Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced that it would investigate the Boston Globe report to determine if the acquittal rate for Massachusetts OUI bench trials is above the national average and higher than in other Massachusetts criminal cases, according to a report released in the Boston Globe.

This is a shocking announcement given that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should have no concern over conviction rate statistics. Simply put, there is no way for a court to second guess the decision of a trial justice finding a defendant not guilty. As the judge that hears live testimony, the trial judge is in a unique position to judge credibility and to determine whether the burden of proof has been satisfied.

The SJC investigation sends a clear message that judges should find a certain percentage of OUI defendants guilty. This is a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary. Of course, the report states that it is just an investigation, but the message is clear, with the charge of OUI in Massachusetts, the rate of not guilty verdicts from particular judges will be monitored.

This is a clear example of the independence of the judiciary being influenced by the political agenda of prosecutors, who likely urged the Boston Globe investigation. Would the highest court of Massachusetts investigate a judge whose rate of granting defense motions was below the State average or some national average. The clear signal is that judges with strong views of Constitutional protections and the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be disfavored by the State's highest Court.

The standard of what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof to a near moral certitude, is a subjective standard where different judges could reasonable reach different conclusions in the same case. Many standards in the law are subjective, such as what constitutes reasonable suspicion for a car stop, probable cause to arrest and what constitutes testimonial evidence under the Sixth Amendment.

While the Boston Globe report raised many issues, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court simply should have no interest in any comparable studies between other states with different jury instructions, prosecutors with greater discretion to reduce or dismiss weak DUI cases and different rules of evidence. The clear motivation of the SJC endorsing and continuing the probe of the Boston Globe is to send a message to Massachusetts judges, OUI conviction rates must increase in bench trials. This is a dangerous threat to the independence of the judiciary. While a journalist clearly can put pressure on the courts as a private business, the SJC should not sanction this intimidation of the judiciary aimed to achieve a desired result in drunk driving cases.

Massachusetts judges were unfairly attacked as being lenient on drunk driving charges in a recent Boston Globe report released today. The special report was the first of a three part series written by Marcella Bombardieri, Jonathan Saltzman and Thomas Farragher.

The Boston Globe claims that judges are lenient on Massachusetts OUI cases during bench trials. The article states that the Boston Globe looked through court records, listened to tapes of courtroom proceedings in order to make its assessment. While the Globe claims to have uncovered a widespread problem, as a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, I believe that the report presents an unfair attack on Massachusetts judges.

To obtain case names the Globe would have had to rely on prosecutors pointing out cases that they believe they should have never lost before a particular judge. Overlooked in this fact, is that often the police report does not tell the entire story of what happened during an arrest. Police officers do not always remember exactly what happened when writing the report and sometimes exaggerate, overstate and embellish in the police report. Further, judges are not reading the police report but are hearing the officer testify live and under oath.

Judges who frequently hear testimony from the same officers distrust these observations. It is only when the testimony is heard live that a judge can evaluate the credibility and make a determination as to whether the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been satisfied. Because police reports are written to prove the case, to support the arrest, and omit any details that favor the motorist, clearly any view of police reports will make it appear as though every case is an obvious case of drunk driving. If police reports were fairly written, the officer would write in the report observations that show that the person was not under the influence of alcohol. Instead, these details are left for defense lawyers to bring out during trial to tell the other side of the story.

The Globe report claims that it could find little support for claims that the high rate of not guilty verdicts is because prosecutors do not exercise discretion to resolve weak OUI offenses. Since there is no public data regarding OUI trials, the primary source of data for the Globe's investigation would have been discussions with prosecutors. A Massachusetts OUI lawyer would certainly not bring to light the facts of his clients case, because no client, whether found guilty or not guilty want publicity regarding an arrest for OUI. This would leave only cases to review from disgruntled prosecutors.

Unlike many states, Massachusetts prosecutors will not dismiss or reduce a weak OUI charged to reckless driving. If it is charged as OUI, regardless of how weak the case is, prosecutors will force the case to trial. In many cases, the prosecutor will knowledge the weakness but will state that there is an office policy that an OUI cannot be dismissed. These cases are then forced into the laps of judges. Cases with breathalyzer test results of .06 or .07 are routinely brought to trial in Massachusetts courts. These cases, which are very weak on the surface, do not merit the time and attention of a jury trial.

The Globe report also claims that some judges are under the misconception that the margin of error of the breathalyzer is .01. While the head of the Office of Alcohol Testing, would claim that the breathalyzer margin of error is lower than .01, this is a subject of debate within the scientific community. Many defense experts would argue that the margin of error is much greater than .01. The reason that the .01 margin of error is referred to in court is because when the Commonwealth conducts a breathalyzer test on a known solution sample of .15, the Commonwealth will consider the machine working properly if the result registers .14 or .16. If the breathalyzer machine was as precise as the Office of Alcohol testing claims, there would be no need for this margin of error in their testing on a known sample. Testing on a known sample should have less variables and be more precise than testing on an individual sample. Yet, this is not the case with breathalyzer testing.

The Boston Globe's report overlooks that trials are not decided based on police reports and the Commonwealth's case always will appear strongest on the police report then when put live on the witness stand. The attack on the Massachusetts judicial is unfortunate by-product of an attempt to create news and support the political agenda of prosecutors who are attempting to chill judges from finding defendants not guilty in OUI cases when the Constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met.

Halloween is approaching, as we can tell from the crisp weather, the black and orange decorations and the costume advertisements that seem to pop up this time of year.

And while it's primarily a holiday for children to go door-to-door and try to get as much candy as they can, let's face it, it's a holiday for adults, too. During the weekend there will be parties where friends get together with outrageous costumes to try to impress each other and there likely will be alcohol.

The key here is to enjoy yourself, but do it responsibly. It's quite likely that police throughout Massachusetts will employ OUI roadblocks as a way to trap drunk drivers. This can lead to an arrest for drunk driving charges in Massachusetts this Halloween weekend.

If this happens, the first move should be to contact an experienced Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer. Getting an attorney involved as quickly as possible can only benefit you. The longer a defendant waits, the more an attorney has to play catch up to get apprised of the facts and be prepared for trial.

When officers pull drivers over, they must have what's called probable cause. This is true in any situation. They must have a reason to pull over a vehicle. Some typical examples of reasons are if the driver was speeding, swerving, improperly changed lanes or ran a stop sign.

Probable cause is required so that officers can't simply pull over a vehicle for no reason and try to search it. The probable cause for the stop can be challenged in a OUI case.

After the initial stop is made, the officer will use his or her training to make observations about the driver that could lead them to believe the driver is operating the vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. What they typically rely on are things like slurred speech, glassy or bloodshot eyes and the inability to have a coherent conversation.

That is the key moment that determines whether the officer is simply going to decide whether or not to give a ticket for speeding and whether he or she is going to pursue a DUI investigation.

If it's the latter, the officer will usually ask the driver to step out of the vehicle and take field sobriety tests and/or a breath test. Refusing to take a breath test automatically results in a driver's license suspension. However, it will also deny the state a key piece of evidence to use against you at trial.

Field sobriety testing is when an officer asks the driver to take nine steps and turn around to determine their balance, stand on one leg and follow an object from side to side.

All of these can be challenged as well, depending on whether they were conducted properly, whether video from the officer's cruiser contradicts the observations on the police report, and whether other factors, such as the person's physical ailments or the weather could have affected their ability to perform.

This Halloween, enjoy your time with your friends and pick out a good costume. Drink responsibly so that you don't give the police any reason to interfere with your life. If you find yourself arrested, don't panic, call an experienced Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer, who will defend your rights.

Continue reading "Drinking Responsibly on Halloween as a Massachusetts OUI charge can have severe consequences" »

The truth about OUI bench trials in Massachusetts should not get in the way of an attempt to grab headlines. Howie Carr's provocative Article in today's Boston Herald "In the Bag" attempts to portray judges in Massachusetts as unethically giving away not guilty verdicts to defense lawyers.

The article reveals its lack of factual basis as it claims that in 80 or 90 percent of jury waived trials the case is dismissed, reduced or continued without a finding. A CWOF in a jury waived trial is essentially a guilty finding. A Massachusetts OUI lawyer would not consider this a great day in court as there client was convicted of OUI for all purposes in the eyes of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The only difference is that a CWOF is technically not a conviction, but still shows up on a criminal record and counts as a conviction for RMV purposes.

There is a good reason why many bench trials result in a not guilty verdict. The district attorneys in Massachusetts have no discretion to reduce or dismiss OUI charges brought without any merits in contrast to other states, where a prosecutor may reduce or dismiss a DUI charge that clearly cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Massachusetts OUI charges are routinely brought against individual that take the breathalyzer and pass with a .06 or .07. Prosecutors also push cases to trial with no erratic driving and against individuals who do not look drunk in the booking video and who perform relatively well on field sobriety tests. Simply put, the prosecutors push the decision to resolve weak OUI charges in the hands of the judge. This is unlike many other States where prosecutors have the discretion to reduce a DUI charge to reckless driving or to dismiss the case entirely.

Because prosecutors do not exercise the discretion they should in Massachusetts, this function falls on judges. There is no reason to take the time of a jury with cases that obviously have little merit and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

An Abington, Massachusetts man, Vicent Benoit, faces a fourth offense Massachusetts OUI charge out of the Brockton District Court. This was reported in the Brockton Enterprise by Matt Stout.

The case appears very defensible as the blood-alcohol test results registered .06, under the legal limit of .08. Despite the fact that the breathalyzer test result is 20% below the legal limit, the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office will aggressively prosecute the case, brought in the Brockton District Court.

Even if this was a first offense OUI, district attorneys do not dismiss or reduce these charges to negligent operation, but force a defendant to prevail at trial. Typically, cases with the .06 or .07 breathalyzer test result are very strong case for the defense and often would result in a not guilty verdict at trial. Given that Benoit is charged with a fourth offense, he will likely have to take his case before a jury. You can read more about .06/.07 breathalyzer test result case by clicking here.

The police claim that Benoit nearly hit a police car coming around a turn. It would be helpful for Benoit to have pictures of the turn; in many cases, the pictures of the road may show that the officer's testimony is exaggerated. The defendant is alleged to have failed three of four field sobriety tests, though it is unclear which test the defendant past.

This case demonstrates that any OUI charge regardless of whether the breathalyzer test results are below .08, will require a trial in order to avoid an OUI conviction. Had the defendant's breathalyzer test results been .05 or less, under Massachusetts law, he would not of been charge with OUI.

A case of a .06 breathalyzer test results allows for a Massachusetts OUI lawyer to argue that the breathalyzer test result establish that the defendant was not under the influence of alcohol, given that it is perceived by the police as the most reliable test. During cross examination, a police officer would have to acknowledge that a breathalyzer test is offered in every case, even if field sobriety tests are not given, and that the officer wants everyone to take a breathalyzer test, because it is perceived as the top evidence possessed by the Commonwealth. Accordingly, a Massachusetts OUI attorney would argue that the Commonwealth's best evidence shows that Benoit is not under the influence and that should allow a jury to find that the Commonwealth has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Record in New Jersey is reporting that a police chief has come under fire for earning $30,000 in overtime in two years for DUI enforcement operations.

As the Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog recently reported, OUI roadblocks have little value in actually catching drunk drivers. In fact, police view the purpose as a way to keep drunken driving in the minds of drivers. Yet, they cost tens of thousands of dollars -- provided by state and federal grants typically -- to operate.

And a big chunk of that money goes to pay police officers overtime so they can stand around and watch passing cars. Police officers are just like any other worker when they are working a job. They want it to go by quickly and they want to get paid.

When officers set up operations to target OUI in Taunton or elsewhere in Massachusetts, they are looking for common traffic violations, such as speeding, swerving, improper lane change, stopping and starting or other ways to initiate a traffic stop. During a checkpoint, no such probable cause is necessary.

When a driver is stopped by officers, they should remain calm and answer the questions politely. If you believe you are being investigated for OUI, don't make any statements and tell them you wish to speak with a Taunton OUI lawyer immediately. Everyone has a right to not say anything if they are suspected of a crime.

According to the news article, the police chief in Elmwood Park New Jersey earned about $30,000 in overtime that payroll records show was paid out for drunken-driving operations.

Between Jan. 1, 2010 and Oct. 6, the chief got $29,436 on top of his $205,000 annual salary. Officials are investigating whether the chief was entitled to get that pay and if other department heads also got overtime pay.

The newspaper reports that the chief's contract has no provision for overtime pay, while other police officers' contracts clearly outline when they should be paid overtime and at what rate.

The chief told city council recently that he supervised OUI posts, making sure roadblocks were in the proper place and that procedures were followed. These roadblocks are typically covered by state or federal grants. Yet, police chiefs and other officials typically are salaried and can't earn overtime pay.

While city officials are investigating, it seems on the surface like a bad deal for taxpayers. A chief of a town of 19,000 with a small force of only 37 gets $200,000 per year. And on top of that, he's bringing in thousands in overtime?

And his excuse is that he had to supervise OUI roadblocks, which have little value anyway?

OUI roadblocks are typically set up in an area near bars or where patrons would drink and then later drive. Officers will usually set up barriers to funnel traffic so they can stop each vehicle and question each driver.

Their goal is to see if people are intoxicated -- or might (in the opinion of the officer) be intoxicated. Some people get pulled over and others just get to drive through and there typically is no reason why some drivers are put through this process and others get to go by. The decision is made by officers working the post.

In most situations, very few drivers are actually arrested. Most pass through and go on their way, yet police departments nationwide are spending millions of dollars on these operations with few results.

Continue reading "Police Chief Questioned For $30k in OT For OUI Operations" »

Personal problems led to the police chief of a small Cape Cod town being arrested for OUI recently after crashing his police cruiser into the woods, WHDH reports.

As the Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog has reported before, anyone can face an OUI charge in Massachusetts. Whether driven by emotional stress or simply a person having a good time and underestimating their blood-alcohol level, those from all walks of life can face this charge, as it's easily the most commonly filed charge in America.

In this situation, a police chief, someone who directs many other officers and is in charge of setting policy, fighting crime and ensuring justice, faces the same charge that he has likely locked up hundreds of people for. Massachusetts OUI lawyers have seen the destruction this type of charge and the penalties that go beyond the court system.

In this case, 44-year-old John Lundborn is charged with OUI and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. According to a police report, he turned off Route 6 onto Pilgrim Heights Road into a park that is part of the Cape Cod National Seashore.

When he made a turn, he wasn't able to make it and drove his unmarked Dodge cruiser into the woods. When his police officers responded to the crash, they found that his pants were "pulled down to the mid thigh area."

In the police report, a sergeant wrote that he had to catch his police chief in order to ensure he didn't hit the ground as he got out of his car. The report said he was distraught, admitting to drinking a lot that night and told the sergeant his life was "over" and said he had been having problems with his wife.

The newspaper reports that he is seeking medical attention and didn't appear at his arraignment at Orleans District Court. The case has been transferred to Plymouth District Court, the newspaper states.

This is a sad situation for the police chief. Not only will he get more attention on this case because of his position, but he will likely lose his position as police chief and possibly lose his job altogether. Add to that the personal problems he said he's having, and he could be in for a rough stretch.

Sadly, that happens to average people, too. They may not make headlines, but many people go through difficult financial times and personal problems with a spouse, criminal charges can further complicate matters.

Defending against the charge is the only thing to do in a situation like this. There are few other options other than to scrutinize the state's evidence, the officer's actions and anything else the state intends to use in seeking a conviction. Pick a trustworthy and experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer who will stand by your side and defend your rights.

Continue reading "Cape Cod Police Chief Busted For OUI After Crashing Department Cruiser" »

The recent case of a man charged with OUI in Attleboro shows just how disruptive an OUI conviction can be in a person's life.

The 69-year-old now must spend the next year in jail. Massachusetts OUI lawyers fight these cases so aggressively because we know the potential penalties can be so disruptive for families.

In this situation, according to The Sun Chronicle, the man pleaded guilty after driving on the wrong side of Route 1 and nearly colliding with two cars. Authorities say he was operating a vehicle under the influence.

John J. Michaelson entered a plea and was sentenced by Judge Daniel O'Shea in Attleboro District Court. He could have faced up to 2 1/2 years in jail, but was sentenced to a year. Because he had already been in custody for a year awaiting trial, he was released on the day he entered his plea. A defendant who is held in custody prior to sentencing or plea is entitled to credit for the jail time served awaiting a resolution of the case.

The article states that the rest of the jail term was suspended with probation and a condition that he submit random urine testing and undergo an alcohol assessment. He will have his license suspended for ten years as a result of the conviction of a 4th Offense OUI in Massachusetts. If the defendant has any other convictions for DUI, that were unknown to the court, but recorded by the RMV, he would face a lifetime license loss. The license suspension for a Massachusetts OUI offense is governed by the number of OUI offense throughout a person's lifetime that are required in the RMV records.

He was arrested Oct. 10, 2010 after spotted by an off-duty Walpole police officer. He was driving south in the northbound lanes of Route 1. The man has a history of drunken-driving arrests, dating back to 1981, prosecutors said in asking for a two-year jail term.

The defendant is a U.S. Army Veteran who served during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and has advanced degrees in engineering and industrial technology, along with a business degree. He is going to enter an alcohol treatment program, his attorney said.

It's a good thing that the defendant is taking the steps to enroll in an alcohol treatment program and has gone 13 years without an arrest. These are things that can always help a defendant in an OUI case.

Continue reading "4th Offense OUI conviction from Attleboro District Court results in one year jail sentence " »

Detroit Pistons player Ben Wallace may end up avoiding jail time in a drunken driving case because of an odd twist -- he had a gun on him, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The article goes on to state that Wallace may have gone before the same judge who sentenced former NBA player Jalen Rose this summer to jail time for his first DUI, which Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog commented on at the time.

But because of the unlawfully carrying of a concealed weapon charge, a potential five-year felony in Michigan, it's likely his case will be taken to a circuit court judge, who are less likely to sentence first-time offenders to jail time. Rose was a first time offender whom the judge used to send a "message" about the dangers of driving while intoxicated.

The sentencing for OUI in Massachusetts is based largely on a judge's discretion. While there are guidelines for punishment, the argument of an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney, coupled with favorable facts for the defendant, can help a client avoid serious jail time.

This is an odd case because under normal circumstances, a person charged with DUI would go before judge Kim Small, who has a reputation of sentencing first-time offenders to lengthy jail time -- a reputation which became more widespread this summer when she sent Rose, a former NBA basketball player, to jail for DUI.

But because Wallace also faces the gun charge, that case will likely be sent to a court that handles felony cases and not low-level misdemeanors. An analysts believe that may actually benefit him.

Provided a defendant is adequately defended, judges who handle felony cases are sometimes less likely to sentence first-offenders to jail or prison time for minor felonies. In most court systems, if the defendant faces both felonies and misdemeanors, the case is taken to the court that handles felonies. Typically, judges who preside over misdemeanor cases aren't allowed to hear felony cases.

Because Wallace will be sent to a judge who is described as handing out "temperate and measured sentences," it's likely he will face probation and fines, whether he goes to trial and is convicted or enters a plea agreement. Of course, that assumes he will be convicted.

According to the news report, Wallace was in a 2007 Cadillac Escalade when he was pulled over for "driving erratically." Investigators found a magazine of bullets for a .28-caliber semiautomatic pistol that was in a backpack and registered to his wife. Police reported that Wallace's blood-alcohol level was 0.14 percent, nearly twice the state's 0.08 legal limit.

In most situations, defendants aren't allowed to pick their judge. The situation in the metro Detroit area has been heavily reported based on the high-profile cases there.

Continue reading "Detroit Pistons Player Avoiding Jail Time Shows Disparity in DUI Sentencing " »

A longtime top aide and adviser to Gov. Deval Patrick has been suspended by the Governor after being arrested recently for drunken driving in Brookline, the Enterprise News reports.

The report shows that even the most experienced and professional people can be labeled criminals with an OUI charge. While it's not a charge that people plan to commit, it's the most commonly charged crime in the United States.

Everyone from school teachers to firefighters to police officers have been charged. It's not as if this is a planned, sophisticated crime. Other crimes, like thefts or even battery charges can be planned out and executed and those defendants face less serious penalties.

It is important when facing a charge of OUI in Massachusetts to plan out a strategic defense to the charges. As this case illustrates, the social consequences, including job loss, can be as serious as the criminal penalties. An experienced Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer will scrutinize every aspect of the case and help the client fend off the allegations they face.

In the case of the Governor's aide, despite denying that he was driving while intoxicated, his boss decided to put him on unpaid leave after his arrest. While this may be more of a political move, it isn't an uncommon reaction from employers.

Many employees face suspension or firing after being arrested, even though an arrest isn't proof a crime was committed. While many employers may realize that, they tend to do what may be most acceptable in the public eye and get rid of the employee. More companies tend to operate in an "act first, ask questions later" mindset about their employees picking up OUI charges, which is unfortunate.

Ron Bell was pulled over one early Sunday in Brookline by police who say he was driving erratically. They charged him with OUI, speeding and marked lane violations. He denied the charges, but was still suspended until the investigation is completed.

The Boston Herald reported that Bell failed several field sobriety tests and was released on personal recognizance after his arraignment. His gout condition may have contributed to an alleged failed field sobriety test. He also is recovering from a March heart attack.

Medical issues are certainly a factor in OUI cases in Massachusetts. While police may not listen to someone who they have pulled over if they tell the officer about an existing medical condition, a judge or jury might.

Police officers are trained to be suspicious of what people say to them. Surely, they have heard every excuse in the book about why you are not really drunk. But existing medical conditions, such as imbalance issues, foot or leg issues or even weather conditions can make performing field sobriety tests difficult.

That's why all of these issues must be brought up once the case gets into the criminal justice system. While people would rather avoid an arrest and not have to deal with that embarrassment, sometimes they must be patient and wait for the true facts to come out at trial.

Continue reading "Governor Deval Patrick Aide Charged With OUI In Brookline" »

President Barack Obama's uncle, charged last month in Framingham, appeared amused in Framingham District Court by the number of journalists there to cover his OUI hearing, the Boston Herald reports.

Onyango Obama, 67, was arrested last month and charged with OUI after he allegedly nearly hit a police cruiser with his SUV after making a rolling stop through a stop sign. As the Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog reported, some media outlets have asserted that Obama's uncle is in the country illegally. When it comes to immigrants, the smart move would be to check whether a DUI conviction -- either through a plea or a conviction at trial -- will affect a person's right to live in the country.

Either way, you should aggressively fight an OUI charge in Framingham or throughout the Boston area because a conviction has many consequences beyond the court penalties.

Onyango Obama made a brief appearance recently in Framingham District Court, where his judge set a Nov. 17 pre-trial conference in the case. Neither Obama nor his attorneys would comment to the media before or after the hearing.

The Herald reports that he and a friend giggled while sitting in the front row of the court as media members assembled for the hearing. The courtroom was packed, but mainly with other defendants awaiting arraignment.

The Herald reports that Onyango Obama had a valid driver's license and Social Security card at the time of arrest, but was in the country illegally having faced a 1992 deportation order. Immigration officials have told him to "check in" with them.

He is charged with suspicion of drunken driving; it was reported that his first call was to the White House. But one of the President's spokesman said the call was never made. Rather, it went to his boss at Conti's Liquors in Framingham.

While courtroom behavior and attire shouldn't make or break a defendant's case, it can influence how a judge treats a defendant. In this case, it appears Obama was chuckling at the thought that all those television and newspaper cameras were there to document a simple, unexciting 5-minute hearing for a DUI charge.

When the media are involved in covering a court hearing, it can put undue pressure on defendants judges and attorneys alike. It is important that defendants act and dress respectfully at all times in front of the cameras and the judge.

While the judge is called on to make decisions based on the facts and the law, they are human, too. If a defendant is acting inappropriately or in a way that tends to mock the criminal justice system or the judge, it can be bad for the defendant. While a judge can't sentence someone to more than the law allows, they do have enough discretion to make a defendant's life miserable.

This may not always happen, but courtroom behavior and attitude are important. A defendant should not speak in court unless their attorney advises them to speak and they should not react negatively to what prosecutors, the judge or witnesses say.

Being in court can be an emotional time. But it is best to remain calm and allow your Massachusetts DUI lawyer guide you through the process.

Continue reading "President Obama's Uncle Giggles in Framingham Court During OUI Hearing" »