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.
