  The third test was the "one legged stand" test.  After two tries our client admitted that he could not perform this test.  Once again the officer believed that this test too was not performed satisfactorily. 

The defendant was then arrested and booked.  The arresting officer looked in the pick-up truck and observed a half full beer, "cold to the touch".  The officer let the passenger, our client's girlfriend, drive the pick-up truck away.  During booking the defendant told the booking officer that he had six beers and one shot of tequila over a five hour period.  The breathalyzer test was refused. 

At trial the prosecution called the arresting officer and the booking officer.  Their testimony was as discussed above.  Our office called a toxicologist as an expert witness.  The expert testified that the number of drinks that our client consumed over that five hour period would not impair his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely given his weight, the time period over which he consumed the beverages, his tolerance and the amount of food he ingested.  The expert also made clear to the jury that field sobriety tests are not as easily performed as you might think.  He analogized this to riding a bicycle or skating for the first time.  It is not that easy to do however with time and practice it is easy to perfect these tasks.  This explains why the police can easily demonstrate these tests in front of a jury and why even well coordinated individuals might not perform these well without practice.  As to the half full beer in the pick up truck, our office argued four points.  First, liquor stores must close by law at 11:00 p.m. on Saturday nights.  Since our client had been placed in a bar for five hours it is unlikely that he made that purchase after leaving that establishment.  Two, even if he had half of that beer when he left the bar there would not have been enough time for his body to absorb the alcohol from that point until he was stopped a few minutes later.  Third, the bar admitted to never selling cans of beer.  Lastly, we had evidence that that can of beer had been in the pick-up truck for over twenty four hours and was not consumed that day by our client.  Our client also testified that he was fine as did his girlfriend who was with him that night.  As to the amount of alcohol consumed, our client admitted to consuming only four of the six beers at most.  He testified that he danced often that night and that he would set down his beer when doing so.  When he would return from the dance floor he would not resume drinking the beer if he could not identify which of the partially full bottles on the bar was his beer. 

The jury returned a verdict of acquittal in less than twenty minutes. 

Related Web Resources:

Peabody District Court DUI Defense Lawyers

Peabody Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

Earlier today, a jury in the Peabody District Court acquitted one of our clients of a second offense drunk driving charge.  The case was tried by Attorney Stephen Neyman, an experienced Massachusetts Drunk Driving Lawyer.  The facts of the case as reported by the arresting police officer are as follows:

On Sunday, March 16, 2008 shortly after 1:00 a.m. a Peabody Police Officer was on patrol on Andover Street when he observed a pick-up truck being driven by our client drifting over the right lane marker five times.  The officer observed this pattern from 300 Andover Street (Route 114) to the intersection of Andover Street and Sylvan Street.  After the vehicle turned left on Sylvan Street the officer activated his overhead lights.  The officer approached the driver and observed his eyes to be glassy and bloodshot.  He also detected an odor of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle.  The officer asked our client where he was going to which he replied "Denny's".  The officer then asked our client how much he had to drink to which he replied "a couple of beers".  When asked the produce his license and registration our client experienced some difficulties.  Accordingly, the officer asked him to get out of his car.  The client complied and the officer noticed that he was "stiff-legged" and "unsteady on his feet".  As a result, a series of field sobriety tests were offered.

Three tests were administered.  First was the alphabet test.  The officer stated that our client stopped at the letter "T" and then continued with the remainder of the alphabet, this time starting with the letter "T".  The officer opined that the defendant failed that test.  Second, was the "walk and turn" test.  The client was asked to walk nine steps, heal to to with his arms by his said.  The officer said that the defendant walked off of the line three times and that he kept his arms behind his back.  Conclusion:  another failed field sobriety test.  The third test was the "one legged stand" test.  After two tries our client admitted that he could not perform this test.  Once again the officer believed that this test too was not performed satisfactorily. 

The defendant was then arrested and booked.  The arresting officer looked in the pick-up truck and observed a half full beer, "cold to the touch".  The officer let the passenger, our client's girlfriend, drive the pick-up truck away.  During booking the defendant told the booking officer that he had six beers and one shot of tequila over a five hour period.  The breathalyzer test was refused. 

At trial the prosecution called the arresting officer and the booking officer.  Their testimony was as discussed above.  Our office called a toxicologist as an expert witness.  The expert testified that the number of drinks that our client consumed over that five hour period would not impair his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely given his weight, the time period over which he consumed the beverages, his tolerance and the amount of food he ingested.  The expert also made clear to the jury that field sobriety tests are not as easily performed as you might think.  He analogized this to riding a bicycle or skating for the first time.  It is not that easy to do however with time and practice it is easy to perfect these tasks.  This explains why the police can easily demonstrate these tests in front of a jury and why even well coordinated individuals might not perform these well without practice.  As to the half full beer in the pick up truck, our office argued four points.  First, liquor stores must close by law at 11:00 p.m. on Saturday nights.  Since our client had been placed in a bar for five hours it is unlikely that he made that purchase after leaving that establishment.  Two, even if he had half of that beer when he left the bar there would not have been enough time for his body to absorb the alcohol from that point until he was stopped a few minutes later.  Third, the bar admitted to never selling cans of beer.  Lastly, we had evidence that that can of beer had been in the pick-up truck for over twenty four hours and was not consumed that day by our client.  Our client also testified that he was fine as did his girlfriend who was with him that night.  As to the amount of alcohol consumed, our client admitted to consuming only four of the six beers at most.  He testified that he danced often that night and that he would set down his beer when doing so.  When he would return from the dance floor he would not resume drinking the beer if he could not identify which of the partially full bottles on the bar was his beer. 

The jury returned a verdict of acquittal in less than twenty minutes. 

Related Web Resources:

Peabody District Court DUI Defense Lawyers

Peabody Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Quincy Patriot Ledger reported that Paul Gillis, 55 of Rockland was arrested for the fourth time for drunk driving.  He was held without bail by a judge in the Hingham District Court.  According to police Gillis was drunk when he drove his car into a parked car, failed to stop and drove off to his home a short distance away.  He now faces charges of drunken driving, leaving the scene of an accident with property damage, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  The defendant admitted to hitting the parked car but claimed that he did not stop because there was nobody present at the scene.  Read full article, Quincy Patriot Ledger, September 23, 2008.

If this is in fact a 4th offense OUI Gillis is looking at a severe sentence if convicted.  Massachusetts establishes harsh penalties for fourth offense OUI convictions.  Gillis is looking at a fine of up to twenty five thousand dollars, up to 5 years in state prison and a 10 year loss of license.  This case has Superior Court jurisdiction in Massachusetts meaning that a conviction could result in the defendant having to serve his time in a state prison.  For more information on drunk driving in Massachusetts call Massachusetts Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer Stephen Neyman.  You should also look at Melanie's Law enacted in October of 2005.  The express purpose in passing this law to" enhance the penalties and administrative sanctions for Operating Under the Influence (OUI) offenders in Massachusetts".

Gillis is also looking at a prosecution for leaving the scene of an accident with property damage and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 24 makes these acts a crime.  That law specifically states that anyone who operates a motor vehicle negligently on a public way so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered can be imprisoned for two years if convicted.  The same applies to anyone who fails to stop and identify himself by name and residence after knowingly colliding with any other vehicle or property or causing injury to any other vehicle or property.  One Massachusetts case has held that in order to support a conviction on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage the prosecution must present legally sufficient evidence for a judge or jury to conclude that the defendant operated the vehicle at the time of the accident resulting in property damage.  This is often difficult to prove in that people see the car involved in the collision but are rarely in a position to positively identify the driver. 

Holding defendants in cases such as this without bail is unusual.  The article fails to state the reasons articulated by the judge in doing so.  Most likely Gillis will appeal his bail to the Plymouth County Superior Court. That process is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 58.  That statute requires the Superior Court to hear a petition for review of the District Court bail order "as speedily as practicable and except for unusual circumstances, on the same day the petition is filed.  The Superior Court judge may continue the hearing to the next day if the required records and other necessary information are not available. In Massachusetts this process is commonly referred to as a Bail Appeal.

Our office appears regularly in the Hingham District Court for all criminal matters including OUI cases.  We pride ourselves on our results many of which are published on our website.  Many drunk driving cases in Massachusetts are defensible.  No matter what the allegations are you should contact a Massachusetts criminal lawyer to discuss your rights.  Never appear in court without a lawyer if possible.  We are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  All conversations are confidential and advice is given by lawyers with at least 20 years experience.